Welcome to our institutional newsletter, Crypto Long & Short. This week:
- Dovile Silenskyte provides an alternative to the “bitcoin as a risk asset” narrative.
- Joshua de Vos shares insights and analysis on global exchanges.
- Top headlines institutions should pay attention to by Francisco Rodrigues.
- CoinDesk 80 Leads as Crypto Outperforms Across Asset Classes in Chart of the Week.
Thanks for joining us!
Expert Insights
Bitcoin vs. gold: 26% relative undervaluation
By Dovile Silenskyte, director of digital assets research, WisdomTree
For years, markets have struggled to classify bitcoin. Currently, the dominant media narrative tends to treat bitcoin as a high-beta expression of investor risk appetite: rising when liquidity is abundant and falling when markets turn defensive.
That framing increasingly misses the bigger structural shift underway.
Bitcoin is evolving into a monetary asset competing for the same macro allocation bucket as gold. Both bitcoin and gold:
- Sit outside the traditional fiat system.
- Respond to inflation expectations, real yields and confidence in sovereign currencies.
- Attract investors looking for scarce and politically neutral stores of value.
The difference is that gold represents monetary defensiveness while bitcoin represents monetary expansion. This distinction changes how bitcoin should be analyzed.
Rather than evaluating bitcoin through an equity or risk-asset framework, we believe the cleaner analytical lens is bitcoin versus gold. The key question is not whether bitcoin will rise in absolute terms, but whether its monetary premium relative to gold is too low or too high given the prevailing macro backdrop.
Our Bitcoin in Gold (BiG) model attempts to answer precisely that question. As of March 31, 2026:
- Actual bitcoin/gold ratio: 15.6
- Model fair value: 21.1
That gap implies bitcoin is 26% undervalued relative to gold.
Figure 1: The actual bitcoin/gold ratio is sitting clearly below model estimate
Source: WisdomTree, Stooq. From December 31, 2013 to March 31, 2026. Historical performance is not an indication of future performance, and any investment may go down in value.
This gap is not abstract. It reflects current macro inputs embedded in the model. Specifically, bitcoin reacts more aggressively than gold to macro shifts:
- Falling real yields / easier liquidity: bitcoin outperforms.
- Stronger USD / risk-off: gold outperforms.
- Rising inflation expectations: typically supports gold first.
Today’s mix implies a higher bitcoin/gold ratio than observed.
As of March 31, 2026, the model assigns the highest probability for the following three macro scenarios over the coming 12 months, and each of them leads to different outcomes:
- Current: no shock; gradual convergence to fair value.
- Inflation shock: gold leads initially; bitcoin catches up later.
- Risk-off: stronger USD; gold outperforms.
Figure 2: Scenario paths for the bitcoin/gold ratio
Source: WisdomTree. April 7, 2026. Model assumes that macro scenario starts on April 1, 2026 and continues for the next 12-month. Forecasts are not an indication of future performance and any investments are subject to risks and uncertainties.
For investors, there are three practical applications of the BiG model:
- Relative value trade: long bitcoin and short gold is one potential implementation approach.
- Allocation tilt: if holding both, increase bitcoin weight when the gap is wide.
- Macro overlay: combine with real yields, dollar trend and liquidity indicators.
The BiG model is a positioning tool. The edge comes from systematically leaning into dislocations when they are wide and scaling back as they compress. The discipline is straightforward: track the gap, anchor decisions in the macro context and avoid overfitting short-term price moves.
See further detail in Bitcoin vs gold: bitcoin looks 26% undervalued relative to gold blog.
Principled Perspectives
The centralized exchange market is pulling apart
By Joshua de Vos, research lead, CoinDesk Data
Centralized exchanges have long maintained that the industry has reached maturity. CoinDesk’s May 2026 Exchange Benchmark, which evaluates 75 spot exchanges against more than 100 metrics, provides a rigorous test of that assertion. The resulting data is encouraging in some areas and complex in others; most notably, it reveals a systemic vulnerability to market failures that persists even among top-tier venues.
The bar rises
The primary shift this cycle is methodological: the AA grading threshold was raised from 80 to 85, reflecting the higher institutional standards required as the benchmark evolves. Six exchanges met this new criteria: Bitstamp by Robinhood (90.26), Coinbase (88.58), Kraken (87.77), Binance (87.25), Bullish (86.99) and Crypto.com (86.22). For the first time in three years, Bitstamp leads the rankings, overtaking Binance. Meanwhile, Gemini and OKX moved from AA to A status. This reclassification was a direct consequence of the higher threshold rather than a decline in quality, as both exchanges actually improved their individual scores.
The Exchange Grade Distribution highlights a significant evolution over the last three cycles. The most notable change occurred at the bottom of the scale; the number of E-grade exchanges dropped from 11 in November 2025 to just four, with seven venues ascending to the D-tier. This represents the largest single-cycle grade shift in the benchmark’s history. The universe average score rose to 58.42, marking a third consecutive period of improvement, and the number of ‘Top-Tier’ exchanges (rated BB or higher) grew to 21 from 20 last cycle.
Volume concentrates at the top
Top-tier exchanges now command 59% of Q1 spot volume despite making up only 27% of rated venues; a sharp increase from 40% in October 2025. This trend aligns with a long-term pattern of institutional capital gravitating toward venues with verifiable infrastructure. Binance remains the dominant force with 24% of total spot volume, nearly four times that of its nearest competitor. Conversely, MEXC commands 6.25% of global volume but remains C-graded, illustrating a small yet visible disconnect between trading activity and institutional risk standards amongst trading long-tail assets.
October’s lesson
A critical finding this cycle involves the market-wide exchange failures on October 10th, which caused price dislocations across 62 of the 75 benchmarked exchanges and affected at least 571 trading pairs. The incidence of flash crashes was near-universal, impacting 81% of all rated exchanges, including 100% of AA-grade and 100% of B-grade venues. These results suggest that such market failures are systemic, rather than isolated to lower-tier platforms. To better track this, the benchmark has introduced a broader flash crash assessment to monitor venue resilience.
What the data still shows
Transparency continues to trend upward. Proof of Reserves coverage reached 63%, and due diligence questionnaire (DDQ) submissions hit an all-time high with 21 verified responses. However, the regulatory landscape remains fragmented. Despite MiCA being in effect since late 2024, only 16 of the 75 benchmarked exchanges hold a full license, and 66% have no regulatory presence in the EU at all. Notably, HitBTC, Thalex and Woo have yet to establish a regulatory footprint in any jurisdiction.
Looking ahead, the November 2026 cycle opens for exchange submissions in October. As institutional allocation into digital assets deepens and scrutiny from counterparties increases, the cost of operating outside institutional risk frameworks is only rising. The benchmark plays a central role in making that cost visible.
Headlines of the Week
– By Francisco Rodrigues
This week’s headlines show a fresh wave of capital flowing into crypto infrastructure as banks, asset managers and tokenization platforms race to build the rails for institutional adoption. That’s even as one of the sector’s largest bitcoin holders flags potential selling pressure.
- Circle raises $222 million for Arc, beats Q1 earnings estimates but misses on revenue: The USDC issuer closed the round at a $3 billion valuation for its Arc blockchain token, with backing from BlackRock, Apollo and Bullish, alongside Q1 results that topped earnings expectations but came in light on the top line.
- Ripple raises $200 million from Neuberger Berman to expand its Ripple Prime platform: The new facility will fund the buildout of an institutional prime-brokerage offering, addressing rising demand for margin financing and trading services that span both traditional and digital asset markets.
- Morgan Stanley brings crypto trading with lower fees than rivals: The bank is rolling out spot crypto on E*Trade at a 50-basis-point transaction fee, undercutting Coinbase, Robinhood and Charles Schwab while giving its wealth clients a bank-run route into the asset class.
- Crypto platform Bullish to buy Equiniti for $4.2 billion, building tokenized securities infrastructure: The deal adds regulated transfer-agent, shareholder-record and issuer-services capabilities to the exchange’s stack as it positions for tokenized securities, 24/7 trading and stablecoin-based settlement.
- Michael Saylor’s Strategy signals potential bitcoin sale to fund dividend obligations: After reporting a $12.54 billion Q1 loss, the company said it may sell BTC to meet dividend payments, refocusing attention on the leverage, financing costs and potential supply overhang tied to listed bitcoin-treasury firms.
Chart of the Week
CoinDesk 80 Leads as Crypto Outperforms Across Asset Classes
Bitcoin has gained 5.7% month-to-date, outpacing major asset classes including the S&P 500, gold and oil since the start of May 2026. This strength has filtered down the market-caps, with the CoinDesk 80 (CD80) up 15.32% MTD — significantly ahead of large caps — led by ZEC’s 57% rally. The divergence between CD80 and BTC, CD5 and CD20 (all clustered around 3 -5%) suggests momentum is rotating into smaller-cap altcoins as the broader crypto rally extends.
Listen. Read. Watch. Engage.
Looking for more? Receive the latest crypto news from coindesk.com and market updates from coindesk.com/institutions.
Note: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc., CoinDesk Indices or its owners and affiliates.
