In recent CNBC appearances and updates, Wood explicitly tied the revision to stablecoins “usurping part of the role we thought Bitcoin would play” in payments and as a dollar proxy in emerging markets.
The $1.2 million target still assumes Bitcoin captures substantial shares of gold’s market cap, strategic reserve allocation, and institutional adoption. The thesis was just moderated, it didn’t collapse.
But the stablecoin explanation doesn’t tell the whole story.
To understand why a lower, but still extraordinary, target makes sense now, it is necessary to connect three structural shifts: the explosive growth of on-chain dollars, the re-pricing of risk-free rates, and the maturation of Bitcoin’s institutional infrastructure through ETFs.
The aggregate stablecoin market capitalization stands at over $300 billion as of press time, with usage expanding across layer-2 networks and emerging market payment rails.
This is an operational infrastructure replacing correspondent banking and remittance networks.
Regulatory frameworks have accelerated adoption. MiCA in the EU, Hong Kong’s stablecoin regime, and the GENIUS Act in the US, along with active bank and fintech issuance plans, have transformed stablecoins from a regulatory gray area to a sanctioned infrastructure.
Major financial institutions are building stablecoin products not as crypto experiments but as core settlement layers.
Ark’s original $1.5 million path assumed that Bitcoin would dominate both the “digital gold” and the “better money for emerging markets” use cases.
However, the data now shows a massive share of that monetary function migrating to regulated stablecoins instead. Cutting the target by $300,000 is Ark acknowledging that Bitcoin’s total addressable market has contracted because its closest ally has eaten one of its roles.
Between April and May 2025, Treasury markets experienced significant volatility. The 10-year yield punched above 4.5%, the 30-year topped 5%, and term premia expanded sharply.
Drivers included persistent fiscal deficits, tariff uncertainty, signs of foreign buyer fatigue, and leveraged basis trades unwinding under stress. Liquidity thinned precisely when markets needed it most.
This matters for Bitcoin’s valuation story through three channels.
First, discount rate mathematics. Ark’s extreme targets conceptually rest on Bitcoin earning a substantial “monetary premium” compared to risk-free assets. A structurally higher term premium of 4% to 5% on the long end raises the hurdle for a zero-yield asset.
When T-bills accessed via stablecoins pay attractive yields and settle instantly on-chain, the relative upside needed to justify $1.5 million increases.
Second, the signal versus the story. If bond chaos had hardened into a true debasement crisis, surging inflation expectations, dollar flight, failed auctions, Ark could have argued for an even more extreme Bitcoin hedge.
Yet, the data cut both ways. Long-end yields spiked, yet inflation expectations remained contained, and subsequent months saw volatility cool as markets priced in Federal Reserve cuts and continued robust demand for US paper.
This backdrop undercuts the clean “bonds are broken, only BTC works” narrative.
Third, competition for safe yield. The combination of higher real yields and stablecoins absorbing T-bills while passing yield through various structures makes it easier for large allocators to park capital in tokenized dollars instead of moving fully out of the risk curve into Bitcoin.
On-chain Treasuries deliver yield, regulatory compliance, and instant settlement, making them a compelling alternative to a non-yielding monetary alternative.
The bond turmoil reinforces the logic of recognizing stablecoins and on-chain government debt as serious competitors to Bitcoin’s non-sovereign savings role. But it’s context, not cause.
Conversely, net inflows generate mechanical buy demand that can dwarf daily issuance. The 2025 bond shocks and rate swings were reflected directly in ETF flows: during stress windows, several-day runs of net redemptions materialized as macro funds de-risked and retail investors cooled.
Wood’s revised target implicitly acknowledges this more mature structure. Bitcoin is no longer purely a reflexive high-beta debasement bet.
It’s an asset increasingly dominated by regulated vehicles whose flows correlate with rates, volatility, and equity risk, not just crypto narratives.
That trims the upside tail without killing the thesis.
As a result, the $300,000 cut makes sense when you layer the structural changes. Stablecoins directly eat into the “Bitcoin as everyday money and emerging market escape hatch” segment while deepening on-chain dollar liquidity and absorbing Treasury bills.
That’s a direct hit to Ark’s earlier total addressable market assumptions.
Bond markets and term premiums raise the bar for non-yielding assets, demonstrating that not every yield spike signals an imminent collapse of the fiat system.
