{"id":11373,"date":"2022-02-08T13:55:51","date_gmt":"2022-02-08T13:55:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ci02993facf000278e"},"modified":"2025-10-01T13:05:12","modified_gmt":"2025-10-01T18:05:12","slug":"what-fidelity-got-wrong-in-bitcoin-first","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/markets\/what-fidelity-got-wrong-in-bitcoin-first","title":{"rendered":"Investor Focus Misdirects Fidelity \u2018Bitcoin First\u2019 Report"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

On January 18, financial services giant Fidelity published \u201cBitcoin First: Why Investors Need To Consider Bitcoin Separately From Digital Assets,\u201d written by Director Of Research Chris Kuiper and Research Analyst Jack Neureuter.<\/p>\n

For many in the space, institutional recognition of bitcoin being a separate entity from what is commonly referred to as \u201ccrypto\u201d was seen as a net-positive for Bitcoin. Fidelity should be commended for this recognition, and its attempt at due diligence to understand bitcoin as a digital asset in its own class. However, this report shows that institutional education still has a long way to go. <\/p>\n

\u2018Which One?\u2019<\/h2>\n

The paper opens with the dilemma of choosing which digital assets to invest in:<\/p>\n

\u201cOnce investors have decided to invest in digital assets, the next question becomes, \u2018Which one?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

With the aptly chosen title of the report, Fidelity presents an articulated outline to guide its investors on a path of digital scarcity. Among the outline, Fidelity makes the following points:<\/p>\n

\n

-\u201cBitcoin is best understood as a monetary good, and one of the primary investment theses for bitcoin is as the store of value asset in an increasingly digital world.
-Bitcoin is fundamentally different from any other digital asset.
-There is not necessarily mutual exclusivity between the success of the Bitcoin network and all other digital asset networks.
-Other non-bitcoin projects should be evaluated from a different perspective than bitcoin.
-Bitcoin should be considered an entry point for traditional allocators looking to gain exposure to digital assets.
-Investors should hold two distinctly separate frameworks for considering investment in this digital asset ecosystem.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

After defining the outline, Fidelity moves to the first point: defining bitcoin as a monetary good.<\/p>\n

What Is Bitcoin?<\/h2>\n

Fidelity discerns the difference between Bitcoin, the network, and bitcoin, the asset, commonly represented through capitalization of the \u201cB\u201d when referring to the network. Then, the authors begin to discuss bitcoin as a monetary good and as a network. <\/p>\n

They discuss, on page five, how bitcoin has a (roughly) 1.8% calculable inflation rate that is inherently finite, and tied to a fixed amount of 21 million coins. This programmatic issuance ensures the first and only manifestation of digital scarcity that has ever existed as it relates to monetary goods \u2014 this scarcity drives the value of bitcoin in a way that cannot be replicated. Why can it not be replicated?<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause Bitcoin is currently the most decentralized and secure monetary network (relative to all other digital assets), a newer blockchain network and digital asset that tries to improve upon bitcoin as a monetary good will necessarily have to differentiate itself by sacrificing one or both of these properties,\u201d as the Fidelity report explains.<\/p>\n

Fidelity, paraphrasing Vitalik Buterin, the founder of Ethereum, reports that this is in part due to the understanding that a database \u201ccan only deliver on two of three guarantees at one time: decentralization, security, or scalability.\u201d <\/em>This requires a sacrifice in order to attempt the replacement of Bitcoin which ultimately guarantees its failure. <\/p>\n

When referencing the success and endurance of the network’s capacity to prevail against unforeseen obstacles, they provided a list of events in Bitcoin\u2019s history that Fidelity views as negative, which were ultimately overcome. Here is the list:<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

Some of these events were actually net positives for Bitcoin, not negatives.<\/p>\n

First, the anonymous creator was necessary to the success of the network. Having no target, no political associations, no beliefs attached to the protocol, are what allowed it to become an opt-out form of money that gives sovereignty of money back to the individual. A leader or creator assigns their identity\u2019s system of beliefs upon the network, and Satoshi Nakamoto knew this, which is why they stayed pseudonymous. <\/p>\n

Second, the \u201ccivil war,\u201d also known in the space as \u201cthe blocksize wars<\/a>,\u201d established a true ethos to a programmatic and decentralized form of money, asserting that the amount of data stored within Bitcoin blocks should remain small enough to allow participation in the network with the relatively easy hosting of nodes, a critical aspect of Bitcoin\u2019s decentralization. This was a proving ground, and vital to the story of Bitcoin, a tale of vision and consensus that would ultimately shape the protocol. <\/p>\n

After discussing the \u201ccivil war,\u201d the authors of the report move on to discussing hard forks<\/a> (when consensus of the protocol splits, resulting in the creation of a new token) that were created in the name of scalability. Why does the issue of scalability matter for a digital asset?<\/p>\n

Bitcoin Scaling<\/h2>\n
\n

\u201cScalability has notably been the Achilles heel of the Bitcoin network as it maximizes decentralization and security, but as a result is the network with one of the slowest transaction throughputs.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2013Fidelity<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is not an accurate representation of the Bitcoin network. As Fidelity mentions multiple times in this paper, Bitcoin puts the focus on decentralization and security above all else. This means a slow-moving base layer, which is intentionally slow and not built to scale. Bitcoin was always meant to scale off-chain. <\/p>\n

\u201cOff chain\u201d refers to the placement of applications built on top of Bitcoin, utilizing the ledger of Bitcoin for record keeping and use of bitcoin, the currency in ways that do not require every transaction to be processed on the base layer as soon as it happens. The most successful iteration of Layer 2 applications to date is the Lightning Network, which only receives a small paragraph of focus in this paper, which you\u2019ll find below:<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

In the paper, Lightning is mentioned as a passerby in the conversation, yet it has led to El Salvador being able to adopt bitcoin<\/a> as legal tender because of its capacity to scale at a nation-state level. <\/p>\n

To claim scalability is an \u201cAchilles heel\u201d for Bitcoin is to question why gold was not capable of instant settlement on a global scale. The base layer of an asset must move slowly and securely, and systems are meant to be built on top of that base layer. <\/p>\n

Now, I\u2019m sure you\u2019re wondering why the text in the above picture was highlighted? After discussing scalability and the iterations of Bitcoin that spawned due to hard forks focused on changing this scalability, the Fidelity report presents a Bitcoin versus Ethereum comparison that discusses smart contracts. <\/p>\n

Ethereum Vs. Bitcoin<\/h2>\n

Below you will find a graphic showing the differences between Ethereum and Bitcoin. Note that in the previous picture referencing Lightning, the report authors stated that this Layer 2 application was \u201cbuilt using smart contract functionality.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

In this comparison, the Fidelity authors paint an inaccurate picture of whether the Bitcoin network can host smart contracts. Smart contracts have always been on Bitcoin<\/a>, they\u2019ve just been more limited than those on other platforms. Typically, protocols like Ethereum use the terminology of \u201cTuring-complete\u201d smart contracts. This means the code can simulate a Turing machine and is considered computationally more expressive, allowing for grander use cases. <\/p>\n

Taproot<\/a>, a protocol upgrade from last year, allows for more expansive use of smart contracts on Bitcoin. It does not<\/em> enable the use of smart contracts, because smart contracts already existed on Bitcoin. This is a consistent misnomer in understanding Bitcoin, as many people think that smart contracts are not, or were not possible, until Taproot. In actuality, Taproot further expanded existing applications. <\/p>\n

It may seem like the intention in highlighting this is to simply show where the Fidelity authors are wrong, but that\u2019s not the case because they got a lot right in this paper, which is primarily focused on institutional adoption. The material of this report can certainly drive the narrative Fidelity wants to achieve. <\/p>\n

But let\u2019s go over one last, crucial component necessary to understanding Bitcoin. <\/p>\n

Bitcoin\u2019s Purpose<\/h2>\n

As mentioned earlier, Fidelity sees the primary reason for creation and technological innovation as a monetary good. As a financial services company, this perspective makes sense, and is demonstrated by the below excerpt:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe first-mover advantage [of Bitcoin] led to a lack of true competition for bitcoin\u2019s primary use case as a monetary asset and a store of value and creates a drastically different return profile for bitcoin investors.\u201d <\/p>\n

The primary use case is not as a monetary asset and it is worth noting that, upon its creation, there was no value to speak of that allowed for a store-of-value use case. Bitcoin\u2019s true primary use case is as a tool for protest. Demonstrating this in the genesis block, the first block mined on Bitcoin, this text is etched in digital stone<\/a>: \u201cThe Times 03\/Jan\/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bitcoin is a direct response to the financial crisis of 2008 and the inability of our centralized systems to take proper action. Bitcoin is an opt-out monetary good that allows the user to exit the nation-state system and take sovereignty of their own wealth. It is a voice against wrongful and misguided authority and the embodiment of protest. <\/p>\n

What Can We Conclude From Fidelity\u2019s Take On Bitcoin?<\/h2>\n
\n

\u201cTraditional investors typically apply a technology investing framework to bitcoin, leading to the conclusion Bitcoin as a first-mover technology will easily be supplanted by a superior one or have lower returns. However, as we have argued here, bitcoin\u2019s first technological breakthrough was not as a superior payment technology but as a superior form of money.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2013Fidelity<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In this report, Fidelity got a lot of things right: bitcoin being considered separate from crypto, the Lindy effect<\/a> showing that Bitcoin grows stronger by the day, the network\u2019s enforceable scarcity as a highlight, why Bitcoin can\u2019t be supplanted, struggles Bitcoin has endured, presenting bitcoin as a starting point for digital portfolios and the risks associated. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s clear that Fidelity meant for this report to target institutional buy-in, so it makes sense that it would tailor the narrative to one that entices long-term investment strategies built on the continued success of this new monetary good. But that does not mean that we should not, at all times, be vigilant and purposeful around the proper guidance of what Bitcoin is, and what it is truly capable of.<\/p>\n

This is a guest post by Shawn Amick. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or <\/em>Bitcoin Magazine.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A recent report from financial services giant Fidelity captures Bitcoin as an asset class of its own, but fails to recognize its true potential.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2785,"featured_media":2731,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[80,422,293,1752,312,460,116,705],"class_list":["post-11373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-markets","tag-crypto","tag-feature","tag-fidelity","tag-genesis-block","tag-institutions","tag-lightning-network","tag-satoshi-nakamoto","tag-scaling"],"author_data":{"id":2785,"name":"Shawn Amick","nicename":"shawn-amick","avatar_url":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/MjEwMTYzMzc3Njg5ODYzNjQ2-96x96.webp"},"featured_image_url":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/investor-focus-misdirects-fidelity-bitcoin-first-report.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11373","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2785"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11373"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11373\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2731"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}