AuguryWhy an ETF expert says the ‘tulip’ label for Bitcoin no longer fits — and what that means for investors
This article was written by the Augury Times
Quick take: a long run changes the story for markets
When an established ETF analyst argues that Bitcoin has outgrown the old “tulip” insult, it is not a pop-culture sound bite — it is a claim aimed squarely at traders and portfolio managers. The point is simple: Bitcoin has weathered repeated, deep collapses and come back each time. That matters because investors no longer see a one-off speculative bubble but a repeatedly tested asset that reacts to policy, markets and new financial plumbing such as ETFs.
This view matters for markets because it changes how risk is priced and how institutions approach position sizing, custody and liquidity planning. If Bitcoin’s track record of recovery is real and durable, ETF inflows and the availability of regulated products make it more tradable, not less. If that assessment is wrong, regulatory shocks or loss of confidence could still leave big, fast losses. Either way, the debate is now practical for anyone with exposure to crypto funds, ETF desks or multi-asset portfolios.
Price action and fund flows: what is making the expert viewpoint tradable
Bitcoin has been volatile — that is the baseline. Recently, price swings have been driven by ETF-related events, macro headlines and renewed talk of rules. On the ETF side, new products tied to crypto tokens and related infrastructure have drawn modest but meaningful inflows, showing some investors will put money behind regulated wrappers rather than trading on unregulated venues.
That shift matters because ETFs create a bridge between mainstream institutional capital and crypto. ETF flows can turn headlines into real buying or selling pressure. When an ETF sees inflows, market makers and custodians must transact in the underlying asset to balance supply and demand. That process widens liquidity and can dampen extreme dislocations — but it can also amplify moves during panics if many investors try to exit at once.
Meanwhile, newer single-asset ETFs tied to crypto infrastructure tokens have attracted attention and small initial money. Those flows are not yet on par with the biggest equity ETFs, but they are large enough to change intraday liquidity and to make the space more sensitive to fund flows than it used to be.
What the ETF expert is actually saying and why his view carries weight
The analysis comes from an ETF specialist who tracks fund approvals, flows and product design. His core claim is straightforward: Bitcoin’s multi-cycle recoveries over what he describes as a 17-year span show it behaves more like a repeatedly tested financial asset than a short-lived speculative fad. In his view, the repetition of deep drawdown and eventual recovery weakens the argument that Bitcoin is merely a momentary mania like tulips.
His background — monitoring how ETF approvals, creation/redemption mechanics and institutional demand shape asset flows — gives him a practical lens. He is not arguing that Bitcoin is without risk. Rather, he is saying market structure and investor behavior have evolved and that these changes matter for pricing. The limits of his view are obvious: past recoveries do not guarantee future returns, and product design or rules changes can materially alter outcomes.
17 years in context: the evidence behind resilience
The resilience argument rests on a pattern investors can see repeatedly. Bitcoin has suffered several steep drawdowns where price fell by a large fraction over a short period. Each time those losses happened, the market eventually found new buyers, liquidity returned and prices recovered enough to reach fresh highs. That cycle — boom, bust, consolidation, recovery — is the pattern proponents point to when they say the market has been stress-tested.
Beyond raw price swings, on-chain indicators show persistent sources of demand and reduced supply turnover during downturns. Long-term holder balances often increase after crashes, suggesting a portion of the market treats Bitcoin as a long-term store rather than a quick flip. Other measures, such as the relationship between what holders paid historically (realized value) and what the market values the asset at today (market value), offer a way to gauge investor profit and loss without relying on price guesses. When many holders are unrealized losers, selling pressure can be intense; when most holders sit on profits, markets tend to be calmer. These metrics have consistently shown periods where selling exhaustion gave way to renewed accumulation.
Finally, the arrival of regulated trading venues, better custody options and ETFs means institutional players can access Bitcoin with fewer operational frictions than before. That improved plumbing can reduce some of the mechanics that once exaggerated moves, such as unreliable exchange liquidity or weak custody practices.
Why critics still use the tulip comparison — and the regulation risks that remain
Not everyone is convinced. Critics point out that much of Bitcoin’s valuation remains tied to speculative narratives: limited supply, digital gold, payments, censorship resistance. Those narratives can have shifting relevance as technology and laws evolve. The tulip comparison is shorthand for an asset whose price is divorced from intrinsic use; for skeptics, Bitcoin still fits that bill.
Regulation is the wild card. Policymakers in major jurisdictions and international bodies have signalled concern about stablecoins, market abuse, and consumer protection. New rules on custody, listing standards or leverage could make it harder for funds and exchanges to operate or could raise the cost of offering crypto services. That would not just dent sentiment — it could change how ETFs are structured and how quickly providers can react to flows.
How investors should position now: sizing, signals and risk controls
For investors and portfolio managers, the practical takeaway is mixed but actionable. The repeated recoveries are a real part of Bitcoin’s history and mean the asset can rebuild liquidity and prices after shocks. That makes Bitcoin a candidate for a measured, actively managed allocation in portfolios that can stomach severe drawdowns.
Position sizing matters more than ever. Treat any crypto exposure as a volatile sleeve: keep sizes small relative to total capital, rebalance periodically, and use layers rather than a single entry. Have clear rules for what would change your view: large, sustained outflows from ETFs, major regulatory bans affecting custody or on-ramps, or structural failures on key exchanges are signals to reduce exposure. Conversely, steady institutional inflows, clearer regulatory frameworks that enable custody and continued uptake of ETFs are signs the market is becoming more investible.
Short-term, expect more headline-driven moves. The presence of ETFs helps liquidity but also ties crypto prices to fund flows and investor sentiment. For long-term investors who accept volatility, Bitcoin looks like a risky but plausible diversifier. For risk-averse managers, the regulatory uncertainty and the potential for fast, deep losses keep Bitcoin in the speculation camp.
Either way, investors should treat the tulip debate as more than rhetoric. It frames different bets about market structure: one where repeated recoveries and improved financial plumbing make Bitcoin a tradable, if volatile, asset; and one where fundamental use remains thin and regulatory shocks can still wipe out value. Both outcomes are live, and the market will price which one it believes as flows and rules evolve.
Photo: Karola G / Pexels
Sources