I just saw a very interesting viewpoint being discussed at Consensus 2026—about what ultimately determines the price of Bitcoin. A veteran market observer suggested that rather than focusing on how important regulation is, liquidity is the real deciding factor. This claim is actually worth thinking about in depth.

His logic goes like this: Bitcoin’s value essentially depends on only two things—technological reliability and fiat currency liquidity. Among these two, liquidity is truly the force that drives the price. Look back at history and you can see it: from the quantitative easing of the Obama era, to the “helicopter money” in Trump’s first term, and then to the roughly $2.5 trillion of reverse repo funds released during Yellen’s tenure by the Treasury swapping long-term bonds for short-term bonds—each round of monetary expansion precisely corresponded to a major surge in Bitcoin’s price. This is not a coincidence.

In contrast, what has been happening over the past year or so makes the point even clearer. The Trump administration did sign crypto-related legislation and released clearer regulatory signals, but the price of Bitcoin still fell by about 25%. If regulation could directly push prices higher, how would you explain this? So the conclusion is—this so-called “regulatory bonus” is not the driving force behind price at all.

He also mentioned an interesting perspective: before, the Trump family had experienced bank freezes of accounts, assets being frozen, and a slew of lawsuits. Those experiences are what led them to understand the true value of Bitcoin as an asset that isn’t controlled by the state. That’s also why some people’s views on Bitcoin can change completely.

But the last thing he said carried particular depth of meaning—if Bitcoin ultimately ends up as just another derivative on a bank’s balance sheet, then it loses its true significance. This raises a deeper question: what exactly should Bitcoin be?