A top-tier investment bank advisor shared a often-overlooked perspective on the Bitcoin market on social media. Why is Morgan Stanley's launch of a Bitcoin ETF considered an "epic positive"? The key points are—

First, this reflects that the market size far exceeds the estimates of crypto industry professionals, especially in terms of attracting mainstream investors. That ETF product becoming the fastest fund to surpass $80 billion in AUM ever sounds impressive, but Morgan Stanley internally believes there is still a large amount of genuine, unmet demand in the market. This sends a clear signal: we are still in the very early stages.

Behind this phenomenon lies a profound industry-level shift. Competition among traditional financial giants has evolved from simply competing over products to vying for "social narrative consensus." Some communities have actually been exploring this path for years—building social credibility through more decentralized and practical approaches.

The differences are reflected in three dimensions:

First, the source of brand value differs. Giants gain brand benefits by associating with popular assets. Meanwhile, community brands and credibility stem from continuously taking real actions to solve genuine social issues. The brand itself is a source of value creation, not just a byproduct.

Second, the objects of investment differ. Morgan Stanley bets on Bitcoin's social importance to bring a brand halo. The community's "All In" is on real social improvement actions—such as promoting global free education platforms. This kind of "return" directly enhances social utility, carrying more weight than any narrative.

Third, the definition of "hit product" is completely different. For investment banks, an ETF becoming a trading phenomenon is a success. For communities, a "hit product" is an infrastructure that connects crypto capital with global education and public welfare—an indispensable, trustworthy foundation. What we seek is not trading volume hype, but the accumulation of trust and utility.

This illustrates two completely different competitive strategies in the very early stage.