Pension funds generally allocate up to 5% of their portfolio to alternatives, which could be smaller funds investing in art, watches, music royalty rights, farmland, wine, and the likes. This also includes crypto.
If you're an investment manager, it isn't necessarily crazy to allocate 0.2 or 0.5% of your portfolio to crypto and try to capture some of those gains.
Even without perfect timing of the market, it's a pretty easy decision for a portfolio manager to look at this and say: "While, like any other asset, past performance isn't an indicator of future performance, given the price history and increasing trading volume over time, the risk/reward balance skews heavily in favor of putting at least some tiny bit of money into crypto for all but the most risk-averse."
The analysis presented is a bit disingenuous. If you put money into every thing that could pop 400x, you’d have no money. Pension funds in particular need to be conservative and even if they’re doing “risky” things like venture capital for example, they would want late stage funds — lower returns, lower risk.
Everyone is talking about what if scenarios where huge offshore money or sovereign wealth or whatever comes into Bitcoin YUGE. Well, ok, do you think that money is just parked somewhere or is actually invested somewhere in a productive business?
Most dollars which aren't spent on consumption are converted into equity in productive businesses. In this case, dollars are merely the unit of account. You aren't invested in dollars, you are invested in businesses that produce the things that people need and those investments are measured in dollars.
Like real-estate?
The problem with crypto-_currency_ is that it's not a productive asset. A share of a business pays dividends over time and thus has intrinsic value (and _some_ speculative value), while a currency does not. A currency transaction is a zero-sum game, which is good because it minimizes friction.
Buying cryptocurrency with the expectation of increases isn't investment, it's _speculation_.