Bitcoin Never Dies | Jan van Eck

I think it's impossible to say Bitcoin should do X, Y, or Z. Right? I mean, the reason I got interested in it in 2017 is it's own thing and it's going to evolve as adoption changes. Now, what has changed in the adoption story in the last 2 years? Nothing. Right? Central banks haven't come on board, corporations haven't come on board. It's basically been some financial investors through the ETFs, but not many institutions. Right? So, slowly asset allocators have started to include it, but not not dramatic. So, why would you expect some big change in the price of Bitcoin when nothing has happened? I mean, the way I look

I think it's impossible to say Bitcoin should do X, Y, or Z, right? I mean, the reason I got interested in it in 2017 is it's its own thing and it's going to evolve as adoption changes. Now, what has changed in the adoption story in the last 2 years? Nothing, right? Central banks haven't come on board, corporations haven't come on board. It's basically been some financial investors through the ETFs, but not many institutions, right? So slowly asset allocators have started to include it, but not dramatically. So why would you expect a big change in the price of Bitcoin when nothing has happened? I look at it the old-fashioned way: limited supply like gold, and the 4-year halving cycle. That has caused a decline in miner profitability every 4 years. 2026 is the year of decline. Why would it break the cycle given nothing has changed on adoption? I'm still long-term bullish. It's been negative that Bitcoin has had a higher correlation to the Nasdaq since COVID. It used to have zero correlation, now 0.6 correlation. That's high. A lot of America's wealth is in model portfolios, and allocators don't like the correlation. They'll say 'I'll have 1% instead of 2%.' Look at Nvidia over the last 9 months: fabulous stock over 5 years, but grinding lately. I think it's replacement of ownership. We were saying it was going to be quiet. I think part of it is replacement of the ownership base. My thesis for 2026 is stable environment, nothing will happen on fiscal or monetary. I'm sticking with that.

Right? Generally, the tax bill went through last year, even if Democrats win the midterm, they can't change much because the president will veto. Fiscal is set. Warsh did a good job articulating a less activist Fed stance. They stuck the landing. There was visibility on monetary policy. I fundamentally look at the Iran conflict as temporary.

Yes, it'll be bad for government spending. Inflation's up. I don't think the Fed will react. Their whole point is that the central bank can't affect gas prices. Not one person in a hundred thinks that, except for a couple of people on CNBC.

If business continues to explode? Or it's not exploding, but it's the growth area of financial services. ETFs are like popcorn: suddenly a couple billion in AUM, but vast majority are below 100 million. That's misleading. People don't appreciate accessibility to underserved asset classes. Fixed income is huge. In our fixed income ETFs, only 5-10% of bonds trade on any given day, so it's become very liquid. But vulnerable during dislocations. When I joined VanEck, we had one gold mining fund. My dad started the first gold fund in 1968. Gold shares are volatile: from 2011 to 2016, GDX was down 90%.

No one realizes the decimation in natural resources last decade. But historically, I try to get away from gold and diversify. VanEck has been successful in multiple asset classes. The asset class decision is key. Gold is powerful in the right environment. I'm bullish over next 10 years because gold is re-emerging as a global currency. I own it because I'm worried about government spending. Our deficit came down from 6.5% to low 5% of GDP. If we spend half a trillion more on Iran war, it's not in the numbers yet, but if it happens, people need a hedge. Short-term it'll pull gold down too. If there's a freak out over spending, the 10-year could jump 200 bps, nowhere to hide. Medium-long term, I think gold is something you want. Start with bullion for liquidity, then maybe 2/3 bullion, 1/3 gold shares.

More of our business is now doing model allocation.

So horrible time for equities. That big drawdown from 2011 to 2016. The first big commodity cycle in the 1970s: gold went from $35 to $800, cost of production didn't change. Later cycles, cost increased with inflation. We're running out of resources; you have to dig more tons for each ounce. Equities get punished. Opposite of tech companies like Nvidia with high margins.