2026-01-17 10:46:50

Recently, an interesting reversal—VanEck's Head of Digital Asset Research, Matthew Sigel, spoke out on social media, criticizing The New York Times for misrepresenting the concept regarding MicroStrategy.

Here's what happened: The article quoted VanEck founder Jan van Eck saying "we have avoided it," and then used this to imply that VanEck is bearish on MicroStrategy. Sounds pretty absurd, right?

Sigel clarified the true intention—Jan van Eck's "avoidance" does not mean he is dismissive of MicroStrategy, but rather refers to VanEck's own strategic positioning, indicating they won't simply follow the trend blindly. These are two different things.

This incident reflects a phenomenon: in the path of cryptocurrency and institutional investment, strategies among different institutions vary greatly. Some are aggressive, some conservative, each with their own logic. MicroStrategy's all-in Bitcoin approach has attracted attention, but that doesn't mean all institutions will follow suit. As a major asset management firm, VanEck has its own risk considerations and allocation strategies, which is perfectly normal.

View Original

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.

15 Likes

Reward
15
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GateUser-9f682d4c

· 01-20 10:21

The New York Times' move is really outrageous, taking things out of context and deliberately framing it negatively? Media sensationalism is truly an art.

View OriginalReply0

LadderToolGuy

· 01-20 04:57

The New York Times' approach is brilliant, a master of taking things out of context. VanEck just doesn't want to go all in, is there a problem with that?

View OriginalReply0

FlashLoanLarry

· 01-19 19:58

nyt doing the classic quote extraction play... strategic optionality != bearish signal tbh. capital allocation is literally about NOT chasing every shiny thesis, opportunity cost matters fr

Reply0

PessimisticOracle

· 01-17 11:15

The New York Times' move is truly a classic case of clickbait. Taking things out of context has been overused.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeAssassin

· 01-17 11:09

The New York Times really blew it this time, mistakenly reading "avoid" as "bearish," media cutting leeks also need to have some logic.

View OriginalReply0

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

· 01-17 11:01

The New York Times is playing word games again, really hilarious, deliberately twisting words to spread false rumors.

View OriginalReply0

Degentleman

· 01-17 10:52

The media is really incredible; taking things out of context has become a tired routine. --- Once again, a scene of a news agency shooting itself in the foot. The New York Times' move is truly outrageous. --- So, as they say, each to their own. Not all institutions need to go all-in to be considered serious. --- Haha, VanEck directly responded, which is quite refreshing—better than those who stay silent and act smart. --- Misunderstanding the meaning and then stirring up trouble—I've seen too much of this kind of operation. --- MicroStrategy's all-in courage is indeed strong, but VanEck has its own strategy. There's no conflict here.

View OriginalReply0

SnapshotStriker

· 01-17 10:50

The New York Times' move is really outrageous, cherry-picking and taking things out of context as usual.

View OriginalReply0