Tom Lee said in an interview that around 99% of financial activity still runs on traditional financial infrastructure. However, this may create a misleading short-term bias, leading investors and businesses to view crypto as a niche area and underestimate how quickly the financial system could transform. If financial activity gradually shifts to crypto infrastructure, institutions’ reliance on existing market structures may cause them to underestimate the pace of change in the industry. He also cautioned that banks that have yet to establish crypto business channels or develop related strategies may face a competitive disadvantage as crypto adoption grows.
Regarding the disclosure that “around 99% of financial activity still runs on traditional financial infrastructure,” I’m more interested in whether the conditions set out in the original statement can be verified than in simply accepting a bullish or bearish conclusion. This records one party’s explanation and judgment; an opinion should not be treated as a policy change that has already occurred or as a certain future outcome.
I’ll compare the observation criteria in the original statement with actual data, point by point. If the conditions are not met, or if the trend runs counter to the assumptions, this explanation will need to be reassessed. Do you agree with the conditions in the original statement, or do you have counterevidence that better explains the trend?
Regarding the disclosure that “around 99% of financial activity still runs on traditional financial infrastructure,” I’m more interested in whether the conditions set out in the original statement can be verified than in simply accepting a bullish or bearish conclusion. This records one party’s explanation and judgment; an opinion should not be treated as a policy change that has already occurred or as a certain future outcome.
I’ll compare the observation criteria in the original statement with actual data, point by point. If the conditions are not met, or if the trend runs counter to the assumptions, this explanation will need to be reassessed. Do you agree with the conditions in the original statement, or do you have counterevidence that better explains the trend?