A senior financial policy expert has challenged the narrative surrounding Bitcoin's role in investment portfolios. Rebecca Patterson from the Council on Foreign Relations argues that Bitcoin remains fundamentally speculative despite growing institutional adoption. Patterson outlined her concerns during an appearance on Bloomberg. She questioned whether investors grasp Bitcoin's true function in modern portfolios. The digital asset continues to exhibit speculative characteristics rather than the defensive properties many attribute to it. The Store of Value Debate Patterson disputes the common classification of Bitcoin as a store of value. She points to the cryptocurrency's history of significant price drawdowns and its reaction to changing liquidity conditions. These patterns contradict the stability investors expect from traditional stores of value. The mislabeling creates real portfolio risks. Investors purchasing Bitcoin for protection may discover the asset cannot deliver during market stress. Patterson describes this as applying mature asset characteristics to something that remains immature. Bitcoin has not demonstrated consistent behavior across multiple market cycles. Patterson believes this inconsistency indicates that the asset retains its original high-risk exposure. Sharp reversals remain a defining feature rather than an anomaly. The gap between perception and reality matters for allocation decisions. Treating Bitcoin as a hedge when it behaves as a risk asset leads to poorly constructed portfolios. Patterson suggests investors need clearer thinking about what Bitcoin actually provides. New Contagion Pathways Emerge Earlier cryptocurrency crises largely remained isolated within digital asset markets. Patterson notes the landscape has changed substantially. Corporate treasuries now hold Bitcoin positions. Publicly traded companies maintain massive cryptocurrency exposures. Passive index funds connect indirectly to these firms. Strategy serves as Patterson's primary example. The company is scheduled to undergo an MSCI index review on January 15. The outcome will determine whether major passive funds continue holding the stock. Removal from the index would trigger automatic selling by funds tracking that benchmark. MicroStrategy's substantial Bitcoin holdings mean the impact extends beyond equity markets. Patterson identifies this index-channel exposure as a critical, yet overlooked, risk. The mechanics of passive fund rebalancing could create selling pressure across multiple markets simultaneously. These connections represent structural changes from previous crypto downturns. FTX's collapse affected primarily those directly involved in cryptocurrency markets. Patterson argues the next major disruption will spread differently. Traditional finance now contains multiple transmission channels for crypto market stress. Patterson challenges the assumption that institutional involvement reduces volatility. She argues the opposite may prove true. Each new connection between digital assets and mainstream markets creates potential for cross-market contagion. Large institutional players move significant capital. Their entry and exit from positions can amplify price swings rather than dampen them. Patterson notes that these dynamics differ from the retail-dominated markets of Bitcoin's early years. The question has shifted for portfolio managers. Bitcoin's independence from traditional markets is no longer the central concern. Patterson frames the issue differently: Can traditional markets remain insulated from the turbulence of Bitcoin?
