CoinRank

Gold’s recent outperformance reflects late-cycle capital concentration, not a permanent shift away from Bitcoin’s store of value thesis.

 

Bitcoin’s recovery depends on macro capital rotation, while Ethereum’s long-term growth is tied to institutional adoption, AI integration, and on-chain finance.

 

Dominant digital asset treasury structures may amplify upside exposure by combining staking yield, balance sheet strength, and capital market access.

At Consensus Hong Kong 2026, Tom Lee delivered a clear and disciplined message. The crypto market is not facing structural decline. It is experiencing a temporary dislocation. Gold has outperformed over the past year, while Bitcoin and Ethereum have struggled. However, this divergence does not signal the end of the digital asset thesis. Instead, it may mark the late stage of a capital rotation cycle.

GOLD’S SURGE AND THE LIQUIDITY DISTORTION

 

Gold delivered strong gains in 2025, while Bitcoin corrected sharply. This contrast led many investors to question the store of value narrative. Tom Lee broke the rally into several drivers. Geopolitical uncertainty increased demand for safe assets. Central banks shifted toward easier policy. Currency debasement concerns remained elevated. Precious metals developed strong price momentum. In addition, some investors lost confidence in parts of the fiat system.

 

 

The key issue is scale. Gold’s total market value is now around forty one trillion dollars. That size changes market behavior. When an asset of that magnitude moves quickly, it affects global liquidity conditions. Margin requirements and portfolio rebalancing can force selling in other assets. Bitcoin’s weakness cannot be viewed in isolation. It occurred in an environment where gold absorbed large pools of capital.

 

Yet history tells a more complex story. Over the past fifty years, gold has underperformed inflation nearly half the time. Since Bitcoin was created, it has rarely lost purchasing power relative to inflation. The long term data suggests that Bitcoin has been more consistent as a store of value, even if short term performance differs. Tom Lee’s argument is that gold’s strength may represent a late cycle premium rather than a permanent shift in value perception.

 

BITCOIN’S RESET AND CAPITAL ROTATION

 

For the crypto market to recover, Bitcoin must stabilize first. Tom Lee believes that Bitcoin’s rebound is closely linked to gold’s momentum cooling. These two assets do not operate as simple substitutes. They respond differently across macro cycles. In defensive phases, gold absorbs fear. In expansion phases, capital searches for growth and asymmetry. That is where Bitcoin becomes attractive again.

 

 

From a relative valuation perspective, Bitcoin’s market value compared with gold remains historically low. If macro stability improves and liquidity pressures ease, asset allocators may rebalance toward higher beta exposures. The store of value narrative for Bitcoin has not disappeared. It has been overshadowed by capital flows. When long term hedging demand returns, scarcity and programmability will matter again.

 

Tom Lee does not anchor his thesis to a single date. Instead, he highlights structural conditions that are beginning to align. Policy uncertainty is gradually narrowing. Institutional investors are reassessing portfolio construction. As that process unfolds, Bitcoin may reenter the center of the allocation discussion.

 

ETHEREUM’S CYCLICAL RESILIENCE AND WALL STREET’S SHIFT

 

If Bitcoin represents macro positioning, Ethereum represents infrastructure and utility. Since 2018, Ethereum has experienced multiple drawdowns greater than fifty percent. Each time, it eventually recovered. That pattern reflects strong network fundamentals rather than speculative noise.

 

Stablecoin growth continues to expand on chain settlement activity. Large financial institutions are exploring public blockchain integration, even if internal debates remain. Public chains offer security, neutrality, and network effects that private systems struggle to replicate. Ethereum remains the most credible candidate for large scale institutional deployment.

 

Artificial intelligence introduces another structural driver. Decentralized execution combined with smart contracts can create economic layers for AI coordination. In parallel, the creator economy is shifting toward direct digital ownership. Blockchain infrastructure ensures transparent compensation and programmable royalties. These developments reinforce Ethereum’s long term positioning.

 

THE RISE OF DOMINANT DATS AND MARKET MULTIPLIERS

 

Tom Lee also discussed the emergence of dominant digital asset treasury structures. These entities hold and actively manage crypto assets within public market vehicles. The model focuses on optimizing staking yield, expanding asset per share exposure, and accessing capital markets efficiently.

 

Ethereum staking provides recurring yield. As price appreciation compounds with staking rewards, returns can accelerate. Historical ratios between Bitcoin and Ethereum offer a framework for valuation scenarios. If Bitcoin reaches higher price ranges, Ethereum’s implied valuation rises accordingly. Public market exposure vehicles may amplify that movement through capital structure dynamics.

 

 

The effectiveness of this model depends on financial discipline. Strong balance sheets, transparent holdings, and consistent yield generation are critical. As digital assets mature, these treasury structures may become bridges between traditional finance and decentralized networks.

 

Tom Lee’s central conclusion remains straightforward. The market is undergoing reallocation, not collapse. Gold’s dominance may be closer to its peak than many assume. Bitcoin and Ethereum continue to hold structural advantages. In periods of pessimism, long term positioning often begins. Digital assets remain early in their lifecycle, and the next expansion phase is already forming beneath the surface.

 

〈Tom Lee at Consensus Hong Kong 2026: As Gold Nears a Peak, the Next Bitcoin and Ethereum Cycle Is Taking Shape〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

 On-chain identity shifts risk from collateral-driven assumptions to behavior-driven evaluation, allowing protocols to distinguish reliable users from high-risk participants.

 

AI and zero-knowledge proofs will work together to interpret fragmented on-chain behavior while preserving privacy, forming the technical backbone of credit identity.

 

Portable reputation across chains and applications unlocks higher capital efficiency, sustainable GameFi economies, institutional participation, and more accurate cross-chain risk pricing.

IDENTITY AS THE FIRST LAYER OF RISK

 

In a recent AMA hosted by CoinRank, the discussion opened not with price targets or short-term market commentary but with a more foundational question: if Web3 truly intends to operate as a next-generation financial system, what is it missing at its core? Capital is abundant, users continue to grow, yet something deeper limits the system’s ability to function like mature financial markets. The moderator suggested that the missing layer might be identity — not in the traditional sense of personal information, but as a mechanism that allows risk to be understood, priced, and distributed. This framing quickly shifted the tone of the conversation. Instead of discussing markets asset by asset, speakers examined how uncertainty, behavior, and trust are absorbed across different parts of the crypto ecosystem. As soon as identity entered the conversation, it became clear that markets are not only repricing volatility; they are also reconsidering who carries risk, why they carry it, and how systems allocate it.

 

The moderator emphasized that a wallet starting from zero history may fit early ideals of decentralization but introduces significant inefficiency. Financial systems cannot operate without context. When every user is treated as identical, protocols must assume worst-case scenarios, lending pools set conservative parameters, and markets lose the ability to distinguish reliable participants from opportunistic ones. In this sense, the absence of identity is not a design feature but a systemic cost. It forces DeFi into a low-resolution model of risk where nuance is impossible. The opening segment made clear that on-chain credit identity is less about classification and more about eliminating structural ignorance, allowing risk to attach to the right places rather than being averaged across an undifferentiated pool of users.

 

BEHAVIOR OVER KYC

 

Co-host CreditLink reinforced this by drawing a critical distinction between KYC and credit identity. KYC answers who you are. On-chain identity answers what you have done. It is a record of behavior, consistency, reliability, and participation. Crypto markets already generate an enormous amount of behavioral data — transaction history, borrowing patterns, governance engagement, staking timelines — but without interpretation this data remains inert. CreditLink argued that meaningful identity in Web3 must transform fragmented actions into verifiable behavioral signals that protocols can use to price risk. That does not require exposing sensitive information. Instead, it requires a framework where users carry portable, privacy-preserving proof of their past reliability.

 

The co-host noted that the future of Web3 lending will not be defined solely by collateral but by a combination of collateral and demonstrated behavior. High-quality users should not bear the same cost of capital as unknown or high-risk participants. Similarly, protocols should not need to limit capital efficiency because they lack tools to evaluate borrower quality. The argument landed clearly: the relationship between users and networks changes once behavior becomes interpretable. And to interpret behavior at scale, the system will rely on AI. In CreditLink’s view, AI models are not about scoring users but about reading risk in real time — identifying patterns that signal stability or instability long before traditional indicators surface. This shifts identity from a static classification to a living, evolving representation of how a user behaves in the ecosystem.

 

CAPITAL EFFICIENCY AND STRUCTURAL LIMITATIONS

 

From Pindex, Mia expanded the conversation by examining the economic consequences of lacking identity. She argued that DeFi today is structurally trapped in a high-collateral, low-efficiency regime. The reason is straightforward: when a protocol cannot distinguish between user types, it prices risk as if everyone were equally risky. This forces responsible users to pay an inflated premium and prevents lending markets from maturing into more efficient models. Mia emphasized that this is not a theoretical limitation; it is a practical one. Without credit-based differentiation, the cost of uncertainty becomes embedded into every parameter — interest rates, loan-to-value ratios, liquidation thresholds. As a result, many promising lending markets operate far below their potential capacity.

 

Her argument positioned on-chain identity not as an add-on but as the mechanism that allows DeFi to evolve beyond its current constraints. Once a protocol can observe and verify consistent positive behavior, it can extend more favorable terms. The broader implication is that DeFi could finally serve long-term participants without forcing them into the same risk bucket as opportunistic actors. Mia was direct in her assessment: on-chain credit is the dividing line between a system that merely functions and one that can scale into a true financial layer.

 

RISK FILTERING IN GAME ECONOMIES

 

From the perspective of GamePad, Myo approached identity through the lens of GameFi — a sector that has seen explosive cycles of growth and collapse. He argued that most GameFi failures were not driven by tokenomics flaws but by the absence of a mechanism to distinguish long-term players from speculative inflows. When every account is treated equally, bots, exploiters, and opportunistic players receive the same economic benefits as genuine users. This creates a feedback loop that destabilizes the entire in-game economy. Myo explained that if games could recognize patterns such as DAO participation, asset retention, consistent in-game engagement, or long-term wallet behaviors, they could construct reward systems that support sustainable growth rather than rapid extraction.

 

In his view, credit identity acts not as a reward mechanism but as a filter. Games do not need to know the real-world identities of their participants; they need to understand which behaviors align with economic stability. By filtering participants based on trustworthy on-chain patterns, Web3 games can transition away from unsustainable emission-driven models and toward ecosystems where value is created rather than drained. This perspective extended the discussion beyond finance and illustrated how identity becomes foundational even in sectors where it is rarely acknowledged.

 

AI, PRIVACY, AND THE INTERPRETATION OF BEHAVIOR

 

From AIW3, Cedar offered a technical perspective that grounded the discussion in infrastructure realities. He described on-chain behavior as abundant but structurally fragmented. Wallet actions occur across many chains, formats, and contexts, making human interpretation impossible at scale. According to Cedar, AI is not optional but essential. Only AI models — particularly those built with graph analysis, sequence modeling, and semantic understanding — can convert scattered actions into coherent risk narratives. At the same time, identity systems must be privacy-preserving from the start. Cedar emphasized that the purpose of credit identity is not to expose information, but to allow users to prove reliability without revealing personal data. This requires a deep integration between AI-driven behavioral models and zero-knowledge cryptography.

 

His argument reframed identity as a multidisciplinary system rather than a single protocol feature. It must combine machine intelligence, cryptographic guarantees, and behavioral analysis to function properly. When these components align, identity becomes a powerful tool for risk interpretation rather than an intrusive form of surveillance.

 

INTEROPERABILITY AS AN IDENTITY PROBLEM

 

From Unibase, Valerio shifted the conversation toward the cross-chain environment. He argued that the largest inefficiency in cross-chain finance is not technical but informational. When a user moves from one chain to another, their entire behavioral history is lost. A wallet with years of positive engagement on Chain A appears as an empty newcomer on Chain B. This creates unnecessary friction and forces protocols to disregard valuable historical context. Valerio described this as a core identity failure. Interoperability, he argued, does not actually require faster bridges or cheaper transactions. What it requires is portable identity — the ability for users to carry their behavioral credibility across ecosystems without compromising privacy.

 

His position highlighted a key limitation in today’s multi-chain world: liquidity can move freely, but trust cannot. And until trust becomes portable, cross-chain finance will remain structurally constrained.

 

CREDIT AS A COORDINATION MECHANISM

 

The final perspective came from MetaSoil, where Dr. NFY analyzed identity through the lens of economic coordination. He argued that credit is not fundamentally about scoring users or rewarding good behavior. Its deeper purpose is to reduce friction. Markets become more efficient when participants can form reliable expectations about counterparties. Without identity-linked behavioral signals, every transaction carries hidden uncertainty. Dr. NFY described credit identity as a way to align incentives across participants, enabling capital to flow more predictably and reducing the need for redundant safeguards. He concluded with a striking point: risk does not disappear, but it can finally settle in the right places once identity exists.

 

WHEN RISK FINALLY FINDS ITS OWNER

 

The AMA closed without price predictions or market calls. Instead, it delivered a structural insight: Web3 does not need more liquidity — it needs a framework that understands how to hold and distribute risk. On-chain credit identity provides this framework. It allows DeFi to escape over-collateralization, enables GameFi to filter meaningful participants, gives cross-chain ecosystems continuity, unlocks institutional participation, and provides AI models with interpretable behavioral data. In other words, identity is not a feature but the next foundational layer of Web3. It turns scattered actions into coherent signals, reduces systemic uncertainty, and gives the market a way to assign risk to those who generate it. Once this shift happens, the Web3 financial system gains the clarity and precision it has lacked since inception.

〈CoinRank AMA: Why On-Chain Credit Identity Matters〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。