# Macro Decoded: Interest Rates, Liquidity and Digital Asset Allocation | EBC12 - Channel: [European Blockchain Convention](https://streameth.org/european-blockchain-convention) - Date: 2026-10-05 - Duration: 28:40 - Topics: European Blockchain Convention, ebcTALKS, Blockchain, DLT, Self Sovereign Identity, Science & Technology - Watch: https://streameth.org/watch/yt-b2WKiQmf7E8 - YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2WKiQmf7E8 ## Description Panel: Macro Decoded: Interest Rates, Liquidity and Digital Asset Allocation Speakers: - Otto Jacobsson | YAP - Vladimir Gorshkov | State Street - Anna Dinescu | Hilbert Capital - Radoslav Poljasevic | LO:TECH 🚀 Next stop: DAFNY – Digital Assets Forum New York - November 13th, 2026 https://eblockchainconvention.com/digital-assets-forum-new-york/ Connect with us: European Blockchain Convention - X (Twitter): https://x.com/EBlockchainCon - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/european-blockchain-convention - Telegram: https://t.me/EuropeanBlockchainConvention/1 Digital Assets Forum - X (Twitter): https://x.com/DAF_Global - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/digital-assets-forum/ ## Transcript Thank you very much, and thank you for being with us on what is probably the most interesting panel today, and maybe yesterday too. So, as mentioned, I'm Otto Jacobson, CEO of Yak Global, a leading PR Yak Global, a leading PR firm working with clients in the digital asset and AI space around the world. But enough about me, I would like my panelists to briefly introduce themselves and tell us what they do in their businesses. Um, of course, yes, I'm Vlad Gorshkov from State Street Investment Management. I am part of our internal think tank that studies everything from politics and economics to asset allocation. Perfectly. I am Anna Dinulescu. I am one of the managing partners of Hilbert Capital. We are a Nasdaq-listed asset management company specializing in systematic algorithmic trading strategies for Bitcoin, primarily income-generating strategies. Hello, my name is Rad Polyaevsky. I work at Lotech. We deal in high-frequency trading (HFT) and data. Perfectly. Thank you very much. Well , the obvious question: yesterday the FOMC meeting took place, at which the decision to raise the rate was made. Can I get your immediate reaction to this immediate reaction to this , maybe starting with Anna? I think this was already factored into the prices. Everyone expected the Fed to raise rates. According to statistics, the probability of this was slightly more than 50%. It can be said that nothing really happened regarding the price of Bitcoin. As for stocks, they fell by 1%, but have now returned to their previous values. I think this is more of a positive point; If the rate was not raised, it would have negative consequences, and I know they said they wouldn't make any predictions make any predictions . Walsh doesn't make predictions, but other committee members did, saying another raise would follow. So, in the long run, this is very good. In the short term, it's the short term, it's obviously a liquidity constraint in the market, but in the long term, it's but in the long term, it's reflected in the 10-year bond yield, which is the most important indicator for the markets, and it's very good for Bitcoin. Of course. Yes, actually, I can't disagree. I think yesterday's raise was a test of confidence. Short and clear. This was a test of trust for two reasons. First, the Fed did the exact opposite of what the White House boss demanded of it. Yes. Especially considering that Kevin Walsh was probably hired with the expectation that he would ease monetary policy. So the Fed did this at the worst possible time. And the second reason is actually more interesting. I think, if you look at the economic indicators economic indicators , the increase was not necessary. The data was such that in such that in any other month the right decision would probably have been to abstain. In the end, it was about trust, and that's important. After all, if markets stop believing that the Fed is serious about inflation, financial conditions will tighten on their own , more than expected, and it will be much harder to reverse in the future. So for all of us looking at this asset class, this means no immediate liquidity benefit. I mean, macroeconomics has been a drag on this asset class all year. Yes. Good. So nothing is expected in the near future, but we have reduced the risk that there will be a permanent negative factor for this asset class. This did not happen, but clouds were already gathering on the horizon. Since the raise was not mandatory, we are in for another one. Again , this is a step to maintain trust, but by 2027, our forecast is that both of these decisions will be reversed. Perfectly. Thank you. Brede. I don't 100% agree with what you just said. I believe the raise was necessary. Given the level of inflation and the oil situation. This increase was necessary. I think there will be more. You can't sustain 4% can't sustain 4% inflation in the US. This is simply unsustainable simply unsustainable , especially given the availability of goods. This was the main reason he was elected, because Biden was overheating the economy was overheating the economy . Prices have gone up and now diesel costs $6. Oh, we have a difference of opinion on the panel. That's good. Let's maintain this tension, positive tension. But let's talk about Bitcoin. After all, we had the European Blockchain Conference Blockchain Conference , and Bitcoin is the largest cryptocurrency and the largest digital asset. So, pricing models, right? In short: liquidity weakens, and it grows. But the money supply has increased, say, by more than 12%, and the price of Bitcoin has fallen. So how should we feel about this pricing model? Is it broken or just temporarily unbalanced? Maybe Anna, you have a perspective on this? Yes, yes, I will answer. Um, I mean, when people think about the correlation between Bitcoin and liquidity or, let's say, M2, it's an indicator of the available money supply. People tend to think that this is a direct correlation. And to some extent this is true, but the money supply or liquidity itself is divided into two parts. It can be in two places. So, there is the real economy, and there is the financial economy. So money cannot be in the same place in two places at the same time. They must flow from one place to another. So what happened, and it's visible in the indicators, was that there was a peak in September when money was in the financial economy financial economy . They started leaking in September. And that's another point that I'll leave to you for later. One of the triggers for this, or an indicator of this this, or an indicator of this , is AI and how many hyperscalers have taken a lot of this liquidity out of the market. So, if money has now moved into the real economy, it's not good for Bitcoin. That's why we say there's been a breakout, or that things didn't go as expected, because it's not reflected in the financial economics financial economics , which is a very bullish indicator for Bitcoin. Um, I'll leave the part about hyperscalers to you. Please, of course. Yes, I think you hit the mark, right? You know, we've seen, for example, in long-term bond issuance volumes, that hyperscalers, Nvidia, or companies in general used to be such a small share compared to the Treasury bond market. We are talking about 5-6%. Since the beginning of the year—over 40 the beginning of the year—over 40 %. Mhm. So, the huge amount of money that these companies are demanding to build our data centers is staggering. And if you look at why Bitcoin doesn't follow this trend, the question is where does the margin dollar always go, right? You have all these investment- friendly companies like Google and so on, and they're willing to give you 6% on their debt, so you take it. Compared to Bitcoin, which is unfortunately currently showing a year-long decline, where will the money flow? In the class of assets that outperform , and Bitcoin, unfortunately, is not one of them right now, and there are no immediate growth catalysts either. Well, we have risk-free assets that offer what, 4.5, 5% today what, 4.5, 5% today ? Yeah, I mean, why take something that bounces like a basketball? Yes, indeed, a valid observation. And maybe we can change the subject maybe we can change the subject . This is a risk-free asset that has a new type of buyer. Let's talk about stablecoins and their distribution, because we have very fragile bond markets that put a lot of pressure on policy, frankly, in Europe and certainly elsewhere. But yeah, let's talk about the "Genius Act." It was successful last year, and we have a new group of buyers of short-term Treasury bonds. But, Vlad, what do you think? Will they become a significant part of this group? Could they actually cause real financial instability in the Treasury bond market? Well, that's a very difficult question. I think you've put them all together. So to start, let me answer the first part: why are we even talking about stablecoin issuers and treasury markets? And because one of the things the Genius Act did was essentially force stablecoin issuers, if they want to distribute stablecoins in the US, to hold their reserves in US government Treasury bills. Namely, with a maturity of 90 days or less. The US government bond market is huge right now. That's about 30 trillion dollars. But the share of Treasury bills is much smaller, about 7 trillion. And the market for bills with a maturity of 90 days or less is even smaller, somewhere between two and three trillion. So even today, with the stablecoin capitalization that we have, Tether holds about three to about three to four percent of US Treasury bills in this maturity segment. Therefore, one can imagine a scenario where the market capitalization of stablecoins grows stablecoins grows and usage increases. These concentrations are increasing. And then a certain event happens. It's hard to say what exactly, but maybe a cyberattack, maybe some kind of terrorist act. Something that undermines trust in either the stablecoin issuer, or stablecoins as an asset class, or the financial system as a whole. So what we have is a foray into stablecoins. Now, if you look at this from the issuer's perspective, there is a problem. Because if the only way to get liquidity for redemption is to sell Treasury bills. Stablecoin issuers, by their nature, do not have access to the Fed. They have no other assets on their balance sheet against which they could borrow. Gold? Ahem? Gold? Well, maybe a little. But they... They seem to hold 10% in precious metals precious metals . Okay, at least Tether. Yes, that's right. So, okay. There is a small buffer, but still, it's... In your opinion, in real life everything is exactly that clear. But if the buyouts are large enough, they become forced sellers in a relatively small market. Here is such a mechanism. How this will actually happen is, of course, uncertain. There is a small buffer. I find it hard to believe that the Fed will sit idly by if the Treasury market freezes in the very short term . They will likely intervene in the market just as they supported the money market fund market when it froze. Therefore, structurally this database appears incomplete. In other words, looking at the regulatory landscape and the industry landscape, it seems that either stablecoins will remain a niche, loosely regulated asset located on the periphery of the financial system, or they will become larger, systemic, and be brought into the regulatory arena. Yes. And at the same time, they will become much more strictly regulated, closer to... It seems that Anna wants to get involved. In short: why are stablecoins important? Last year, at the beginning of the year, I was on a panel and said that if there's one thing that 2025 will be remembered for 2025 will be remembered for , it's stablecoins, and I was right. I think we're talking about Trump and what he wanted. He wanted a weak dollar. He wanted to prevent dedollarization, and stablecoins helped with that. So helped with that. So , the United States has adopted this from a regulatory perspective through the Clarity Act. Clarity didn't pass this time didn't pass this time . This would be very good for stablecoins, I guess, but it's a way for Trump to achieve his goals. The European Union, unfortunately, is a bit behind in these matters, but the United States has proven that this model works, it is more receptive, and it seems receptive, and it seems that stablecoins are perhaps the most stable element in the blockchain system. Yes, but the European market, the euro market, is even smaller than the Treasury bond market. So, will we have a euro stablecoin of any significant volume, built on the same issuance model? Uh, no, actually, probably not. In fact, I think the rules actually stipulate: if you issue a stablecoin denominated in euros, you have to keep the majority of your reserves on deposit in the European banking system. So, the model should look different. Yes. Yes, I mean it's by design. They don't seem to want European stablecoins to be backed by treasury bills, do they? And they were just taking capital out of the EU, right? So no, it's built into the concept itself, which will be the problem. Yes, I agree. They are going to Why is this a problem? Well, the problem in general is that cryptocurrency is dollarized. If you look at you look at any trading pairs, they are always with the dollar they are always with the dollar . I mean, the global economy in general is very heavily dollarized. That's why goods are paid for in dollars, not in yen or anything else. And crypto is dollarized. Why should people buy a euro stablecoin? Just Well , I think the European economy is quite large. So, I mean, actually, if we consider that But still, we trade oil in dollars. Do you understand what I mean? I'm not against it. This is simply a statement of the fact that the main means of support is dollars. Yes. No, I mean, from my perspective, if we think that the volume of European on-chain assets is going to grow, they need some kind of settlement. Whether it's a stablecoin, CBDC, or tokenized deposit. It's just that the market deposit. It's just that the market available for euro-denominated stablecoins is not nearly as large. I, for one, see CBDCs as being much more successful than anything that current stablecoin issuers are creating. Interesting. Yes. So let's talk about institutional allocation of funds to this area. Annie, you are in a rather interesting position. You have publicly announced that you have received a significant investment from a sovereign wealth fund. You didn't name the investor, but can you talk about this process and what it was like ? And if you want to share the name, you know, here on the EBC stage, please do. I can't name the name, but it's a Middle Eastern sovereign wealth fund, and fortunately, we're looking at a second fund investing in us in the near future. So we are, of course, very, very happy about this. I'll put it this way: As far as institutional investors are concerned, you asked what the process is for investing in or gaining access to digital assets . Well, institutional investors are very different from family offices or private equity. And all because they adhere to a certain Maslow's pyramid of needs. So for them, let's say the foundation would be security, and you move up the pyramid, and at the top is probably research. It's more about how and why they should invest. So you have to take all the points into account, dot all the i's so that they can invest. In our case, it was very, let's say, easy because we are listed on Nasdaq, and that provides the regulatory oversight they are looking for. You start with this. They want to know that you have all the necessary policies in place. Then they look at compliance. They want to make sure that everything regarding reputation checks, personnel—everything is acceptable. And, of course, they look at trading and risk management. So the process was long for us. Probably a little over 6 months, or about 7-8 months. And I can definitely say that it is not suitable for every asset manager or investment manager. This is also, I mean, politics on the one hand, and opportunities on the other. These people have checks for 50 million. If your capacity is 30 million, then you shouldn't even start a conversation with such investors. So we What is the minimum threshold? What is the minimum investment size they make? The minimum for us? No, no, for the type of investors you're talking about. Uh, probably the minimum is about Uh, probably the minimum is about 10 million 10 million , but the average check is 50 million. And they don't want to make up more than 20% of your portfolio. So, scalability is also very important . It's not just about meeting all the compliance and security requirements, but also how it fits into their portfolio and how much power there is to scale this strategy. So this is a positive signal. It's a good story, and we clearly see that there's more to come . what we want to see. But in general, perhaps I will give the floor to the Council or the Government, if you want to join in. Do you know, after all, whether these very large institutional traditional investors are allocating any significant funds to digital assets? Well, I guess not yet, to be honest not yet, to be honest , right? And I think that small portions of capital are coming into the market now. And, of course, these are significant amounts. I...But if we look at institutional capital, for example, there are municipal councils in Britain that write checks for 50–100 million to fixed income funds. Councils in the UK are simply local authorities. Nevertheless, it is a sign of confidence, and in the long run, in an ideal world, we will gain more and more market support. So prices will rise in the long run, but to get there we need some kind of catalyst. Right now, " catalyst. Right now, " hot" money is going into artificial intelligence and stocks. You can see stocks. You can see that even all managed funds are shrinking because everyone is simply following the trends of what is currently popular. ETFs. And the cryptocurrency is currently showing an annual decline. But we have crypto ETFs But we have crypto ETFs . Can't they buy them? And that's the only thing that's been growing all last year, right last year, right ? But it's only been 2 years But it's only been 2 years since we had institutional systems for accepting ETFs. We need to give Bitcoin more time and for institutions in general to get into the game. It's just too early. The market is simply immature. Good. Is there anything we can do to speed up this process? I understand, I understand. We need to be patient. But what can we do to speed up the process? Well, I mean, there has to be a certain concept, right? For example, the Claridge Act could be such a catalyst. Now, with the midterm elections in November, it's next year's business, really. I...I mean, maybe I'm being too pessimistic, and I do n't want to be pessimistic at all , because this asset class is great, and it's the future of finance. Other Yes. Another catalyst, sorry to interrupt, would be a return to my thesis about liquidity from the real economy to the financial economy. And this will happen sooner or later. It will start to return to the financial economy, and this will be another push, another catalyst for the regulatory sphere. M-hm. Yes, what Em meant was that the law of clarity is important to this discussion, perhaps in more ways than it seems at first glance. Um, because if you're an institutional investor, a more traditional institutional investor, and you have a long planning horizon, um, you want to have legal certainty about what exactly you're buying. Um, I mean, we know that the US administration is very supportive of cryptocurrencies. We know that the SEC is going to, you know, regulate the industry in a way industry in a way that will promote its development over the next 2 years. Beyond that, you know, that's probably enough, you know, it's probably going to continue. In the US, there is enough bipartisan support for the digital economy to continue to support the sector. But we don't know exactly what it will look like. And that, that, that's the problem: if you, if your investment horizon is strategic, not tactical, then you need this legal certainty. Yes, I agree with that. So looking ahead to next year, which is 2027, we don't have a presidential election in the US yet. We don't have, you know, midterm elections, so what do you think will happen in the next 12 months, or rather in 2027, that could be a very positive catalyst for the market? Is this another easing of monetary policy? Um, for me it's clarity. I mean, I think many people were hoping it would be passed now. Um, it's highly unlikely Um, it's highly unlikely that this will move during the lame duck session before the new Congress takes office, but once it gets going, I think it will be one of the first items on the agenda. Now, I mean, this is one of the few areas of US politics where there is quite a bit of overlap between the two parties in terms of support. I also think the comments about why it wasn't passed were ethical: they didn't want to do it before the midterm elections because it would have been a political victory for Trump. So, that's why he didn't pass. I completely agree. It will be approved. Just not until the midterm elections. Even if the Democrats take the House of Representatives House of Representatives , say? Yes, even to an even greater extent. I mean, I think Democrats as a party are not against it. This is more of a matter of political negotiations. Why should you settle for something relatively weak now when you know you will be in a much stronger negotiating position in the future? As for the next, you know, administration, even if it's not Republican, we have n't moved forward structurally in the United States. But maybe we will see something positive here in Barcelona, ​​in Europe. We seem to have ruled out the emergence of a significant euro stablecoin . I was saying the same thing until yesterday, Patrick, on Robert Money's panel. He mentioned the Europeay stablecoin. Europeay, do you know about him? No. Okay, me neither. I had not heard of him or known about him. Apparently they are regulated by MiCA, of course. This is perhaps the only stablecoin in Europe that has a chance of mass adoption. So, I don't know. We'll see. I mean, if I'm not mistaken, there are probably three or four of them now. There is even a Swiss one, and soon there will be two Swiss ones, I think there will soon be a pound one too will soon be a pound one too . So, everyone is trying to do it, but the largest euro stablecoin has about 700 million in assets. Well, I do n't even want to call it assets, but there's about 700 million locked up there. So not quite. Yes. Yes, yes, they appear. It's just that the use of these stablecoins is quite limited. So I don't see, or rather I have a hard time imagining, how this will grow into a much larger market. Oh, that's fair. Okay, well, uh...We'll just have to wait and hope that inflation and stuff improves and we'll have a better picture. By the way, I am sincerely interested in what the EU is doing in the area of ​​wholesale CBDCs. They are working on a retail version that will be available relatively soon. Although I personally question its economic value, other than as a public good in the form of a financial infrastructure that is purely European. Well, on the wholesale side, it's a much slower project. But here Europe is actually in a much better position. Because the US has actually bet on the stablecoin model. Um, if we're talking about institutional implementation of on-chain implementation of on-chain cash, yes. Um, institutions really don't like counterparty risk. This is really a problem for them. So, you know, given the choice between using a stablecoin for transactions and central bank money, they will choose central bank money. So, even if you look at it on a global scale global scale , and if you are among those skeptics that Europe is even capable of anything on a global level. Um, this is actually one of those areas where the eurozone can step into a global role with something that really adds value. So that 's one positive thing we could hope for in the near future. Annie, do you see any optimistic scenarios? What could be a miracle for the market be a miracle for the market ? I feel like I'm, you know I feel like I'm, you know , in the same interview. Where do you see yourself in a year? Something like this. Um, listen, going back to what happened before, how would you phrase this? Ahem. To be honest, I see growth. In 12 months we will be in the black. I am not selling my cryptocurrency. Everything will be fine. Are you buying more? Um, sometimes, yes. Yes. I'll say this. Regarding institutions, I agree with you that they are not very eager to enter this space right now. But, um space right now. But, um , if you look at the growth of Hyperliquid, an exchange where you tokenize common stocks, you'll realize they're coming along soon. And I have one of the largest investors, it's a very reputable hedge reputable hedge fund, a traditional hedge fund with assets of over 40 billion. They are already in business. So , many of these institutions have already started their journey towards adopting and embracing this type of asset—whether it's tokenized assets or whatever, and it will be related to stablecoins. This means that this, you know means that this, you know , is becoming a reality. Mhm. Yes, definitely. Any farewell thoughts? Of course. I truly believe that this sector has been the only innovator we have seen in the last 15 years in finance. 24/7 trading was not the norm before. Now everyone does it. Even prediction markets are really changing the rules of the game from what they used to be. So yes. Well, great. That's it. Here is finally the positive note we needed. There is a lot of innovation happening. The situation can only improve from now on. More allocations from institutional investors. And you know, it seems, the Bank of England's rate decision today. So maybe the " rate decision today. So maybe the " old lady" of Threadneedle Street will save us. Thank you very much . Can we have a round of applause for our panelists ? Thank you. Thank you.