There's something I've never quite wrapped my head around here.
So these companies raise capital to buy Bitcoin, right? But here's the part that doesn't add up—why are investors funneling money through a middleman when they could just... buy Bitcoin directly? We're talking about an asset that's completely accessible. You don't need some random corporate entity to execute the trade for you.
And if they're worried about exposure or want a regulated wrapper, Bitcoin ETFs already exist. Why add another layer of fees and complexity when the infrastructure is already there? What's the actual value-add that justifies handing over capital to a third party instead of just entering the position yourself?
Maybe I'm missing something, but the logic feels circular.
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.
14 Likes
Reward
14
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
SerumSqueezer
· 23h ago
Ngl, this logic is indeed a bit convoluted... but you missed a point — the compliance requirements for institutional investors are not a small matter.
View OriginalReply0
WhaleMistaker
· 23h ago
Basically, it's just laziness—pay others to worry about it, so you don't have to bother with wallet and private key issues.
View OriginalReply0
AllInAlice
· 23h ago
To be honest, that's a good question... but I think he hasn't thought it through. The logic behind corporate coin hoarding and individual buying is fundamentally different. Where do retail investors get things like financing limits, tax planning, and institutional compliance? Directly buying Bitcoin is indeed possible, but the needs at an enterprise level are entirely different. ETFs are convenient, but there are differences in liquidity and strategic flexibility. Some institutions just need to self-custody this set. Paying a bit more in fees is no big deal; the value of security and governance is truly important.
View OriginalReply0
NightAirdropper
· 12-11 18:30
NGL, this logic is indeed a bit convoluted. Why insist on having the company hold it on behalf? Wouldn't it be better to buy directly?
View OriginalReply0
blockBoy
· 12-11 18:28
To be honest, this logic is a bit convoluted... Isn't it simpler to just buy directly?
There's something I've never quite wrapped my head around here.
So these companies raise capital to buy Bitcoin, right? But here's the part that doesn't add up—why are investors funneling money through a middleman when they could just... buy Bitcoin directly? We're talking about an asset that's completely accessible. You don't need some random corporate entity to execute the trade for you.
And if they're worried about exposure or want a regulated wrapper, Bitcoin ETFs already exist. Why add another layer of fees and complexity when the infrastructure is already there? What's the actual value-add that justifies handing over capital to a third party instead of just entering the position yourself?
Maybe I'm missing something, but the logic feels circular.