The Contradictory Voice of Bitcoin: Economists Question While Harvard Quietly Invests

[Coin World] Important figures from academia, Wall Street, and Washington are weighing the future of digital assets. As Bitcoin (BTC) and Crypto Assets continue to rise in mainstream finance, market sentiment is high.

Harvard University economics professor and former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Kenneth Rogoff admitted that he misestimated Bitcoin's trajectory about a decade ago. He predicted that this pioneering crypto asset was more likely to plummet to $100 rather than trade at $100,000. This Harvard economist also acknowledged that he did not realize how Bitcoin would compete with fiat currencies. Given the obvious conflicts of interest, he also failed to anticipate that regulators might brazenly hold crypto assets without apparent consequences. These remarks highlight the frustratingly slow and conflicted stance of Washington on regulatory matters.

Matt Hougan, the Chief Investment Officer of an asset management company, criticized Rogoff's viewpoint. He believes that Rogoff overlooks the biggest advantage of Bitcoin, which is decentralization. The executive stated that the power of this pioneering crypto asset comes from the people, not centralized institutions. For Hougan and other Bitcoin advocates, the resilience of this cryptocurrency proves that decentralized systems can thrive in areas where traditional economic models would expect failure.

Ironically, although Rogoff remains skeptical, the institution he is part of has quietly taken an important step into the crypto assets market. Two weeks ago, Harvard University disclosed a $116.6 million investment in a company's Bitcoin ETF, marking its fifth largest single position, even surpassing Alphabet. As this ETF is Harvard's only Web3 investment, it signifies the symbolic nature of this move. For a university where top economists question the role of Bitcoin, this investment reflects the widening gap between theoretical skepticism and financial reality.

At the same time, as cryptocurrency regulation in the United States is under scrutiny, Michelle W. Bowman, the Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Board responsible for oversight, delivered a forward-looking speech at the 2025 Wyoming Blockchain Symposium. Bowman stated that blockchain technology represents a "huge transformation" in the financial sector, comparable to industrialization or the internet. Based on this, she urged regulators to strike a balance between caution and innovation. She called for regulators to engage practically and even suggested direct engagement with digital assets, indicating her willingness to rethink outdated approaches and avoid regulatory inertia.

The exchange between Rogoff and Hougan, coupled with Bowman's regulatory stance and Harvard's allocation, captures the contradictions in the rise of Crypto Assets. While policymakers continue to grapple with risks, economists warn of systemic distortions. However, Wall Street and elite institutions are ramping up their investments in BTC. The resilience of BTC seems to confirm Hougan's point that decentralization has proven to be stronger than expected. Yet, the real test may lie in whether regulators, scholars, and institutions can reach a consensus on the rules that will shape the next chapter of digital finance, rather than stifling it.