저자: TomLee · 외국인
요약 보기
암호화폐 시장은 레버리지 청산과 개인 투기자 이탈로 바닥을 형성했으며, 기관 유입과 규제 촉매(Clarity Act)가 임박해 대규모 상승이 예상된다고 주장. 이더리움은 기관용 생산적 자산이며 6개월 전 약 5,000달러에서 현재 1,800달러 수준으로 하락했으나 펀더멘털은 강하다는 입장. AI로 2027년 기업이익 급증, 연준 완화 기대, 4년 주기상 10월 전후 강세를 언급.
다듬은 글
Then he knows you can't sustain a hype cycle for 6 months. So, after 6 months, all their shares will be unlocked and all the founders will start dumping them, and that's exactly what they did. So if you're pessimistic about 2026 because of 99, then you should think about it. Are these companies hyped up as if they were fictitious businesses?
SpaceX , OpenAI, Anthropic? No. I mean, these are real companies. Are they going to hype their stock for the next six months and then dump it on you? Like, no. Because they need to continue raising funds. So, these companies will not try to arrange a "pump and dump". So I guess I'm not such a pessimist.
widespread skepticism that the crypto market is exhausted, Tom Lee argues that the current lull marks a classic market bottom, characterized by the washout of leverage and the departure of retail speculators, paving the way for massive institutional inflows as key regulatory catalysts are nearly complete.
Unlike previous cycles driven by meme coins, the narrative has fundamentally shifted towards institutional utility, highlighted by Wall Street’s adoption of Ethereum for payment systems, stablecoins, and decentralized financial settlements due to its undeniable revenue opportunities, supported by international regulatory frameworks already in place, profitable web3 applications, and a quiet shift in the macroeconomic backdrop in favor of risk assets.
Lee sees this decline as the historical basis for the next major expansion. Yes. So I think that's why , you know, to me it's more of a sign of crypto spring, because the fundamentals are actually much stronger and the upside potential looks much greater. Mhm. But the price is lagging behind, is n't it?
How important is price to you? Do you even look at her or what? Yes, I think it's important. Because price is such a thing, in everything that happens in the economy, price matters. For example, if you own a house, no one wants the price of the house to fall. Right? Nobody says, "Hey, I'm happy, I love my house even though it loses 10% of its value every year ." And, for example, if you buy food, you don't want it to increase in price.
So price is important to everything we do, and for an asset, especially an asset that is fundamentally growing, you don't want the price to fall. So, price matters. I mean, Ethereum shouldn't be falling, but then again, that's what happens during crypto spring, right? Like, um, if you look at the previous bear market lows, this is not a vertical price recovery.
It's, you know, a lot of retesting and a lot of technical levels until the true breakout speed appears. Yes. Oh, well, first of all, the growth potential is quite large in a sense, because, um, look at the network value. Um , you know, Bitcoin is worth over a trillion, you know, almost two trillion, and Ethereum is something like 200 billion.
Yes? And these are the two biggest assets. So, let's say, less than two trillion in total. Gold is 22 trillion. The stock market is over 100 trillion. You know, real estate is about 300 trillion. But here's the thing. To make all these other assets composite, monetized, and digitized, you'll have to run them on Ethereum and other blockchains.
And if Ethereum is worth 300 billion, it is grossly undervalued. So for me, you know, should the Ethereum network value be a trillion, two or five trillion? Yes, I can easily imagine this in the next few years. So, um, I think the growth potential is great. Yes. Yes. Me, I'm pretty confident in the price growth potential.
Oh, well, you know, bear markets were everywhere. I have been involved in risk assets for 35 years. I've never seen equilibrium in price, right? Prices are either cheap relative to what you think or expensive relative to what you think. And this can last a long time. So, I mean, just 6 months ago Ethereum was worth five, almost 5,000, and now it's 1,800.
Yeah. Do you know if anything has really changed? I mean, not really, right? The stock market and crypto will punish impatient investors, because look at Nvidia. I mean, last year when it was stuck at 160, even earlier this year it was at 160, and a lot of clients were saying, "Wow, Nvidia is done. It's just too big to grow," and it was trading at 15 times earnings, and now it's at 240.
Um, you know, it added like a couple trillion dollars in market cap in three months. So, you know, it's the impatient people who really lose. What Paul Tudor Jones meant was that in 1999 he could mark on the calendar when the market would peak. Yes? And the reason for this is not in the IPO release dates.
There were many IPOs, but all were decided by lock-up periods after six months. But the reason he was so pessimistic in '99 was because companies were going public, raising a lot of money, but their base was just hype. I was a tech analyst at the time and saw it with my own eyes. You know, a company goes public and its shares triple on the first day of trading.
And the company had no income at all , you know? They were raising money for a future business plan that had no funds. Mm. So he knew it was impossible to sustain the hype cycle for 6 months. So, after 6 months, their shares are unlocked and all the founders start dumping them. And that's exactly what they did.
So if you're pessimistic about 2026 because of the events of '99, you should think things over carefully. Are these companies inflated " fake" businesses ? SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic? No. I mean, these are real companies. Will they try to hype up the stock for six months and then dump it on you? Of course not.
Because they need to continue to raise capital. So these companies will not engage in a "pump and dump" scheme. And so I'm probably not so pessimistic. Tom Lee explains that market bottoms are created by collective indifference, not panic, emphasizing this despite the constant negativity. Ethereum has quietly outperformed tech stocks by 72 percentage points since late June, signaling hidden capital flows.
This momentum is poised for explosive growth due to a confluence of regulatory and macroeconomic factors, including the potential passage of a transparency law that would eliminate state- level regulatory fragmentation , unlocking vast pent-up institutional demand, as well as the Fed's expected shift to more accommodative monetary policy amid slowing inflation and weak housing market data.
Real-world use cases, like Robinhood’s Ethereum blockchain, which already processes over $1 billion in daily transactions and could generate $1 billion in annual revenue, are an undeniable proof of concept that will force traditional financial institutions to adopt crypto payment systems or risk being left behind.
At the same time, the outperformance of small-cap stocks signals the very liquidity-rich environment in which digital assets have historically shown growth. Yes, that's why SpaceX is very serious. OpenAI is a very real company. Anthropic—this is very serious. They're, you know, going to collaborate with capital markets.
So I don't think this is a sign of a market top. But how do we get the stock market back interested in cryptocurrencies? This, well, this is a story about long-term consequences. I mean, the memory score will change. People are returning to the "Big Seven" and to software because, looking to the future, they understand that software plays a very important implementation level role.
But when it comes to AI, blockchain is literally your only solution. And also, with all of this, ultimately, Wall Street would work better on blockchain, it's not even a question, it's a known fact, right? Because Tether makes more money as a stablecoin issuer than any bank in the world, with the exception of 10 and Jane Street, which really proves: money transfers are very profitable.
Well, I mean, blockchain...you know, you can do all the things that Wall Street and the banking industry do on blockchain. So there is no what I call an intermodal threat. Intermodality means: is there another technological solution that makes blockchain unnecessary , and there simply isn't one. Yes.
And this applies to both AI and financial services. This has not yet been determined. Well , you know, stablecoins. Hmm. You know, it's still uncertain. I can imagine a world where there are hyperlocal stablecoins issued by community banks , and it strengthens the local community, but each such bank acquires JP Morgan-level capabilities .
Yes. This makes a lot of sense to me, because that's how technology is supposed to work, right? They extend opportunities "downwards." But I can also imagine a world where liquidity matters so much . So there will only be a few stablecoins left, or does this mean that a large market for liquidity providers for stablecoins will emerge and it will become so profitable that the next Citadel will create a market just to support stablecoins at par?
So you mean that things can go many ways? Well, this is where the economic model is not correct, in the sense that why do people place value on anything, for example, land—a good example. When you buy a house, well, you buy the land and then you build the house. Mhm. Okay. And the one who builds a house tries to sell it because he says, "I put so much sticks, wood, cement, and marble in here," but after 20 years the structure of the house is worth nothing.
By the way, MIT conducted research on the Netherlands. They studied the canals because the addresses had remained the same for perhaps 700 years. Mhm. So he could study real estate prices because he could look at all the transactions of each house for 700 years. The only thing that is increasing in price is land.
So when you buy a house and it goes up in value, it's not because the house itself has become more valuable. This is because land has become more valuable. This is interesting. The land is not productive. She doesn't pay you anything . She doesn't have any burning fees. In fact, you also pay taxes on it .
Well, if, as you said, everything happens in Ethereum, then this is the land. Mhm. So land is the only thing that should increase in value over time. 2027 is my best guess when corporate profits will increase significantly thanks to AI. Yes. Right. Everyone says, "Hey, companies aren't making money because they're spending more on AI." You know what?
The situation will change. Because I know, for example, at my company Funstrat, one of my companies , and I have several, we use a lot of AI and bots, and we grow without hiring people. So your biggest expense is people, and if you can increase your revenue, that means expanding your margins. Therefore, I think that next year we will see an increase in profits.
And, of course, AI, if it is productive, is disinflationary, which means that monetary spending should fall. So central banks need to ease policy, and we're past peak oil prices. So, we have a dovish central bank policy and real income growth. I think this will lead to higher odds and profits. These could be the biggest stock market gains of our lifetimes.
Well, if it's a four-year cycle, then I think August is the minimum, right? Actually, I think it's October. Everyone on social media says it's October. Oh, okay. Well, Q3, Q4. Yes. So, okay. If it's October, it's four months away. Yes. It's very soon. Yes. I mean, if someone is trying to guess the time behind this four-year cycle, it's probably not a bad idea, because it supposedly worked, but you know what the cost of error is if it doesn't .
Do you know what this is ? It's like preparing for a hurricane when it comes to cryptocurrencies. Do you wait to install protection after the storm has already started, or do you prepare in advance so that when it happens, you are already ready for it? I think this means that if a bull market is starting, is it worth waiting for it to start?
I mean, look at the history of memory: it was very strong last year and for three years, but no one bought it until 7 months later. Yes. And then they flew up sharply. Or look at gold. People have been following the " golden" thesis for years, and most of the profits have been made in just three years.
So I think you should stay invested. You know, Tom Lee differentiates between Bitcoin and Ethereum, defining Bitcoin as an intentionally hard digital gold, valued for its immutability and predictability. Whereas Ethereum functions as a productive asset with yields that generate cash flows that fit perfectly into institutional discounted cash flow models.
In addition to a 3% staking return, Ethereum is quickly becoming the leading financial settlement layer for stablecoins and tokenized assets, maintaining an infrastructure advantage that competitors find too difficult to overcome. To assess current market conditions, Lee draws a parallel with Cisco's growth cycle in the late 1990s, when declines of more than 40 % were regularly written off as fatal crashes before historic highs, suggesting that major corrections are a normal part of structural growth, not a sign of a flawed thesis.
Ultimately, the combination of upcoming regulatory clarity through the Clarity Act , infrastructure that generates real income for institutions, and a shift in macroeconomic direction to a more dovish one suggests that the current quiet phase of the market is merely a preparation for the next phase of large-scale institutional implementation.
Comments 0