A recent investment bank research report has caused a stir in the community, with core insights that sound almost too simple: institutions are pouring money into the crypto market, and the truly decisive factor is not the price fluctuations, but whether regulatory policies are clearly communicated.

Imagine large asset management firms managing trillions of dollars; the fundamental reason they haven't dared to enter the crypto space on a large scale is uncertainty. Risks like the Grayscale fund investigation or the Luna project collapse are essentially due to unclear policy rules beforehand, forcing institutions to bear additional risks.

The report states very plainly: the importance of policy clarity has surpassed technological progress and far exceeds price expectations. In other words, instead of obsessing over Bitcoin and Ethereum candlestick charts, it’s more important to pay attention to the SEC’s qualitative stance on ETH, the speed of exchange license approvals, and similar factors.

This phenomenon can be easily understood through analogy. Previously, institutional participation in the crypto market was like playing jump rope; every step had to be cautious, only daring to step on the most stable two bricks (Bitcoin and Ethereum), while watching retail investors frantically participate in new blockchains and DeFi ecosystems but maintaining distance. But once policies become clear, capital might flood in like a dam opening, rushing in multiple directions.

In terms of flow, if such a scenario occurs, institutional funds are most likely to flow into three areas: first, the compliant stablecoin sector; second, mainstream Layer 1 ecosystems, especially those labeled as "compliant"; third, exchanges that have obtained licenses in regulator-friendly regions. Sandbox policies in places like Singapore and Dubai may become the preferred destinations for capital.

However, this logic also warrants caution. The regulatory frameworks between the East and West differ greatly, and ultimately, funds might only flow into "compliance safe havens." Overemphasizing compliance could also stifle innovation, impacting the vitality of the ecosystem. Another common trap is that the market might preemptively overestimate this expectation; when policies are finally implemented, a wave of corrections could occur.

At the end of the day, it’s quite simple: the more clearly a regulatory policy is defined, the more opportunities there are for capital inflow. In this cycle, whoever understands the policy logic best will hold more initiative.