Amid periodic news about bitcoin reserve sales by Strategy, the market often focuses on short-term pressure. However, as my observations show, the real threat to the first cryptocurrency lies in a different area — the rapid development of private blockchain infrastructure.
This is about a fundamental shift: asset tokenization, payments, and settlements are increasingly migrating to closed, permissioned networks. If this trend solidifies, the entire crypto ecosystem risks facing so-called "structural derating" — a sustained slowdown in activity, reduced liquidity, and weakened capital flows. Ultimately, this will inevitably impact bitcoin as well, which, despite its decentralized nature, is sensitive to the overall state of the market.
Why do institutions choose private blockchains? The answer is simple: they provide a higher level of privacy, built-in AML/KYC controls, direct governance, and, critically, regulatory certainty. This creates a direct competitive threat to public blockchains such as Ethereum, which traditionally serve as the foundation for DeFi and tokenization.
BIS Position and the Threat to Stablecoins
Particular attention should be paid to the position of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which consistently warns about the risks of using public blockchains in systemically important financial infrastructure. Instead, the BIS promotes the concept of unified ledgers with permissioned access, combining central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), commercial bank deposits, and tokenized assets in a single regulated environment.
If such solutions become widespread, especially in the non-transferable form preferred by regulators, the need for stablecoins for institutional payments and settlements could sharply decline. This trend will be further reinforced by SWIFT's blockchain initiatives and national CBDC projects. Additionally, deferred and netting operations in closed networks are significantly more efficient in terms of liquidity and capital management than real-time settlements via public blockchains.
CLARITY Act Is Not a Panacea
Even the potential adoption of the CLARITY Act, which is supposed to clarify rules for digital assets, will not necessarily reduce these risks. On the contrary, clearer regulation could stimulate the development of bank tokenized deposits, strengthening the positions of traditional financial institutions and further limiting the role of stablecoins based on public blockchains.
As an alternative, I see a hybrid model combining the functions of public and private protocols, but for now, the market is moving toward isolation. Let me remind you that a deterioration in bitcoin mining economics has already been recorded, when the asset traded below its production cost for an extended period. This is just one symptom of a deeper structural problem.
My comment: The market has ignored this threat for too long, focusing on speculative factors. If major financial institutions ultimately transition to closed ledgers, bitcoin risks remaining in the niche of "digital gold" for retail investors, losing the driver of institutional growth. This is not a collapse, but a serious slowdown in the pace of development for the entire industry.