When Wall Street giants replaced early believers, Bitcoin seemed to welcome a golden age. However, behind the power transfer in finance, there has been a subtle qualitative change in its core value. In the context of financialization, how will the future give birth to a more scarce and purer asset—'Native Bitcoin'? (Background: Deloitte survey: 99% of corporate CFOs will adopt cryptocurrencies in the long term, with stablecoins and Bitcoin receiving much attention) (Additional context: The selling pressure of tens of billions has not shaken Bitcoin, is BTC's next target soaring to $140,000?) When the market cheers for the exit of early Bitcoin whales, seeing it as a healthy signal of 'market maturity', I seem to see the familiar script of past capital markets playing out again: a carefully packaged transfer of power, quietly playing the essence of an old game in the name of 'mainstreaming'. Extended reading: He sold out! The ancient whale with 80,000 Bitcoins 'completely shipped' cashing out $9 billion, Galaxy celebrates its largest customer ever. Seeing news headlines shouting 'The guardians of the old era are being replaced by titans of the new era', Wall Street institutions and ETFs are like thirsty sharks, eagerly devouring the chips thrown by early believers, and cryptocurrency users and Wall Street are making various strange analytical claims that this is the arrival of a new era. On the surface, it appears to be a win-win feast, OG Bitcoiners have achieved astonishing financial freedom, while Bitcoin has gained a ticket to enter the global financial system, and the price seems to have a more solid support. However, as I peel away this layer of fog woven from liquidity and institutionalization, what I see is not a simple asset turnover but a profound value split, a conflict is unfolding between the Bitcoin network and the essence of commercial packaging. This seemingly healthy rotation is invisibly giving birth to an asset that is scarcer than Bitcoin itself and closer to its original ideal—'Native Bitcoin'. Wall Street's embrace may not be a coronation, but a dose of sweet poison. The dual universe of Bitcoin: 'Financial Bitcoin' vs 'Native Bitcoin'. Let's first establish a core understanding: The financialization of Bitcoin, the oft-heard '1 million dollars in 20xx', does not mean that all Bitcoins will have the same appreciation price in the future; it is merely a vaguely describable vision, behind which the actual real value levels may split at different tiers: The first split universe is 'Institutional BTC', these Bitcoins exist under Wall Street's game rules, they are held in ETFs' custodial wallets, traded on compliant exchanges, and every movement is subject to strict KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) scrutiny. They not only have a clear traceable history on-chain, like financial statements laid out in the sunlight, but among various institutions, their clients' data is even more sparse. For institutional investors, this type of Bitcoin is perfect—it is safe, compliant, and highly liquid. Its value is primarily reflected in its market price, a digital commodity that has been domesticated and included in regulatory frameworks. However, institutionalized Bitcoin is increasingly being packaged in ways such as financial derivatives, and in trading, it is gradually being detached from the original network. Institutional Bitcoin is heading towards the extreme of the centralization phenomenon that has occurred since Bitcoin was created, that is, a large number of trades will be replaced by off-chain exchanges, and the Bitcoin native network seems to have become a path limited to 'whale and institutional' trading. As the centralized network is gradually undermined, this may not be a healthy indicator. The second split universe is 'Native BTC', which I believe is where true scarcity lies in the future. 'Native' refers to those Bitcoins that have just been mined and have not gone through multiple circulations, like 'Virgin Bitcoin', or those with extremely simple transaction histories that have never been associated with any sanctioned addresses or high-risk platforms (like anonymous mixers) and high-volume custodial cold/hot addresses. They are like brand new banknotes that have not circulated, free from historical burdens. Their value is not only market price but more importantly their 'attribute value'—absolute privacy, strong anti-censorship ability, and the potential to flow freely outside the global regulatory network, and regardless of the regulatory audits of any exchange or country, they can flow globally as real value. OTC market verification. This value layering is not alarmist; it has long become a reality in the high-end over-the-counter (OTC) market. In fact, institutional buyers are willing to pay a 'Purity Premium' to purchase Bitcoins with clear provenance to ensure compliance, which is already a public fact. They hire on-chain analysis companies (like Chainalysis) to conduct 'asset due diligence', ensuring that the Bitcoins they buy are not 'tainted assets' from hacker attacks or dark web markets, while clean Bitcoins can save on this cost and are stacked to purchase pure Bitcoins at a premium, and exchanges may separate these clean Bitcoins for cold wallet custody to avoid contamination. This logic is similar to that of the art market. Both are Picasso paintings; one has a clear lineage and was once collected by the Rockefeller family; the other is of unknown provenance. Even if it is an authentic piece, its market value and acceptance will be greatly diminished because every subsequent holder must bear a huge endorsement cost for its background. The value of 'Native Bitcoin' is built upon this 'purity of source'. When one Bitcoin no longer equals one Bitcoin: fungibility is collapsing. Behind the value layering is a deeper crisis that directly points to the most fundamental attribute of currency—loss of fungibility. Fungibility means that each unit of currency should be identical and interchangeable. The hundred dollars in your pocket is equivalent to the hundred dollars in my pocket; you need not worry about who the previous holder of my bill was. This is the cornerstone for currency to circulate smoothly. However, Bitcoin's transparent ledger is leading it to face a silent collapse of fungibility. Since every transaction is permanently recorded on the blockchain, through increasingly advanced on-chain analysis technology, the 'past and present' of any Bitcoin can be traced. This creates a dangerous precedent: Bitcoin begins to be assigned 'identities' by various countries' regulations and KYC. When a Bitcoin has interacted with an address marked as illegal, it may be labeled as 'tainted'. Compliant exchanges may refuse to accept this Bitcoin, and users holding it may find their accounts frozen. In this case, one Bitcoin is clearly no longer equal to another Bitcoin. A 'clean' Bitcoin and a 'tainted' Bitcoin have vastly different purchasing power and liquidity. Some may argue that this only affects a very small number of funds involved in illegal activities. But this notion is overly naive. As global regulations tighten, the definition of 'taint' will only continue to expand. Today, an address involved in dark web transactions is tainted; tomorrow, interacting with a wallet that has not undergone KYC verification may become tainted; the day after tomorrow, any Bitcoin that has gone through privacy mixing protocols may be considered a 'high-risk asset'. The spread of this 'contamination' will ripple outward, and ultimately, only those Bitcoins with clear sources and simple histories, 'Native Bitcoins', will be regarded as absolute safe havens. The greatest price of Bitcoin being accepted by mainstream finance is precisely the sacrifice of its 'anonymity'. As it continues...