원문 보기
Question is, could you see it two or five percent allocation? I was with a sovereign wealth fund during this week and that was the conversation. Should we have a two percent allocation? Should we have a five percent allocation? If everyone adopted that conversation, you know, it would be 500,000, 600,000, 700,000 for Bitcoin.
That was a statement from Larry Fink of BlackRock, and he is not alone, and they are deliberately concealing this from you, because the world's largest banks are currently calculating for their clients how much of a fortune should be allocated to Bitcoin, not whether, or how much. Charles Schwab accounts for up to 22 percent of the portfolio.
Fidelity even calculates 65 percent, and the man you just heard, Larry Fink of BlackRock, who runs the world's largest asset manager, speaks of $700,000 per Bitcoin in the near future. But all of this is in reports that hardly anyone reads. You don't hear a word about that in the news, and you hear something completely different: that Bitcoin is finished.
And if someone does write or talk about it, you get the headline and what's underneath, but what else is kept secret from you. Each of these numbers is subject to a condition, and that condition changes everything. Schwab's figure is 22 percent, but only if you make a very specific assumption beforehand.
Fidelity's figure is 65 percent, but the next paragraph states 10 percent, and while everyone is talking about Wall Street buying, billions have flowed out again this year. Bitcoin is 49 percent below its all-time high. By the end of this video, you'll know how Larry Fink of BlackRock came up with a figure of $700,000 per Bitcoin , because it involves a calculation that almost nobody talks about.
And Larry Fink is the CEO of BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager. The sentence you just heard, he said that in the desert on January 22, 2025 . Therefore, watch the video to the end , because at the end there is a number that directly affects Germany, or you, if you have a fund savings plan, among other things.
And before we start, give the video a thumbs up and share it with others so that more people can receive this information. Let's start with Fidelity. The report is called "Getting off Zero". Published on March 25, 2026 by Fidelity Digital Assets, written by Chris Kulpa. And that invoice is actually in there .
Fidelity uses the calendar years of the past ten years, seven of which were positive, three negative. The positive years yielded an average return of 288%, while the negative years cost an average of 50%. Fidelity uses these values in a formula from probability theory, the so- called Kelly criterion.
Result: a position size of 65%. This is exactly where most people stop looking at it , stop thinking about it. However, in the same paragraph, Fidelity calculates what happens if Bitcoin no longer yields 288% in the good years , but only 25%. Then the position size drops from 65% to 10%. And so the 65% is not a recommendation; it's the echo of the past ten years, and those were the strongest Bitcoin has ever seen.
And now to Charles Schwab. The report was published on April 6, 2026, and was authored by Jim Ferryoli, the head of digital currency research at the institution. And yes, the figure 22.4% is also included there. But you have to understand, what is she hanging on to now? It is an optimization calculation for a very aggressive portfolio, assuming that the investor expects a return of around 25% per year from Bitcoin.
Assuming 15%, the same calculation results in 8.8%. And then Schwab writes the sentence that no headline quotes: "If the expected return is below 10%, Bitcoin does not justify any inclusion at all, not even for aggressive investors." That does n't sound very positive , does it? And via the second method, the risk budget, Schwab arrives at a figure of 1.2 to 4%.
The reason lies in the data: 72% fluctuation range per year, large price decline of 73.4%, and now comes the part where it gets really interesting, because Blackrock is currently claiming that the firm recommends 2 to 4% Bitcoin. The paper exists, it's called "Sizing Bitcoin in Portfolios", but it says the opposite.
Blackrock cites 1 to 2% as an acceptable allocation, and 4% is precisely the value that Blackrock warns against in its own paper, because Bitcoin then accounts for around 14% of the total portfolio risk from a single position. And the same picture at Morgan Stanley. The investment committee issued upper limits on October 1, 2025 , staggered according to risk classes up to 4% in the most aggressive, 3% in the medium and 2% in the balanced.
And for portfolios whose goal is capital preservation and ongoing income, Morgan Stanley does not foresee any inclusion at all. But what is in these portfolios instead? Bonds and cash. These are precisely the two things that have been reliably losing purchasing power for years . In these houses, "asset preservation" doesn't mean that your assets will be preserved; it means that the figure on the statement won't fluctuate.
Many people don't understand that, so I've explained it now. Now comes the other side, because the about-face itself is real. On January 3, 2024, James Gorman, then chairman of the board of Morgan Stanley, sat in the studio with Bloomberg and said he had never understood the value of Bitcoin as a store of value.
That is clearly speculative. Eight months later, Morgan Stanley was one of the first major firms to sell Blackrock's Bitcoin fund to its clients, and today the firm operates its own Bitcoin product. And BlackRock's Bitcoin fund reached $70 billion in 341 trading days. BlackRock's large gold fund needed 1691 trading days to reach the same amount .
So the question is not whether something has moved, something has moved. The question is what the numbers make of that, or rather, what BlackRock makes of it, or rather, what it wants to sell to its customers or to us . And that's where it gets sobering. On July 31, 2026, one Bitcoin will cost 63,000.
874 dollars. That is 49% less than the peak of $126,198 on October 6, 2025, and 45% less than a year ago. American Bitcoin funds experienced a net outflow of $5.4 billion in the first half of 2026 . The worst six months since its launch and the first with a negative balance. In June alone, the figure was 4.5 billion.
And now to the question that this is actually about. How do you even arrive at figures like 500,000 or 700,000 dollars? Larry Fink from Blackrock did n't just roll dice or pull them out of thin air. Behind this lies a calculation that many are unaware of, and it works differently than one might think.
The misconception is the assumption that a one billion dollar inflow increases the total value of all Bitcoins by one billion. That's not how a market works. The price is determined at the edge, on the last coin traded, and this price multiplied by 21 gives the total value. So if someone buys a billion Bitcoins and drives up the price, all other Bitcoins will also be valued higher, without a single dollar having changed hands for them .
And the Bank for International Settlements. He investigated this in 2023 and coined the term for it: the crypto multiplier. Their conclusion: the greater the proportion of coins that are held and not moved , the greater the leverage. And of course, the authors deliberately do not mention a specific number .
But it was measured anyway. Bank of America arrived at a factor of 118 in 2021 and conducted an evaluation. In the first few months, the figure was 106. Other calculations range between 10 and 50. The underlying cause is measurable. According to figures from Glassnode, 14.37 million Bitcoins are considered illiquid coins, meaning they have not been moved for a long time.
That's over 72% of all Bitcoins ever mined. At the beginning of 2025, the number was 13.9 million. And on the other side is the offer. Since the halving day on April 20, 2024, only around 450 new Bitcoins have been added daily . Previously it was 900. At the current exchange rate, that's 28 million dollars.
The market will naturally not be able to supply more stock on its own . Anyone who wants more has to buy it from someone else who already has some, so over 72% of the stock remains untouched. That's the mechanics behind Larry Fink's figure for Blackrock: not that billions are flowing in, but that a small amount of money is meeting an even smaller amount of available coins .
And that is the current situation we find ourselves in . And the same mechanism works in reverse . American Bitcoin funds experienced a net outflow of $5.4 billion in the first half of 2026 . 4.5 billion in June alone. The total value of all Bitcoins has therefore fallen by a multiple during the same period.
The lever knows no direction. He amplifies what is already happening. And what does all this mean for you in Germany? At the end of March 2026, the gold assets of private households amounted to 9490 billion euros. 3550 billion of that, or 37.4%, is held as cash in accounts. In June, banks paid an average of 0.51% on savings accounts and 0.71% on savings accounts.
The official inflation rate was 2.3%. The unofficial figure is significantly higher, as anyone in Germany can see who goes shopping, goes to the petrol station, and so on and so forth. And now the number that hardly anyone knows. While Wall Street is debating a 4% or 22% target, a German public fund is still not allowed to hold a single Bitcoin directly.
The German Investment Code does not allow it either. Only special funds for large investors are permitted, not for private investors, and even then, up to 20% has been allowed since the Fund Location Act of 2021. And not a single German pension fund, retirement scheme, insurer, or foundation has publicly disclosed its Bitcoin holdings to date.
Pull that together. In America, the big firms are arguing about whether 1, 4 or 22% is correct. In Germany, the question hasn't even been asked for the average fund saver, because the law answers it. Zero. And that 's exactly the point this video is about. All these figures – 65 at Fidelity, 22 at Schwab, 1 to 2 at Blackrock – apply to a product that someone else is holding for you.
A fund unit is a claim, a certificate is a claim. Both need someone to deliver. Bitcoin that you hold yourself does not require a quota or permission. More information can be found in the description below the video. It is important that you act now, before time runs out. Bitcoin has no investment committee that sets a limit, no law that prohibits you from investing in your funds, and no custodian that has to approve it.
You decide how much of that is right for you, and nobody else does. And that's the real difference between the 22 % on paper and what truly belongs to you. What is your opinion on this? What do you think about the fact that the same companies that declared Bitcoin speculative for years, such as BlackRock, are now selling their own products with it?
Write it in the comments, give the video a thumbs up for the YouTube algorithm and share the video so that more people get this information, and now watch the next video. See you in the next video. See you then.
Comments 0