Interview with VanEck Investment Manager: From an institutional perspective, is now the time to buy BTC?

Compiled & translated by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Guest: Matthew Sigel, Portfolio Manager of VanEck Onchain Economy ETF ($NODE)

Host: Anthony Pompliano

Podcast source: Anthony Pompliano

Original title: Is It Time to Buy Bitcoin Now?

Broadcast date: November 25, 2025

Key points summary

Matthew Sigel is the portfolio manager of the VanEck Onchain Economy ETF ($NODE), considered one of the most forward-thinking institutional products in the crypto ecosystem. In this interview, we explore how institutions evaluate Bitcoin, from market structure and investor sentiment to the drivers of recent price movements. Matthew introduces three key indicators he uses to predict Bitcoin's future direction, shares his buying strategies during market volatility, and his focus on crypto-related publicly traded stocks. Furthermore, this podcast discusses the broader digital asset ecosystem, including smart contract platforms, stablecoins, and areas he believes have the greatest long-term potential.

Here's also a one-page summary of the podcast notes (too long to read) to help you quickly grasp the main points.

Summary of key viewpoints

• Bitcoin mining companies are transforming into AI companies.
• Volatility is one of the biggest challenges in the crypto space.
• Matthew Sigel typically assesses Bitcoin's market performance from three perspectives. The first is global liquidity, with Bitcoin consistently showing a negative correlation with the US Dollar Index (DXY). The second perspective is leverage levels within the crypto ecosystem, where leverage is currently declining and funding rates have fallen significantly. The third perspective is on-chain activity, which is currently weak and not in a positive state.
• The support levels around $78,000 and $70,000 present a good entry opportunity.
• I usually choose to invest regularly, such as investing a fixed amount at a certain price level, or investing every two days.
• My investment style involves small, highly diversified positions, while also employing a "buy low, sell high" strategy in the market. So far, this strategy has been effective.
• Once you decide to buy, you don't need to invest all at once. Instead, you should adopt a gradual approach to deal with market fluctuations more rationally.
• The market is oversaturated, and altcoin inflation rates remain high. Beyond their speculative nature, they haven't truly found a product-market fit.
• Solana excels at building cross-industry ecosystems.
• Trump's deregulation policy has actually had a negative impact on altcoins because the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies has been weakened under the new regulatory environment.

How do institutions currently view Bitcoin?

Anthony Pompliano: Today we have invited Matthew Sigel, the portfolio manager of Van Eck’s on-chain economy ETF ($NODE).

I think we can start with an important question: How do institutions currently view Bitcoin? Market signals are very complex, with both positive and negative data, poor price performance, and low investor sentiment. How do Van Eck and other institutions typically view Bitcoin and its asset allocation?

Matthew Sigel:

From an investor interest perspective, I believe institutional interest in Bitcoin remains high. We continue to receive numerous requests for educational content, portfolio construction advice, and small-scale allocations. However, the recent pullback in Bitcoin's price, exceeding 30%, has led to a decline in trading volume for some of our listed products. This suggests that while investor interest in Bitcoin research is strong, there is some hesitation in actual trading.

Anthony Pompliano: So, if we analyze these data points, how would you distinguish between positive and negative data?

Matthew Sigel:

We typically assess Bitcoin's market performance from three perspectives.

The first factor is global liquidity. Bitcoin has consistently shown a negative correlation with the US Dollar Index (DXY), making the impact of global risk appetite, leverage, and deleveraging on Bitcoin particularly significant, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. This macroeconomic trend has had a far greater impact on Bitcoin than in previous periods. Unfortunately, Bitcoin miners are at the heart of this process. Recently, due to tightening credit conditions and the massive debt taken by mega-corporations like Oracle to develop their AI capabilities, Bitcoin miners have had to adjust their operations to align with market opportunities. This requires substantial capital expenditures, which are typically raised through debt financing, equity financing, or the sale of Bitcoin. Until October, Bitcoin miners were actively selling Bitcoin to support this construction. This situation has created a vicious cycle: tightening credit conditions not only affect miners' ability to raise funds but also further depress the price of Bitcoin. Therefore, I believe the evidence from a global liquidity perspective is mixed, with both financial support and a more uncertain market outlook.

The second perspective is the leverage level within the crypto ecosystem. I believe this is a positive sign. We experienced a market liquidation in mid-October, leading to a decrease in leverage levels in the crypto market and a significant drop in funding rates. In the past 12 hours, the market liquidation reached approximately $1.7 billion. This indicates that leverage sentiment in the crypto market has weakened significantly, which I see as a bullish signal.

The third perspective is on-chain activity. We typically focus on data such as transaction fees, the number of active addresses, and transaction frequency. Based on this data, on-chain activity is currently weak, and the overall situation is not optimistic.

How to assess metrics and key Bitcoin price levels in real time

Anthony Pompliano: So, how do you assess the Bitcoin market? We've talked about global liquidity as a "yellow light," leverage within the crypto ecosystem as a "green light," and on-chain activity as a "red light." Clearly, these signals are mixed. How do you weigh these factors? Which of the three do you tend to focus on more? And how do you adjust your strategy when these signals are present simultaneously?

Matthew Sigel:

I believe this largely depends on individual investment styles. As I mentioned earlier, market trading volume has declined, indicating that investors are hesitant in their actual operations. For example, about two or three weeks ago, I sold 15% of my Bitcoin mining positions in the on-chain economy ETF I manage. This was because we noticed market optimism beginning to wane, while credit conditions became tighter. Bitcoin miners contribute significantly to our returns, so moderate risk diversification at the end of the year was a wise choice. We haven't redeployed these funds yet, but I'm monitoring several key Bitcoin price levels.

One key level is $78,000, which represents a 40% drop from its peak. In the last market cycle, Bitcoin experienced an 80% drop. Since then, Bitcoin's price volatility has decreased by about half. If volatility halves, I believe the magnitude of price corrections could also be halved, making a 40% drop a reasonable risk-reward opportunity. Furthermore, the $78,000 level could also break through the $69,000 support level established after the election. We experienced election day volatility around $70,000 and tested this level again this April. Therefore, strong technical support has formed here.

If the price falls further, another level to watch is $55,000, which is the 200-week moving average. In extreme market scenarios, such as another 80% drop, Bitcoin could potentially fall back to around $27,000, which is exactly the price level when BlackRock launched its Bitcoin ETF. This scenario would wipe out all ETF gains, but I think that's less likely. Overall, a 40% drop and support around $70,000 present a good entry opportunity.

Anthony Pompliano: I understand your point. As individual investors, we have more flexibility in judging price levels, such as $77,000 or $80,000. These differences may not make a big difference to an individual, but institutional investors face more constraints when deploying capital, such as risk management and rebalancing. At the same time, they also have data tools and experience that individual investors cannot access.

How do you view the difference between investing at $77,500 and $80,000? Should you act decisively when approaching the target rather than waiting for a lower price? Given the current high market volatility, how would you specifically execute your investment strategy? For example, when the market is filled with extreme greed or fear, stock market volatility is low, but the VIX index reaches 28. In this situation, would you directly and decisively enter the market, or maintain discipline and execute by setting price targets and limit orders?

Matthew Sigel:

My personal style leans towards a gradual approach. I typically opt for dollar-cost averaging, such as investing a fixed amount at a certain price level or investing every two days. As professional investors, we have a dedicated team of traders who can help us find liquidity and execute trades. This is one of the advantages of institutional investing; it allows us to adopt a more disciplined investment approach.

However, I don't believe there's an absolute right or wrong way. The key is to make wise and reasonable decisions based on your own logic and the client's needs. For me, a gradual approach suits my style better.

Why have crypto-related stocks, specifically NODE, performed so well?

Anthony Pompliano: Let's talk about publicly traded stocks related to Bitcoin and the crypto industry. Your ETF product, $NODE, has performed exceptionally well since its inception; I understand it has risen between 28% and 32%, outperforming Bitcoin.

Generally, many people believe that Bitcoin or crypto assets should outperform related stocks, but we have seen some different situations in the past year. Could you talk about $NODE's public stock strategy and your asset allocation ideas in these companies?

Matthew Sigel:

Indeed. From an investor's perspective, many, whether institutional or retail, prefer to invest indirectly in the crypto industry through stocks. This is because stock financial disclosures are more standardized and can be directly adapted to their brokerage accounts. From my observation, a significant change in the crypto industry since the election has been the willingness of investment banks to underwrite crypto-related assets. This is why we've seen so many IPOs, SPACs, and secondary offerings over the past year. We at Van Eck were fortunate to adjust our strategy after the election, focusing on investing in crypto-related stocks. In hindsight, this strategy proved correct. Since the launch of $NODE, the price of Bitcoin has fallen by 16%, while related stocks have risen significantly. We were able to identify the profound impact of AI on Bitcoin miners and build a relatively low-volatility portfolio.

Of course, our portfolio also experienced some drawdowns, but compared to other competing products in the market, we successfully mitigated some of the downside risk by strictly controlling position size. In this early stage of the industry, many small and highly leveraged companies face execution and operational risks. I don't see the need to take on excessive risk, such as allocating 10% of a single position. Instead, I prefer to concentrate risk in the 1% to 4% range and leverage market volatility to find advantages.

Furthermore, our definition of crypto-related stocks is quite broad, encompassing not only companies whose primary business is related to the crypto industry, but also those that have entered the Bitcoin value chain through tokenization or sales. These companies not only save costs but also generate revenue through related businesses, significantly impacting price-to-earnings ratios. Therefore, my investment style is characterized by small, highly diversified positions, while utilizing a "buy low, sell high" strategy in the market. So far, this strategy has been effective.

Anthony Pompliano: The companies you mentioned don't necessarily have a large portion of their business related to the crypto industry. Could you give an example of companies that sell products or use related technologies to the crypto industry but aren't considered crypto companies in the traditional sense?

Matthew Sigel:

I can give an example: Hynex, a South Korean memory manufacturer that primarily sells products to the semiconductor industry. It competes with Micron and SanDisk in an oligopolistic market. When Bitcoin mining rigs are selling well, Hynex's DRAM business accounts for a single-digit to mid-single-digit percentage of Bitcoin mining revenue. At the margin, this does have some impact on its overall business, but it's not the dominant factor. However, when we factor in the impact of artificial intelligence on the supply chain, the supply and demand dynamics change significantly. Companies like Hynex currently have a P/E ratio of around 5, making it a very attractively valued investment. We have approximately a 1% allocation to Hynex, a company that not only relates to digital assets but also benefits from other structural growth opportunities. This is a good example.

What can reverse the slump in Bitcoin miners' lives?

Anthony Pompliano: Bitcoin miners have experienced significant pullbacks in recent years, especially after Bitcoin prices peaked. What factors do you think could reverse this downturn for miners?

We recently discussed an interesting point from a 2018 Wharton Business School interview with Howard Marks. He mentioned a common metaphor in investing—"catching a falling knife"—his strategy wasn't to try to precisely buy at the bottom, but rather to gradually buy and accumulate positions as prices approached the bottom, adding to his position even if prices continued to fall, when the market recovered. So, how do you think the trend among Bitcoin miners can change?

Matthew Sigel:

I strongly agree with Howard Marks's viewpoint, which is precisely the investment strategy I mentioned earlier. Once you decide to buy, you don't need to invest all at once; instead, you should adopt a gradual approach to deal with market fluctuations more rationally.

From my personal analysis, there are two main factors that could help miners out of their predicament. The first is revenue performance in the field of artificial intelligence. Currently, there is considerable debate in the market about whether investments in artificial intelligence can generate real returns. I believe that the benefits of AI are more reflected in cost optimization than in directly increasing revenue. By reducing operating costs, companies can significantly improve earnings per share, which is a positive signal for the market. For example, OpenAI recently reached a cooperation agreement with Target to integrate its technology into retail applications and checkout processes. This deal could be worth nine figures, and although relevant information is currently limited, as more similar deals emerge, market confidence in artificial intelligence may gradually increase.

The second factor is the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. If the Fed chooses to cut interest rates, it will significantly improve market liquidity, which is crucial for Bitcoin miners. Currently, there is still disagreement in the market about whether the Fed will cut rates in December, but once liquidity improves, the financing pressure on miners will be alleviated.

Overall, these two factors—the revenue performance of artificial intelligence and the Federal Reserve's monetary policy—may be key drivers in reversing the slump in Bitcoin mining.

Anthony Pompliano: When we talk about publicly traded companies related to crypto, Bitcoin miners are an important sector. There are also stablecoin providers such as Circle, Gemini, and Coinbase, as well as some infrastructure companies and other related topics. What are your thoughts on these companies?

Matthew Sigel:

Circle is a prime example, once overvalued due to market enthusiasm and now experiencing a valuation correction. However, their market share is actually gradually expanding, so we may increase our portfolio allocation to such companies in the future. Returning to Bitcoin miners, we've learned something from recent market dynamics: the crucial role of the cost of capital. Over the past three months, almost all mining companies have been raising funds to support their AI infrastructure development. This is a capital-intensive process, and we're beginning to see a divergence in capital costs within the industry. For example, Cipher recently announced an agreement with Fluid Stack (backed by Google) to build its infrastructure through debt financing. Companies like Bitdeer, on the other hand, have had to rely on convertible debt, and Clean Spark has adopted a similar dilutive financing approach. This difference in capital access will exacerbate the "winner-takes-all" phenomenon in the industry, so investors should favor large mining companies with capital advantages.

Anthony Pompliano: Economies of scale seem to be becoming a major topic of discussion. In the past, this might not have been a critical issue due to the smaller size of the industry. But as the industry matures, scale is becoming increasingly important, whether in private markets, liquid crypto assets, or some early-stage publicly traded companies. For example, Coinbase has grown into a truly large company, and several companies in the mining industry have broken through the limitations of scale. In traditional industries, economies of scale are often crucial. The same is true in the crypto industry now—either gain scale or you become marginalized.

Matthew Sigel:

I completely agree. In the early days, the primary strategy for Bitcoin mining was to find the cheapest electricity and profit through regional resource advantages. However, due to limited funding from Wall Street for these operations, mining companies struggled to achieve economies of scale. Now, this is changing, especially at the intersection of artificial intelligence and the mining industry. Companies like Tera Wolf and Cipher have been able to scale their operations through debt financing, and while these financings are lower-rated, their impact on minority shareholders represents a significant turning point.

However, I believe Bitcoin mining still retains a strong regional character. For example, Cipher operates in Texas, Tera Wulf in New York, and Bitfarms is concentrated in the PJM region (PJM refers to the PJM Interconnected Grid, the largest regional transmission organization (RTO) in the United States, managing the power system covering 13 states in the eastern United States and Washington, D.C.). Currently, direct competition among these companies is not yet intense, but there are already signs that they are beginning to expand into more regions. For example, Tera Wulf recently stated that they plan to enter Texas to serve more customers. As the industry develops, the advantages of economies of scale will gradually become apparent, but similar to the utility industry, regional factors will still play a significant role.

Assess the balance sheets of companies holding Bitcoin

Anthony Pompliano: MicroStrategy has demonstrated tremendous scale in incorporating Bitcoin into its balance sheet. There are now many companies in the market starting to include Bitcoin or other crypto assets on their balance sheets, some through traditionally listed companies, and others through reverse takeovers or SPACs. What are your thoughts on the overall digital asset market, and how might these assets accumulate value in the future?

Matthew Sigel:

Our view on this sector is relatively cautious. We believe that many small-cap digital asset companies currently on the market may struggle to maintain high valuations in the long run. Of course, this doesn't mean there aren't any such companies, but there's no reason to believe that so many small companies will be able to maintain a premium. Early in my career, I studied the Asian market, where there were many companies with a net asset value (NAV) valuation, often trading at a 50% discount, especially when there was no clear path to change of control or minority shareholders couldn't cash out their assets. Therefore, our strategy is to avoid these types of companies, although there are exceptions in certain cases. As valuations have declined, we've also seen some small companies start selling Bitcoin and buying back shares, and the involvement of activist investors may also present opportunities for these companies.

I'm watching closely to see if the Strive deal goes through. If it does, I think Strive's risk-reward profile might be more attractive because their preferred stock structure is relatively clear, making it easier for fixed-income investors to assess risk and return. For example, Strive's preferred stock buyback price is set at $110, while the issue price is $75, resulting in a par value of $100. Furthermore, they've managed to keep the target price between $95 and $105 through interest rate management. This design allows investors to better weigh upside and downside risks.

In contrast, Microstrategy's preferred stock structure is more complex. While they have close ties with convertible bond arbitrageurs and can trade at a premium throughout the cycle, creditors still face significant uncertainty because the company retains the option to recall the debt. This design increases the difficulty of risk assessment for creditors and may be less favorable to fixed-income investors.

A similar situation exists at Meta Planet. They recently announced a new preferred stock structure, more similar to Strive's model, but this may not be a positive prospect for them. The reason is that this structure increases the power of bondholders, giving them priority access to cash flow while diminishing the potential returns from the equity portion. This might be a more sustainable option for bond investors, but it could have negative consequences for shareholders, especially for companies reliant on equity returns, where this design could become a burden.

Anthony Pompliano: There are some doubts in the market regarding these companies' ability to repay preferred stock debt. For example, Saylor mentioned that if Bitcoin only rises by 2% annually, they can still maintain operations for a long time. If there is no growth at all, they can finance their operations for up to 70 years by selling stock. What are your views on these companies' debt repayment capabilities?

Matthew Sigel:

This depends on the specific structure of a company's balance sheet. For example, companies like Microstrategy rely more on rising Bitcoin prices and growth in unrealized earnings to maintain operations. They can use these unrealized earnings to borrow further to sustain operations. Smaller companies, on the other hand, tend to sell Bitcoin directly to pay off debt. This model may boost investor confidence, but it also raises the question: what would happen to the market if these companies sold off Bitcoin during a bear market? This scenario could exacerbate downward pressure on Bitcoin prices, especially in a depressed market.

Anthony Pompliano: If these companies start dumping Bitcoin en masse, what do you think will happen to the market? Do you think there will be a forced sell-off? For example, is it possible that Michael Saylor might be forced to liquidate his assets?

Matthew Sigel:

This situation could exacerbate the downside risk for Bitcoin prices, especially given the current low market sentiment. I believe Saylor's case is somewhat unique; even if Bitcoin prices drop 50% from their peak, he wouldn't need to sell assets. He could refinance through negotiations with creditors. However, for some smaller companies, the situation could be more complex. If these companies' shares trade at a 50% discount to their net asset value, activist investors might seek board seats and pursue legal action to push for corporate governance changes or even liquidation, returning assets to shareholders. This is typically a lengthy process, potentially taking one to two years.

Anthony Pompliano: So, for businesses that hold Bitcoin but are not Bitcoin companies, such as Tesla or Block, do you think this trend will continue to grow? Or will the market differentiate itself?

Matthew Sigel:

This is a concern. We observed a similar situation when managing the Node ETF. For example, companies like Tesla and Allied Resources (ARLP) hold Bitcoin, but the market hasn't given these small Bitcoin holdings a significant valuation bonus. However, this could reverse as the market changes. MSCI's recent consideration of removing microstrategy from some indices may prompt many companies to adjust their strategies, keeping their Bitcoin holdings below 49% of total assets to avoid exclusion from indices. This strategy allows companies to benefit from Bitcoin's appreciation while retaining their index eligibility. Markets are always evolving, and I believe that with rule changes, the market may give higher valuations to companies holding small amounts of Bitcoin.

Matthew's Outlook on Altcoins and Bitcoin's Dominance

Anthony Pompliano: Your team has spent a lot of time researching crypto assets and the publicly traded companies associated with them. What are your current views on crypto assets other than Bitcoin?

Matthew Sigel:

Objectively speaking, we haven't been as proactive as some of our ETF competitors in launching single-token solutions. We've already submitted applications for a BNB ETF and an Avalanche (AVAX) ETF. Frankly, the market is oversaturated, and altcoin inflation remains high. Aside from their speculative nature, they haven't truly found a product-market fit.

Therefore, we are not optimistic about this area. Clearly, the market has pulled back significantly. I attended the MultiCoin Summit yesterday and found Solana to be exceptionally good at building a cross-industry ecosystem . Many industries are leveraging its blockchain architecture. However, decentralized blockchains lack the support of a sales team compared to some corporate chains like Tempo or Circle. Corporate chains typically attract merchants through sales teams and incentivize employees to expand the market through stock options, while decentralized blockchains rely solely on community strength and monetization potential to capitalize on opportunities . This conversion mechanism is not direct enough to drive merchant adoption of their payment systems like Visa, Mastercard, Square, or Solana.

Anthony Pompliano: What about its performance relative to Bitcoin? Historically, altcoins have outperformed Bitcoin during bull markets. But this time, it seems Bitcoin has outperformed most altcoins, which has surprised many. Why is this?

Matthew Sigel:

From a fiat currency perspective, Bitcoin has indeed outperformed other assets. I believe Trump's deregulation policies have actually had a negative impact on altcoins, as the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies has been weakened under the new regulatory environment. In the past regulatory environment, Ethereum had a clear advantage among decentralized alternatives. Now, that advantage has been leveled, and every project is on a relatively evenly matched competitive platform. This is partly why corporate blockchains have started to rise. These companies are not fully decentralized, and their roadmaps do not have explicit decentralized goals, but they can use tokens to conduct businesses that were previously considered illegal. This has caused truly decentralized projects, such as Ethereum and Solana, to lose some of their differentiating advantages.

$NODE Internals: Structure, Allocation, and Strategy

Anthony Pompliano: Could you briefly introduce NODE and what your investment strategy is?

Matthew Sigel:

NODE is an actively managed ETF, and we can hold up to 25% of our assets in cryptocurrencies through ETF investments. We currently hold 11% in the Bitcoin ETF , and approximately 1% each in Ethereum and Solana.

The remainder consists of stocks related to this sector. Our target is any company that articulates a strategy for making or saving money by adopting Bitcoin, blockchain, or digital assets. I personally believe that Bitcoin miners are transforming into AI companies . Mining companies constitute the fund's largest exposure, accounting for approximately one-third. The remaining funds are allocated to fintech, e-commerce, energy infrastructure, and other sectors. This diversification aims to smooth out portfolio volatility.

If we only invest in pure-play crypto companies like Microstrategy and Coinbase, the volatility of these highly leveraged companies could be extremely high, even reaching 10%. According to feedback from institutional investors, volatility is one of the biggest challenges in the crypto space . Therefore, our strategy is to reduce overall volatility through diversification, while still allowing investors to enjoy the growth dividends brought about by the increasing popularity of digital assets. This is NODE's core objective.