Bitcoin’s latest attempt at recovery is unfolding under a cloud of caution from major policy and research institutions.
Key Takeaways
Bitcoin’s role as a “hedge” is still unproven, according to CFR’s Rebecca Patterson.
MicroStrategy’s MSCI index review could influence passive flows and indirectly affect Bitcoin.
Growing integration between crypto and traditional finance increases the likelihood of cross-market contagion.
While retail traders focus on price action, some traditional finance experts argue that the cryptocurrency’s growing entanglement with legacy markets may be creating new vulnerabilities.
One of the most prominent voices raising alarms is Rebecca Patterson, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Speaking in a recent Bloomberg discussion, she questioned whether investors truly understand the role Bitcoin plays in a portfolio today. Instead of treating it as a defensive instrument or inflation hedge, Patterson believes the asset still behaves like a speculative trade whose long-term purpose remains unsettled.
Rethinking Bitcoin’s Narrative: Store of Value or Still Pure Risk?
Instead of focusing on Bitcoin’s price, Patterson pointed to investor expectations. Many, she argued, still label BTC as a store of value despite its repeated drawdowns and sensitivity to liquidity conditions. Those labels, she warned, can mislead buyers into thinking Bitcoin offers protections it cannot reliably provide.
“Assigning mature characteristics to an immature asset,” she suggested, is at the heart of many poor portfolio decisions. Until the asset demonstrates consistent behavior across market cycles, she believes its primary identity remains unchanged: a high-risk exposure with the potential for sharp reversals.
The Contagion Question Returns — in a New Form
While earlier crypto crises mostly stayed contained within digital asset markets, Patterson said the industry has since built deeper pathways into traditional finance. Corporate balance sheets tied to Bitcoin, publicly listed companies with enormous crypto positions, and passive index funds indirectly connected to those firms represent a very different structure than what existed during the FTX era.
She highlighted one example pulling significant attention: MicroStrategy. Its upcoming MSCI index review on January 15 could determine whether large passive funds continue allocating to the company. A removal could force automatic outflows — and because of MicroStrategy’s oversized ties to Bitcoin, the shock would not end with the stock itself.
Patterson suggested that this index-channel exposure may be one of the most overlooked risks facing Bitcoin’s near-term outlook.
Bigger Institutions, Bigger Waves
As more traditional players step into crypto, Patterson argued, volatility does not necessarily decrease — it may actually intensify. She noted that every additional bridge between digital assets and mainstream markets increases the likelihood that turbulence in one arena spills into the other. In her view, the next major crypto shock will not resemble FTX; it may look more like a liquidity event spreading through multiple asset classes simultaneously.
For investors, she said, the question is no longer whether Bitcoin can move independently of the traditional system — but whether the traditional system can remain insulated from Bitcoin.
