2026-01-13 19:42:04

Regarding the claim made by a well-known scholar about the University of Chicago's massive losses in cryptocurrency investments, it indeed sounds sensational. It is rumored that the university's endowment fund, under the advice of a Nobel laureate, ventured into crypto assets, ultimately losing over six billion dollars.

But the data contradicts this. The University of Chicago's endowment fund totals only $10.9 billion, and its crypto exposure accounts for less than 1%. Based on this proportion, even if all investments were lost, it would far from reach the $6 billion level. This indicates that the circulating story has serious flaws, possibly due to misinformation or exaggeration.

What’s interesting about this case is that it reflects a common issue in crypto investing: celebrity effects can easily create rumors, while real data is often ignored. Even the most savvy institutional investors cannot escape market volatility; the key lies in exposure management and risk control. It seems that rather than listening to stories, we should look at the books.

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.

12 Likes

Reward
12
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

FudVaccinator

· 7h ago

It's the same old story. Once the data is laid out, the truth is revealed haha No matter how compelling the story is, it can't compete with a spreadsheet The celebrity halo can really confuse people's minds; 6 billion is just not even worth considering Talking about the ledger is good, but most people just love gossip and don't like looking at numbers Even Nobel laureates have to respect probability theory; this time it's a textbook-level slap in the face Information pollution is indeed outrageous; once it spreads from one to ten to a hundred, it becomes a myth So investing still requires doing your own calculations; don't be fooled by names

View OriginalReply0

GweiWatcher

· 7h ago

Another wave of false information... Nobel laureates also get caught up in scandals --- 60 million and 6 billion, the difference is outrageous, no wonder so many people are being led astray --- A standard celebrity effect and hype script, looks like I need to learn how to read financial reports --- It turns out it's all just stories, the data is right here --- That's why I never believe rumors, I have to check the ledger myself --- Even Nobel laureates' advice isn't reliable; risk control is still key --- When rumors spread in the crypto circle, facts are pushed aside --- Institutional investors are also human and can be fooled by celebrity halos --- Claiming less than 1% share as a huge loss, this public opinion is really interesting --- It seems that exposure management is the real key, regardless of who gives the advice

View OriginalReply0

LadderToolGuy

· 7h ago

Again, the same story. Those who listen to stories always outnumber those who look at data. --- Nobel laureates also mess up, which shows that nothing is a big deal. --- A 10.9 billion dollar project daring to boast a 6 billion loss—this rumor is so outrageous that I feel embarrassed for them. --- Once a celebrity speaks, the facts have no chance. --- The key issue is the open position problem; less than 1% is simply negligible. --- That's why I never trust the advice of big V influencers; checking the ledger myself is more reliable. --- In front of data, rumors automatically go bankrupt. Unfortunately, most people love to hear gossip. --- The institution has no risk control awareness at all; they deserve to be cut.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropSweaterFan

· 7h ago

It's the same old trick of "well-known scholars revealing secrets," but check the data and it immediately falls apart haha --- Nobel laureates are not financial prophets either; listening to stories is less reliable than looking at on-chain data --- A 10.9 billion dollar market not losing 6 billion—how crazy is that... probably just rumors and hearsay --- Less than 1% exposure can't lead to huge losses? Laughable, is the celebrity halo really that valuable --- Basically, it's just playing with information asymmetry; a big V can sway the market with a single comment --- Institutions are also human; there's nothing to brag about, the key is risk control awareness --- It's always like this; I haven't heard any gossip data that actually matches up... --- Instead of chasing hot topics, it's better to learn how to read financial reports, it's less stressful --- Celebrity endorsements = guaranteed win? An immature idea --- This story's routine is old; next time I see it, I still won't believe it

View OriginalReply0

liquidation_watcher

· 7h ago

Another wave of false information, the data is right here, yet stories are still being fabricated. Even Nobel laureates can't be trusted; you still have to look at the ledger—there's no doubt about that. 600 million? That's laughable, the numbers don't match at all. Under the aura of celebrities, anyone can be easily deceived, including major institutions. Claiming huge losses with less than 1% exposure—spreading rumors is just too cheap. That's why I never listen to stories, I only look at on-chain data.

View OriginalReply0

GamefiHarvester

· 7h ago

Haha, once again a Nobel laureate takes the fall. I can guess this routine with my eyes closed. --- Rumors self-destruct in the face of data; I just worry someone will keep making them up. --- Honestly, how can a position of less than 1% lose sixty billion? How capable do you have to be to do that? --- Celebrity effect, right? It's always the pain point in the crypto world. --- Institutions are just so-so; it seems that risk control is the real key. --- Another scholar blowing stories, I bet five cents he hasn't even looked at the books. --- With proper position management, you can't really go wrong. That's the gap. --- So what if it's a Nobel Prize? Still falling into a trap. I just love these reversals. --- Always like this—first make up an outrageous number, then come out to clarify after being called out. --- Isn't it better to honestly read financial reports than listen to influencers blowing smoke?

View OriginalReply0

GhostWalletSleuth

· 7h ago

Another big news story built on a fabricated story, even Nobel laureates can't withstand the Transformer-like power of rumors. The data speaks for itself, I think there's nothing to argue about... the entire exposure is less than 1%, so what's the point of talking about sixty billion. This is the drama we see every day, a celebrity opens their mouth and the amount multiplies tenfold, but in reality, it's so bloody that no one actually checks the accounts. Listening to stories is fun, but losing money really hurts.

View OriginalReply0