When is the best time to buy the dip? VanEck manager reveals the optimal timing for positioning in Bitcoin.

Organization & Compilation: Shenchao TechFlow

Original title: Dialogue with VanEck Investment Manager: From an institutional perspective, is it time to buy BTC?

Guest: Matthew Sigel, Portfolio Manager of VanEck Onchain Economy ETF ($NODE)

Host: Anthony Pompliano

Podcast Source: Anthony Pompliano

Original title: Is It Time To Buy Bitcoin Now?

Release Date: November 25, 2025

Key Summary

Matthew Sigel is the portfolio manager of the VanEck Onchain Economy ETF ($NODE), which is considered one of the most forward-thinking institutional products in the crypto ecosystem. In this interview, we discussed how institutions evaluate Bitcoin, from market structure and investor sentiment to recent price movement drivers. Matthew introduced three key indicators he uses to assess the future trajectory of Bitcoin and shared his buying strategies during market volatility, as well as his focus on crypto-related public company stocks. Additionally, this episode also discussed the broader digital asset ecosystem, including smart contract platforms, stablecoins, and areas he believes have the most long-term potential.

Here is a concise version of the podcast notes in a single image to help you quickly grasp the main idea.

Summary of Highlights

• Bitcoin mining companies are transitioning to AI companies.
• Volatility is one of the biggest challenges in the crypto space.
• Matthew Sigel typically evaluates Bitcoin's market performance from three perspectives. The first is global liquidity, where Bitcoin has maintained a negative correlation with the US Dollar Index (DXY); the second perspective is the level of leverage in the crypto ecosystem, where the leverage level in the crypto market has decreased and financing rates have significantly dropped; the third perspective is on-chain activity, which is currently showing relatively weak performance and the activity status is not optimistic.
• A good entry opportunity is near the support of 78,000 and 70,000 dollars.
• I usually choose a systematic investment approach, such as investing a fixed amount at a certain price level or making an investment every two days.
• My investment style is small positions, highly diversified, while utilizing a “buy low, sell high” strategy in the market. So far, this strategy has worked well.
• Once you decide to buy, you don't need to invest everything at once; instead, you can adopt a gradual approach, responding to market fluctuations more rationally.
• The market is overly saturated, and the inflation rate of altcoins remains very high. Aside from their speculative nature, they have yet to truly find a product-market fit.
• Solana has performed exceptionally well in building cross-industry ecosystems.
• Trump's deregulation policy has actually had a negative impact on altcoins, as the characteristic of decentralization has been weakened in the new regulatory environment.

How Institutions Currently View Bitcoin

Anthony Pompliano: Today we have invited Matthew Sigel, who is the portfolio manager of Van Eck's on-chain economy ETF ($NODE).

I think we can start with an important question: how do institutions currently view Bitcoin? The market signals are very complex, with both positive and negative data, poor price performance, and low investor sentiment. How do Van Eck and other institutions typically view Bitcoin and its asset allocation?

Matthew Sigel:

From the perspective of investor interest, I believe that institutional attention to Bitcoin remains high. We are still receiving a large demand for educational content, portfolio construction advice, and small allocation requests. However, Bitcoin's price has experienced a pullback of over 30%, and the trading volume of some of our listed products has also decreased. This indicates that while investors have a strong interest in researching Bitcoin, there is some hesitation in actual trading operations.

Anthony Pompliano: So, if we analyze these data points, how would you differentiate between positive data and negative data?

Matthew Sigel:

We usually evaluate the market performance of Bitcoin from three perspectives.

The first is global liquidity. Bitcoin has been negatively correlated with the US Dollar Index (DXY), so global risk appetite, leverage, and deleveraging have a significant impact on Bitcoin, especially since the COVID pandemic. This macro trend has affected Bitcoin far more than in previous phases. Unfortunately, Bitcoin miners are at the core of this process. Recently, due to tightening credit conditions and mega-corporations (such as Oracle) raising massive debts to develop their AI capabilities, Bitcoin miners have had to adjust operations to fit market opportunities. This requires substantial capital expenditure, and these funds typically depend on debt financing, equity financing, or selling Bitcoin to raise capital. Until October, Bitcoin miners were still actively selling Bitcoin to support these developments. This situation has led to a vicious cycle: tightening credit conditions not only affect miners' ability to finance but also further depress Bitcoin prices. Therefore, I believe that from the perspective of global liquidity, the evidence is mixed, with both funding support but a more uncertain market outlook.

The second perspective is the level of leverage in the crypto ecosystem. I see this as a positive signal. We experienced a market liquidation in mid-October, which led to a decrease in leverage levels in the crypto market and a significant drop in financing rates. In the past 12 hours, the scale of market liquidation reached about $1.7 billion. This indicates that the leverage sentiment in the crypto market has significantly weakened, and I view this as a bullish signal.

The third perspective is on-chain activities. We usually focus on data such as transaction fees, the number of active addresses, and transaction frequency. From this data, it appears that on-chain activities are currently performing weakly, and the activity status is not optimistic.

How to Evaluate Metrics and Key Bitcoin Price Levels in Real Time

Anthony Pompliano: So, how do you assess the Bitcoin market? We have talked about global liquidity being a “yellow light”, leverage in the crypto ecosystem being a “green light”, and on-chain activity being a “red light”. Clearly, these signals are mixed. How would you weigh these factors? Among the three, which one do you tend to focus on more? When these signals appear simultaneously, how do you adjust your strategy?

Matthew Sigel:

I think it largely depends on individual investment styles. As I mentioned earlier, the current market trading volume has decreased, which indicates that investors seem hesitant in their actual operations. For example, in the on-chain economy ETF that I manage, about two or three weeks ago, I sold 15% of my Bitcoin mining position. This was because we noticed that market optimism was beginning to weaken, while the credit environment became more strained. Bitcoin miners contribute significantly to our earnings, so it is a wise choice to moderate risk-taking at the end of the year. Currently, we have not redeployed those funds, but I am keeping an eye on several key Bitcoin price levels.

One key level is $78,000, which corresponds to a 40% drop from the peak. In the last market cycle, Bitcoin experienced an 80% decline. Since then, Bitcoin's price volatility has decreased by about half. If volatility is halved, I believe the magnitude of price adjustments could also be halved, so a 40% drop is a reasonable risk-reward opportunity. Additionally, the $78,000 level could also break the $69,000 support formed after the election. We experienced volatility around $70,000 on election day and tested this level again in April this year. Therefore, a strong technical support has formed here.

If there is further decline, another level worth paying attention to is $55,000, which is the position of the 200-week moving average. If the market experiences extreme conditions, such as another 80% drop, Bitcoin could return to around $27,000, which is exactly the price level when BlackRock applied for a Bitcoin ETF. This scenario would wipe out all ETF gains, but I believe the likelihood of this is low. Overall, a 40% drop and support around $70,000 present a good entry opportunity.

Anthony Pompliano: I understand your point. As individual investors, we can be more flexible in assessing price levels, such as $77,000 or $80,000, which may not make much difference to individuals, but institutional investors face more constraints when deploying capital, such as risk management, rebalancing, and other issues. At the same time, they also have access to data tools and experience that individual investors cannot obtain.

What do you think about the difference between investing between $77,500 and $80,000? Should one act decisively when approaching the target, rather than waiting for a lower price? Given the current market volatility, how would you specifically execute your investment strategy? For example, when the market is filled with extreme greed or fear, the stock market has lower volatility, but the VIX index reaches 28. In this case, do you enter decisively, or do you maintain discipline by setting price targets and limit orders?

Matthew Sigel:

My personal style tends to be more gradual. I usually choose to invest through a dollar-cost averaging approach, such as investing a fixed amount at a certain price level or making an investment every two days. As professional investors, we have a dedicated team of traders that supports us in finding liquidity and executing trades. This is one of the advantages of institutional investing, as it allows us to adopt a more disciplined investment approach.

However, I believe there is no absolute right or wrong way. The key is to make wise and reasonable decisions based on one's own logic and customer needs. For me, a gradual approach is more suited to my style.

Why Do Crypto-Related Stocks Perform Well $NODE

Anthony Pompliano: Let's talk about publicly traded stocks related to Bitcoin and the crypto industry. Your ETF product $NODE has performed exceptionally well since its inception, and I've learned that its increase is around 28% to 32%, surpassing the performance of Bitcoin.

Generally speaking, many people believe that Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies themselves should outperform related stocks, but over the past year we have seen some different situations. Please discuss the public stock strategy of $NODE and your asset allocation ideas in these companies.

Matthew Sigel:

Indeed. From the perspective of investors, whether institutional or retail, many prefer to invest in the crypto industry indirectly through stocks. This is because the financial information disclosure of stocks is more standardized, and they can be directly adapted to their brokerage accounts. From my observation, a significant change in the crypto industry since the elections is that investment banks have begun to be willing to underwrite crypto-related assets. This is also why we have seen many IPOs, SPACs, and secondary offerings over the past year. We at Van Eck have been fortunate to adjust our strategy after the elections, focusing on investments in crypto-related stocks. The results show that this strategy was correct. Since $NODE was launched, the price of Bitcoin has dropped by 16%, while related stocks have risen significantly. We have been able to identify the profound impact of AI on Bitcoin miners and have constructed a relatively low-volatility portfolio.

Of course, our portfolio has also experienced some drawdowns, but compared to other competitive products on the market, we have successfully reduced some downside risk by strictly controlling position sizes. In this early stage of the industry, many small companies and highly leveraged firms face execution and operational risks. I believe there is no need to take on excessive risks, such as allocating 10% to a single position. Instead, I prefer to concentrate risk in the range of 1% to 4% and take advantage of market volatility to seek an edge.

In addition, our definition of crypto-related stocks is relatively broad, focusing not only on companies whose main business is related to the crypto industry but also on those that enter the Bitcoin value chain through tokenization or sales. These companies can not only save costs but also generate revenue through related businesses, which significantly impacts their price-to-earnings ratio. Therefore, my investment style is characterized by small positions and high diversification, while leveraging a “buy low, sell high” strategy in the market. So far, this strategy has been effective.

Anthony Pompliano: The companies you mentioned do not necessarily have most of their business related to the crypto industry. Can you give an example of which companies sell products to the crypto industry or use related technologies, but are not considered traditional crypto companies?

Matthew Sigel:

I can give an example, which is Hynex, a South Korean memory manufacturer that primarily sells products to the semiconductor industry. It competes with Micron and SanDisk and belongs to an oligopoly market. When Bitcoin mining machines are selling well, Hynex's DRAM business accounts for about single to mid-double digits in Bitcoin mining. Marginally, this does have some impact on its overall business, but it is not the dominant factor. However, when we consider the impact of artificial intelligence on the supply chain, the supply and demand dynamics have changed significantly. Companies like Hynex currently have a price-to-earnings ratio of about 5 times, making it a very attractive investment target in terms of valuation. Our allocation to Hynex is about 1%, as the company is not only related to digital assets but also benefits from other structural growth opportunities. This is a great example.

What can reverse the bleak situation of Bitcoin miners?

Anthony Pompliano: Bitcoin miners have experienced significant pullbacks in recent years, especially after Bitcoin prices peaked. What factors do you think could reverse the miners' downturn?

We recently discussed an interesting point made by Howard Marks during an interview at the Wharton School in 2018. He mentioned a common metaphor in investing—“catching a falling knife.” His strategy is not to try to precisely catch the bottom, but to gradually buy in and accumulate positions as the price approaches the bottom, even if the price may continue to drop. However, when the market recovers, he will continue to add to his position. So, how do you think the trend of Bitcoin miners can change?

Matthew Sigel:

I strongly agree with Howard Marks' viewpoint, which is precisely the investment strategy I mentioned earlier. Once the decision to buy is made, there is no need to invest everything at once; instead, a gradual approach should be adopted to respond to market fluctuations more rationally.

From my personal analysis, there are two main factors that may help miners out of their predicament. The first is the revenue performance in the artificial intelligence sector. There is considerable debate in the current market about whether investments in artificial intelligence can yield actual returns. I believe that the benefits of artificial intelligence are more reflected in cost optimization rather than directly increasing revenue. By reducing operational costs, companies can significantly enhance their earnings per share, which is a positive signal for the market. For example, OpenAI recently reached a partnership agreement with Target to integrate its technology into retail applications and checkout processes. This deal could reach nine figures, and although relevant information disclosure is currently limited, as more similar deals emerge, market confidence in artificial intelligence may gradually strengthen.

The second factor is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. If the Federal Reserve chooses to cut interest rates, it will significantly improve market liquidity, which is crucial for Bitcoin miners. There is still a divide in the market over whether the Federal Reserve will cut rates in December, but once liquidity improves, the financing pressure on miners will ease.

Overall, these two factors – the revenue performance of artificial intelligence and the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve – may become key driving forces to reverse the bleak situation of Bitcoin miners.

Anthony Pompliano: When we talk about publicly listed companies related to cryptocurrency, Bitcoin miners are an important area. Additionally, there are stablecoin providers such as Circle, Gemini, and Coinbase, as well as some infrastructure companies and other related topics. What are your thoughts on these companies?

Matthew Sigel:

Circle is a typical example that was previously overvalued due to market enthusiasm and is now experiencing a low point in valuation adjustment. However, at the same time, their market share is actually gradually expanding, so in the future, we may increase our allocation to such companies in our portfolio. Returning to Bitcoin miners, we have learned a bit from the recent market dynamics, which is the key role of capital costs. Over the past three months, almost all mining companies have been raising funds to support their AI infrastructure development. This is a capital-intensive process, and we are beginning to see a differentiation in capital costs within the industry. For example, Cipher recently announced an agreement with Fluid Stack (backed by Google) to establish infrastructure through debt financing. Meanwhile, companies like Bitdeer have had to rely on convertible debt, and Clean Spark has also adopted a similar dilutive financing approach. This difference in capital acquisition capabilities will exacerbate the “winner-takes-all” phenomenon within the industry, so investors should be more inclined to choose larger mining companies that have capital advantages.

Anthony Pompliano: Economies of scale seem to be becoming an important topic of discussion. In the past, it may not have been a key issue due to the smaller size of the industry. However, as the industry matures, scale is becoming increasingly important, whether in private markets, liquid crypto assets, or some early public companies. For example, Coinbase has developed into a real large company, and several companies in the mining industry have also broken through scale limits. In traditional industries, economies of scale are usually crucial. Now, this is also true in the crypto industry—either achieve scale or be marginalized.

Matthew Sigel:

I completely agree. In the early days, the main strategy for Bitcoin mining was to find the cheapest electricity, leveraging regional resource advantages to achieve profitability. However, due to limited funding support from Wall Street for these businesses, mining companies struggled to achieve economies of scale. Now, this situation is changing, especially at the intersection of artificial intelligence and the mining industry. Companies like Tera Wolf and Cipher have been able to scale their businesses through debt financing, and although these financings have lower ratings, their impact on minority shareholders is a significant turning point.

However, I believe that Bitcoin mining still has strong regional characteristics. For example, Cipher operates in Texas, Tera Wulf in New York, while Bitfarms is concentrated in the PJM region (the PJM region refers to the PJM Interconnection, which is the largest regional transmission organization (RTO) in the United States, responsible for managing the power system covering 13 states in the eastern United States and Washington D.C.). Currently, direct competition among these companies is not very intense, but there are already signs that they are starting to expand into more regions. For example, Tera Wulf recently stated that they plan to enter Texas to serve more customers. As the industry develops, the advantages of economies of scale will gradually become apparent, but similar to the utility industry, regional factors will still play an important role.

Evaluate the Balance Sheet of Companies Holding Bitcoin

Anthony Pompliano: MicroStrategy has demonstrated significant economies of scale in incorporating Bitcoin into its balance sheet. Now, many companies in the market are beginning to include Bitcoin or other crypto assets in their balance sheets, some through traditional public companies and others through reverse mergers or SPAC-listed companies. How do you view the overall digital asset market, and how might these assets accumulate value in the future?

Matthew Sigel:

We are relatively cautious about this sector. We believe that many small-cap digital asset companies in the current market may struggle to maintain high valuations over the long term. Of course, this does not mean that there are no such companies, but there is no reason to believe that so many small firms can sustain a premium. In my early career, I studied the Asian market, where there were also many net asset value (NAV) type companies, which often traded at a 50% discount, especially in situations where there was no clear path for a change of control or where minority shareholders could not cash out their assets. Therefore, our strategy is to avoid such companies, although there may be exceptions in certain cases. With the downward adjustment of valuations, we are also seeing some small firms beginning to sell Bitcoin and repurchase shares, while the involvement of activist investors may also present opportunities for these companies.

I am keeping an eye on whether the transaction with Strive can be successfully completed. If the transaction goes through, I believe the risk-reward profile of Strive may be more attractive, as their preferred stock structure is relatively clear, allowing fixed income investors to more easily assess risks and returns. For example, the repurchase price of Strive's preferred stock is set at $110, while the issuance price is $75 and the par value is $100. Additionally, they manage the target price through interest rate management, keeping it between $95 and $105. This design allows investors to better gauge both upside and downside risks.

In contrast, the preferred stock structure of Microstrategy is more complex. Although they have a close relationship with convertible bond arbitrageurs, allowing them to trade at a premium throughout the cycle, creditors still face significant uncertainty because the company retains the option to reclaim the debt. This design increases the difficulty of risk assessment for creditors and may not be friendly enough for fixed income investors.

A similar situation has arisen at Meta Planet. They recently announced a new preferred stock structure that is designed to be closer to the Strive model, but this may not be optimistic for them. The reason is that this structure increases the power of bondholders, allowing them to receive cash flow preferentially, while the potential returns on equity are weakened. This may be a more sustainable option for bond investors, but it could have negative implications for shareholders, especially for companies that rely on equity returns, as this design may become a burden.

Anthony Pompliano: There are some doubts in the market regarding these companies' ability to repay preferred stock debts. For example, Saylor mentioned that if Bitcoin only rises by 2% each year, they can still operate in the long term. If there is no growth at all, they can fund operations by selling stocks for up to 70 years. What do you think about these companies' ability to repay their debts?

Matthew Sigel:

This depends on the specific structure of the company's balance sheet. For example, companies like Microstrategy rely more on the rise in Bitcoin prices and the growth of unrealized gains for their debt repayment ability. They can further borrow against these unrealized gains to maintain operations. On the other hand, some smaller companies tend to sell Bitcoin directly to repay their debts. This model may enhance investor confidence, but it also raises a question: what impact would the market face if these companies were to sell Bitcoin in a bear market? Such a situation could exacerbate the downward pressure on Bitcoin prices, especially in a bearish market sentiment.

Anthony Pompliano: If these companies start to sell off Bitcoin in a concentrated manner, what do you think will happen to the market? Do you think there will be a forced sell-off situation? For example, could Michael Saylor be forced to liquidate assets?

Matthew Sigel:

This situation is likely to exacerbate the downside risk of Bitcoin prices, especially in a market with low sentiment. I believe Saylor's situation is quite unique; even if Bitcoin prices fall 50% from their highs, he does not need to sell assets. He can refinance by negotiating with creditors. However, for some smaller companies, the situation may be more complicated. If these companies' stocks are trading at a 50% discount to their net asset value, aggressive investors may seek board seats and push for corporate governance changes or even liquidation through legal means to return assets to shareholders. This is usually a long process that may take one to two years.

Anthony Pompliano: So, for those companies that hold Bitcoin but are not Bitcoin companies, like Tesla or Block, do you think this trend will continue to grow? Or will the market differentiate in response?

Matthew Sigel:

This is a question worth paying attention to. We noticed similar situations when managing the Node ETF. For example, companies like Tesla and Allied Resources (ARLP), although they hold Bitcoin, the market did not give significant valuation rewards for these small amounts of Bitcoin holdings. However, this situation may reverse as the market changes. Recently, MSCI considered removing Microstrategy from certain indices, which may prompt many companies to adjust their strategies to keep Bitcoin holdings below 49% of total assets in order to avoid exclusion from the indices. This strategy allows companies to enjoy the gains from the rise in Bitcoin while retaining their eligibility in the indices. The market is always changing, and I believe that with the adjustment of rules, the market may give higher valuations to these companies that hold small amounts of Bitcoin.

Matthew's Outlook on Altcoins and Bitcoin's Dominance

Anthony Pompliano: Your team has spent a lot of time researching crypto assets and the publicly listed companies related to these assets. What is your current view on other crypto assets besides Bitcoin?

Matthew Sigel:

Objectively speaking, we are not as proactive as some ETF competitors in launching single token solutions. We have submitted applications for the BNB ETF and the Avalanche (AVAX) ETF. Frankly, the market is overly saturated, and the inflation rate of altcoins remains high. Besides their speculative nature, they have not truly found a product-market fit.

Therefore, we are not very positive about this field. Clearly, the market has significantly declined. I attended the MultiCoin Summit yesterday and found that Solana is performing exceptionally well in building cross-industry ecosystems. Many industries are leveraging its blockchain architecture. However, compared to some company chains (such as Tempo or Circle), decentralized blockchains lack the support of sales teams. Company chains usually attract merchants through sales teams and incentivize employees to explore the market through stock options, while decentralized blockchains can only rely on the power of the community and the potential for monetization to seize opportunities. This conversion mechanism is not direct enough to drive merchant adoption of their payment systems like Visa, Mastercard, Square, or Solana.

Anthony Pompliano: What about the performance relative to Bitcoin? Historically, altcoins tend to outperform Bitcoin during bull markets. However, this time it seems Bitcoin has outperformed most altcoins, which has surprised many people. Why is that?

Matthew Sigel:

From the perspective of fiat currency valuation, Bitcoin's performance has indeed surpassed that of other assets. I believe Trump's deregulation policy has actually had a negative impact on altcoins, as the characteristic of decentralization has been weakened under the new regulatory environment. In the past regulatory environment, Ethereum had a clear advantage among decentralized alternatives. Now, this advantage has been leveled, and every project is on a relatively even competitive platform. This is also part of the reason why company chains have started to rise. These companies are not fully decentralized, and their roadmaps do not have a clear decentralization goal, but they are able to utilize tokens to conduct some businesses that were previously considered illegal. This has caused truly decentralized projects, such as Ethereum and Solana, to lose some of their differentiated advantages.

$NODE Internal: Structure, Allocation, and Strategy

Anthony Pompliano: Can you briefly introduce NODE to everyone, and what is your investment strategy?

Matthew Sigel:

NODE is an actively managed ETF, and we can hold up to 25% of our assets in cryptocurrencies, investing through the ETF. Currently, we hold 11% in Bitcoin ETF, with approximately 1% each in Ethereum and Solana.

The rest of the portfolio consists of stocks related to the field. Our goal is to target any company that clarifies strategies for making or saving money through the adoption of Bitcoin, blockchain, or digital assets. I personally believe that Bitcoin mining companies are transitioning to AI companies. Mining companies represent the largest exposure in the fund, accounting for about one-third. The remaining funds are allocated to fintech, e-commerce, energy infrastructure, and more. This diversification aims to smooth out the volatility of the portfolio.

If we only invest in pure companies in the cryptocurrency sector, such as Microstrategy and Coinbase, the volatility of these high-leverage companies can be very large, even reaching up to 10%. According to feedback from institutional investors, volatility is one of the biggest challenges in the cryptocurrency sector. Therefore, our strategy is to reduce overall volatility through diversified investments while still allowing investors to enjoy the growth dividends brought by the popularity of digital assets. This is the core objective of NODE.