2026-01-02 08:24:15

Seeing a longstanding institution like Harvard start to get involved in Bitcoin, the underlying logic is actually quite straightforward. With $38 trillion in US debt hanging overhead, central banks continuously releasing liquidity, and the purchasing power of cash depreciating day by day, the roles of Bitcoin and gold have changed — they are no longer just gambling tools but have become real hedging instruments.

Their approach is called the barbell strategy: gold provides a stable foundation for safety, while Bitcoin takes on extreme risks. The combination of the two forms a complete insurance policy. Interestingly, their allocation to Bitcoin is not high, about 1%, but this cautiousness precisely indicates their attitude — they want to participate but also control risk.

Ordinary people don’t need to copy large positions, but there is a signal worth noting: when the most conservative long-term funds start allocating to scarce assets, it shows that the era is truly changing. Things that can preserve and increase value have always been the scarce ones.

BTC1,51%

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasDevourer

· 15h ago

Harvard also has to hold some Bitcoin as a backup, indicating that cash is really coming to an end these days.

View OriginalReply0

RiddleMaster

· 20h ago

Harvard is already stockpiling Bitcoin, what are we ordinary people hesitating for? With so much US debt, printing money will continue to devalue, and the barbell strategy is right. 1% allocation sounds small, but that's the institutional approach; we need to tailor it to ourselves. Scarce assets are the real king, and this signal is indeed worth taking seriously. Their game of gold as a base and Bitcoin as a gamble is actually based on such simple logic. Those who still call it a gambler's toy really need to wake up. The positioning of hedging tools is changing too quickly; those who can't keep up will suffer.

View OriginalReply0

nft_widow

· 20h ago

Harvard dares to allocate 1%, and we're still debating whether to get on board... lol

View OriginalReply0

FlatTax

· 20h ago

Harvard 1% allocation, sounds conservative but we need to see clearly—this is just the rhetoric of big institutions. The real logic is that they are also panicking, not optimistic about Bitcoin, but pessimistic about the US dollar. --- The barbell strategy sounds advanced, but basically it’s betting on the central bank continuing to flood the market with liquidity, without any truly scarce assets. --- Wait, if their 1% allocation is a signal, how much should we allocate? This tone feels a bit like a contrarian indicator. --- It sounds good, but it’s just a shift in asset allocation. Ordinary people can’t learn this, their risk tolerance is too low. --- Cash devaluation is a fact, but is Bitcoin really that stable? The premise isn’t that simple.

View OriginalReply0

AllInDaddy

· 20h ago

Harvard is also getting involved. A 1% allocation is indeed stable, but I think they still haven't fully grasped the logic of the crypto world. --- The leverage strategy sounds good, but honestly, it's just being cautious. Still don't trust Bitcoin. --- Wait, do they really only deserve 1%? Then I must have lost all my money in my account. --- US debt explosion and liquidity flooding—I've heard this rhetoric too many times, but every time, nothing actually happens. --- Speaking of which, the most conservative funds are starting to move. This is indeed a signal, but why do I feel like I'm gambling rather than hedging?

View OriginalReply0

FundingMartyr

· 20h ago

Harvard allocates 1% to Bitcoin, which basically means institutions are panicking. --- The barbell strategy sounds sophisticated, but it's really just betting on liquidity devaluation. --- The real irony is that they treat 1% as insurance, while we're still debating whether to go all in. --- I've heard the scarcity asset argument too many times, but what’s the result? --- Central bank easing → asset allocation → Bitcoin shifting from speculation to hedge, this logic is rock solid. --- What does 1% of caution really represent? It’s just because they have other chips. --- Watching institutional moves is indeed meaningful for reference, but copying blindly? That’s asking for trouble. --- U.S. bonds, liquidity, purchasing power devaluation—who doesn’t deserve some scarce assets in this environment? --- I just want to know when Harvard added that 1%. It’s probably too late now. --- The barbell strategy makes sense, but the problem is ordinary people don’t even have a bell.

View OriginalReply0