2026-01-07 07:23:32

Why is Morgan Stanley's move underestimated? Industry consultant Jeff Park pointed out that many people haven't fully grasped the true significance of the upcoming Bitcoin ETF launch.

On the surface, it just adds another Bitcoin product from a major bank, but the key point is—institutional demand has not been fully met. As a top global investment bank, Morgan Stanley's official entry will open a new influx of capital. This is not just about launching a product; it signifies a qualitative leap in traditional finance's acceptance of Bitcoin.

The real story is: although the Bitcoin market appears to be mature, institutional-level allocation channels are still quite limited. Each new ETF product from a leading financial institution means more funds that are unwilling to hold coins directly but eager for exposure can enter the market. Once these suppressed demands are released, it will be a long-term positive for the entire market.

Therefore, this move is not just a cherry on top, but a true opening of a new demand window.

BTC-2,33%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RektButStillHere

· 23h ago

To be honest, Morgan was indeed underestimated this time. It's not about bragging about Bitcoin products themselves, but rather that the large funds locked in the traditional financial system finally have a legitimate channel.

View OriginalReply0

MevTears

· 01-07 07:53

Alright, honestly, it's the institutions that are about to come in, while the retail investors are still debating when to buy. Wait, how much capital can Morgan Stanley really mobilize? I feel like I hear the same rhetoric every time. Suppressed demand? Wake up, it all depends on trading volume. This time is different, really different. Just wait and see. It's the same old story, big players enter and the price goes up? Looking at historical data, that's not always the case. The key is whether the institutions actually put real money in or not. Anyone can say nice words. We'll see in three months, and then there's no rush to boast.

View OriginalReply0

ChainWanderingPoet

· 01-07 07:47

Morgan Stanley's entry has opened the door to traditional finance, and those institutional funds have been waiting for this opportunity for a long time.

View OriginalReply0

SandwichTrader

· 01-07 07:47

Wait, can traditional finance really be content with just being the bagholder? I always feel like I hear this kind of talk too often.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityHunter

· 01-07 07:44

Seeing this kind of analysis again at 3 a.m... To be honest, the liquidity gap is the key. What does it mean when institutional allocation channels open up? That's depth, brother. People who only look at the surface probably haven't even considered the slippage costs of trading pairs. Morgan Stanley's entry ≈ the opening of new arbitrage opportunities, this is the core logic... How much price difference will be generated by the release of suppressed demand? This can be precisely calculated. But to be fair, is market efficiency really that low? DEX data has long reflected this.

View OriginalReply0

BridgeTrustFund