Recently, I noticed a particularly interesting phenomenon. Many people are still saying that crypto education is a scam, but the reality has completely turned around. The Web3 MOOC at the University of Nicosia has already attracted over 150k students this semester from more than 120 countries. This is no longer a niche course but a genuine large-scale educational movement. The spring semester's curriculum covers everything from Bitcoin fundamentals to the integration of blockchain with AI/IoT. It seems they are seriously building a systematic knowledge framework. Even more interesting is the asset tokenization sector. The market size jumped from $2.08 trillion last year to $3.01 trillion this year. This means courses on RWA tokenization, stablecoins, and CBDCs are no longer electives but mandatory courses. Real money is flowing into this field. El Salvador is even more aggressive. They have launched the Bitcoin Diploma 2.0 course directly in public schools, starting full pilot programs this year. While most countries are still debating whether cryptocurrencies should exist, they are already teaching financial literacy to the next generation. What truly impressed me is the laboratory component. It’s not just theoretical discussions on paper but hands-on practice with NFT creation, multi-signature wallets, and Shamir’s secret sharing. Based on data from their collaboration with WhiteBIT, 60% of people claiming to understand crypto actually don’t understand smart contracts at all. That’s why exchanges like WhiteBIT are also getting involved in educational projects—because the market genuinely needs it. Certificates are industry-recognized, and leading organizations like Ledger and Ripple provide expert lectures. This is no longer casual content on YouTube; it’s institutionalized education backed by the industry. Honestly, the hype cycle for crypto education has already passed. We are now entering a true adoption phase. universities, governments, and institutions are taking it seriously. This time, it’s different.

These days I keep observing a pattern I can't stop thinking about: Bitcoin isn't behaving like digital gold. Period. And that changes a lot. You must have seen the numbers: BTC dropped from US$126 thousand last October to half that now. Meanwhile, gold hit a record of US$5,595 at the beginning of 2026, and central banks bought 863 tons last year. No central bank has touched Bitcoin. When you see a capital flow difference of 3 to 1 in that direction, it's hard to maintain the narrative that Bitcoin is digital gold, right? But here’s the really interesting part: Bitcoin is moving almost perfectly in sync with tech stocks. Specifically, the correlation with IGV ( that ETF tracking software stocks ) reached 0.73 over the last 30 days. And it’s not just a week or two — this has been happening for over 18 months. For context, short-term style shifts usually last 3 to 6 months. So 18 months is much longer, but still not enough to say it’s permanent. Still, it’s impossible to ignore. At the start of 2026, when IGV fell 23% and Bitcoin dropped 19-20%, they moved almost in perfect sync. Bitcoin’s volatility was only 1.1 to 1.3 times higher than IGV — much less than many expected. This is no coincidence. What’s causing this? I think there are three very clear structural reasons. First: Bitcoin ETFs changed everything. Now Bitcoin is treated by institutional funds exactly like a tech stock. Same risk management systems, same allocation categories, same rebalancing decisions. When an institution needs to reduce exposure to growth, it sells Bitcoin and IGV in the same operation. This creates a reinforcing cycle: because they treat Bitcoin as a tech stock, capital moves along with tech stocks, and this sync further reinforces its classification as a tech stock. Second: Bitcoin and tech stocks are sensitive to the same macroeconomic triggers. Both are long-duration assets, sensitive to real interest rates, money supply, dollar strength, overall risk aversion. When liquidity tightens, both suffer. When it expands, both gain. Does the VIX spike due to inflation concerns? Both fall together. That’s why in February, when two AI products were launched ( with no direct relation to Bitcoin ), Bitcoin’s price still fell — because the institutional market linked the news to the tech sector as a whole. Third: there’s a real amplifying effect coming from MicroStrategy. This company is the largest publicly held Bitcoin holder in the world, but it’s classified as a software company on Nasdaq. This creates a mechanical, bidirectional link: when software weakens, MicroStrategy’s shares fall, which intensifies negative sentiment about Bitcoin, generating real selling pressure. At the peak in late 2025, MicroStrategy’s shares dropped 67%, outperforming declines in both IGV and Bitcoin itself. It’s as if the company is being traded at a discount relative to the Bitcoins it holds. Now, the question everyone wants to ask: is this permanent or temporary? Honestly, we don’t know yet. There are three possible scenarios. Scenario one: the correlation persists. If liquidity remains tight in 2026, Bitcoin continues behaving like a high-volatility growth stock, maintaining a correlation of 0.5 to 0.8 with IGV. The question of what Bitcoin really is remains unanswered. This is probably the most likely outcome if nothing changes in Fed policies or institutional positions. Scenario two: diverging paths. If the Fed starts easing liquidity, combined with the effects of the 2024 halving and reduced concerns about disruptive AI, Bitcoin could outperform tech stocks significantly in the second half of 2026. The correlation with IGV would fall to 0.3 to 0.5. This would confirm that the current synchronization is only cyclical, not permanent. Scenario three: permanent convergence. If the correlation rises above 0.8 and stays even when the Fed begins cutting interest rates, and if official indices classify Bitcoin as part of the tech sector, then Bitcoin’s identity has truly changed forever. The test is simple: if the correlation breaks when liquidity returns, it’s cyclical convergence. If they remain strongly linked even with loose liquidity, then it’s a change of identity. And here’s what I think is the most important point: Bitcoin’s identity has never been fixed. It’s always been what the biggest market participants believed it to be. First miners and early adopters, then altcoin traders, then hedge funds, now institutional investors treating it as a long-term asset. That can change again. But as long as we’re in this environment of tight liquidity, with institutional funds treating Bitcoin as part of their tech allocations, this synchronization with IGV is the reality that matters. It’s not about what Bitcoin was originally designed to be. It’s about who’s buying, how much they’re buying, and why. The market prices an asset based on who owns it and why. And right now, that’s the dynamic at play.

TeraWulf has just announced its 2025 results and a quite interesting figure - revenue increased by 20.3% to $168.5 million. But the interesting part is that they are no longer just mining Bitcoin, but are heavily focusing on HPC and AI rental services. Just the HPC segment alone brought in $16.9 million this year, and this number grew even faster in the final quarter with $9.7 million. Looking at their strategy, this makes sense - instead of relying solely on Bitcoin price fluctuations, they have signed long-term contracts for 522 MW of capacity, with contract values exceeding $12.8 billion. The company also received $6.5 billion to build the HPC platform. Although net profit is still negative (a loss of $661.4 million), it’s clear they are making long-term investments for the future. TeraWulf calls 2025 a pivotal year, and it seems they are truly serious. Recently, they also acquired additional infrastructure in Kentucky and Maryland, adding about 1.5 GW of capacity. The current focus is on the Lake Mariner area in New York and Abernathy in Texas. It looks like the Bitcoin mining game is changing, and companies like TeraWulf are preparing for something bigger.