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.