After Wall Street polluted Bitcoin, "1BTC≠1btc", why are native Bitcoins the next holy grail?

When Wall Street whales replace early believers, Bitcoin seems to usher in a golden age. However, behind the transfer of financial power lies a subtle qualitative change in its core value. In the context of financialization, how will the future give rise to a more scarce and purer asset—"Native Bitcoin"? (Background: Deloitte survey: 99% of corporate CFOs will adopt Crypto Assets long-term, with stablecoins and Bitcoin receiving much attention.) (Supplementary Background: The $10 billion selling pressure did not shake Bitcoin. Is BTC's next target soaring to $140,000?) As the market cheers for the exit of early Bitcoin (Bitcoin) whales, viewing it as a healthy signal of "market maturity," I seem to see the familiar script of the past capital market playing out again: a carefully packaged transfer of power is quietly playing the old game under the name of "mainstreaming." Extended Reading: He sold out! The ancient whale with 80,000 Bitcoins "completely dumped" for $9 billion, Galaxy celebrates its largest client in history. Seeing the news headline exclaiming "The guardians of the old era are being replaced by titans of the new era," Wall Street institutions and ETFs are like hungry sharks, devouring the chips thrown by early believers. Crypto users and Wall Street are making various strange analyses claiming this is the arrival of a new era. On the surface, it appears to be a win-win feast, with OG Bitcoiners achieving astonishing financial freedom, while Bitcoin gains a ticket to enter the global financial system, seemingly with a more solid support for its price. However, when I peel away this layer of mist woven from liquidity and institutionalization, what I see is not a simple asset turnover, but a profound value split, a conflict between the essence of the Bitcoin network and its commercial packaging is unfolding. This seemingly healthy rotation is silently giving birth to an asset that is even scarcer than Bitcoin itself and closer to its original ideal—"Native Bitcoin." Wall Street's embrace may not be a coronation but a sweet poison. Bitcoin's dual universe: "Financial Bitcoin" vs. "Native Bitcoin". First, we need to establish a core understanding: The financialization of Bitcoin, the commonly shouted "$1 million in 20xx," will not result in all Bitcoins having the same appreciation price in the future; it is merely a describable vague vision. The true value levels behind it may split at different levels: The first split universe is "Institutional BTC," which exists under Wall Street's game rules. These Bitcoins are held in hosted wallets of ETFs, traded on compliant exchanges, and every movement is subject to strict scrutiny of KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering). They are not only clearly traceable on-chain, like financial statements laid out in the sunlight, but also their customer data is more sparse within various institutions. For institutional investors, this type of Bitcoin is perfect—it is safe, compliant, and highly liquid. Its value mainly reflects its market price; it is a digital commodity that has been tamed and included in the regulatory framework. However, institutionalized Bitcoin is continuously being packaged in various financial derivatives and is gradually being detached from the native network in trading. Institutional Bitcoin is moving towards the extremity of the centralization phenomenon that arose after Bitcoin was created. A large number of trades will be replaced by off-chain exchanges, and the native Bitcoin network seems to have become a path limited to "whales and institutions" 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 seem to be freshly mined from miners and have not gone through multiple transfers—"Virgin Bitcoin"—or those with very simple transaction histories that have never been associated with any sanctioned addresses or high-risk platforms (such as anonymous mixers) or high-stock hosted cold and hot wallets. They are like a brand new banknote that has not circulated, free from historical burdens. Their value is not just in market price but more importantly in their "attribute value"—absolute privacy, strong anti-censorship capability, and the potential to flow freely outside the global regulatory network. No matter what the regulations and audits of exchanges and countries are, they represent true value that can flow globally. OTC market validation. This value stratification is not alarmism; it has long become a reality in the high-end OTC market. In fact, institutional buyers are willing to pay a "Purity Premium" to purchase Bitcoins with clear provenance to ensure compliance, and this has already become an open fact. They hire on-chain analysis companies (like Chainalysis) to conduct "asset due diligence," ensuring that what they buy is not a "tainted asset" from hacks or dark web markets but clean Bitcoins that can save this cost to stack premiums to grab pure Bitcoins. Exchanges may also separately store these clean Bitcoins in cold wallets during physical handling to avoid contamination. This is akin to the logic in the art market. Both are Picasso’s paintings, one with a well-documented history, once collected by the Rockefeller family with clear provenance; the other is of unknown origin, even if it is genuine, its market value and acceptance will significantly decrease because each subsequent holder must bear a substantial endorsement cost for its background, while the value of "Native Bitcoin" is built upon this "purity of provenance." When one Bitcoin is no longer equal to one Bitcoin: fungibility is collapsing. Behind the value stratification lies a deeper crisis, directly pointing to the fundamental attribute of currency—loss of fungibility. Fungibility means that every unit of currency should be identical and interchangeable. One hundred dollars in your pocket is completely equal in value to one hundred dollars in my pocket; you need not care who the previous holder of my bill was. This is the cornerstone of smooth currency circulation. However, Bitcoin's transparent ledger exposes it to a silent collapse of fungibility. As 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 national regulations and KYC. When a Bitcoin has had contact with an address marked as illegal, it may be labeled as "tainted". Compliant exchanges can refuse to accept this Bitcoin, and the user holding it may find their account frozen. In this case, one Bitcoin is clearly no longer equal to another Bitcoin. A "clean" Bitcoin and a "tainted" Bitcoin have entirely 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 naïve. As global regulations tighten, the definition of "taint" will only continue to expand. Today, addresses involved in dark web trading are tainted; tomorrow, interacting with wallets that have not undergone KYC verification may be tainted; the day after, any Bitcoin that has gone through privacy mixing protocols may be considered a "high-risk asset." The scope of this "contamination" will spread like ripples, and ultimately, only those Bitcoins with clear provenance and simple histories will be viewed as absolutely safe havens. The greatest cost of Bitcoin being accepted by mainstream finance is the sacrifice of its "amnesiac" nature. As it continues...