最新报道：According to Crypto.com, Franklin Templeton's Max Gokhman explained the steps the investment firm is taking to meet growing client demand for crypto assets. As the digital asset sector matures, institutional interest is rising, particularly due to growing client demand. However, Max Gokhman, CFA, Deputy CIO of Franklin Templeton Investment Solutions, stated that most financial institutions still lag behind in this asset class. In an interview with Crypto.news, Gokhman explained the steps the investment giant is taking to meet the needs of clients looking to invest in crypto assets. Crypto.news: Are you seeing growing client demand for digital assets? Max Gokhman: It depends on the client base. If we're talking about large institutional investors, sovereign wealth funds, and pension funds, demand is still small. If we're talking about individual investors, demand is rising. Interestingly, traditional investors are showing growing interest, as reflected in the $175 billion in inflows into digital asset ETFs. There's also demand from crypto-native investors who are looking to move beyond pure cryptocurrency holdings toward a more balanced portfolio. Then there's the middle ground: family offices and smaller endowments. Many of them see growing demand for digital assets and want to integrate them into their broader portfolios. Therefore, one of the questions we've been thinking about is how to build the right products for each group. For large institutions, the key is how to use digital assets without introducing excessive volatility. For retail investors, the key is expanding digital assets into traditional portfolios with a risk-aware framework. For family offices and endowments, the key is integrating them into the overall portfolio—similar to how we approach less liquid assets like private equity alongside more traditional public market investments. This is an evolving landscape, and I expect demand to continue to grow, especially as regulation becomes more transparent. CN: What products have you developed for clients interested in cryptocurrencies? MG: One product we've launched is an asset allocation model that combines digital assets with traditional investments. We construct portfolios with digital asset allocations ranging from 1% to 6%. A conservative allocation is 1%, while an aggressive allocation is 6%. For example, an aggressive allocation would be 94% in stocks and 6% in digital assets. The basic principle is that in asset allocation, you generally don't want any single asset class to account for more than one-fifth of the total portfolio risk. People often say digital assets are too volatile, and that's true. But that doesn't mean you can't include them. Even if 6% of assets represent nearly 20% of the portfolio's risk, we can still thoughtfully integrate them. By including digital assets in the benchmark, we provide clients with a clear framework to determine their risk tolerance. As investment managers, this also allows us to construct and manage portfolios based on clear objectives. The key is to avoid a condescending attitude. If a client indicates they're willing to take on more risk, perhaps wanting 10% of their assets in digital assets, we respect their wishes and design the portfolio accordingly. We still explain that 10% risk concentration is very high, but ultimately that's their goal, and we work within that range. We've already had some crypto-native clients tell us they want a portfolio of 60% digital assets and 40% traditional assets like stocks, bonds, and perhaps some private market assets. In these cases, the benchmark is clear, and our job is to exceed it. The most important thing is to ensure clients understand exactly how much risk they're taking when increasing their digital asset allocation. CN: For individual clients and private offices, are they looking for basic investments or more aggressive strategies? MG: Typically, they start with a superficial understanding. For family offices, it really depends on the situation—some are very active in the digital asset space, while others aren't involved at all. It's hard to generalize, but most family offices have at least some level of interest. For many investors, especially large institutions, education remains crucial. Explain the risks, demonstrate our robust investment process, and help them navigate initial investment opportunities. CN: Do you have any insight into how other institutions are addressing their clients' interest in cryptocurrencies? MG: Actually, I think the industry is lagging behind us. From what I've seen, many institutional managers don't even touch this asset class. They often write it off as too volatile. Many institutions focus solely on Bitcoin without delving deeper. In contrast, our investment process evaluates digital assets across five different sectors: cryptocurrencies, smart contract platforms, DeFi, utility tokens, and consumer tokens. We've developed a fairly sophisticated methodology to evaluate them—just as we would any other investment. Therein lies a significant diversification hidden. Not all of these assets are highly liquid, but for investors who aren't trading trillion-dollar portfolios—and most are—there's a lot we can do. What I've seen from many large investors is, "We'll give you 1-2% in crypto, that's enough to test the waters." But ironically, this approach mirrors retail trader behavior—like a degenerate putting 2% of their portfolio into speculative bets, thinking even a loss is no big deal. If you're an institutional investor, losing 2% is a big deal. If you take this simplistic, "test the waters" approach without proper risk analysis, you're not only under-allocated, you're also exposing your allocation to increased risk. This thinking is flawed, but remains common. CN: Some traders believe Bitcoin is a counter-cyclical assetDo you agree with this view? How does this relate to Bitcoin's positioning as a diversifier? MG: I disagree. The data is very clear: Bitcoin is a cyclical, high-beta asset. It trades similarly to riskier parts of the market, such as high-yield credit, and perhaps even more so than small-cap stocks. It has a strong correlation with risky assets. Perhaps more controversially, I believe this correlation will increase as more institutional investors adopt Bitcoin. They will define it as a risky asset, and Bitcoin will behave like a risky asset. As Bitcoin becomes more institutional and centralized, I think its volatility will decrease, but its correlation with traditional finance will increase. In the long run, I actually think this is a good thing—but it also means that Bitcoin will become less like digital gold and more like a high-growth tech asset. Now, let me be clear: while I am bullish on digital assets generally, I am not particularly bullish on Bitcoin. The main reason is that it is a network asset. It is digital gold, but it does not have the millennia-long history of belief and value that gold has. Both assets rely on perception—gold's value is based on people's perceptions, and so does Bitcoin. But Bitcoin does not yet have that long-term trust. If a few large investors decide to switch to other currencies, it could cause significant disruption. I'm not saying this will happen; it's not my base case, but it's a possibility. Meanwhile, we've seen significant volatility and strong correlations with risky assets. That being said, adoption is real, and in the short to medium term, Bitcoin will perform well. But in the long term, I think other assets are more interesting. For example, Ethereum is a technology investment. Solana has payment infrastructure that can support cross-border transactions. These platforms have real utility and potential staying power. To me, they're more diversified than Bitcoin. CN: So, when you look at cryptocurrencies from a risk and investment perspective, how do you differentiate between different projects? MG: The first step is to determine which token we're looking at. Is it a true cryptocurrency like Ripple? A smart contract platform like Solana or Ethereum? A DeFi token like Uniswap? Or a consumer or gaming token like Decentraland? Then there are utility tokens like Chainlink. I'm just giving examples here; I'm not saying these are necessarily our top choices. Once we've categorized a token, we consider six core factors. Quality: Factors such as circulating supply as a percentage of total supply, protocol inflation rate, and daily active addresses. Size: This is simply the logarithm of market capitalization. It helps understand a project's position within the broader ecosystem. Growth: We look at transaction trends, network usage, and developer activity over time. Value: Token net asset value, pricing metrics, and, where applicable, revenue. Momentum: One-year-old momentum remains highly predictive in this space. Intangibles: This is one of the most interesting metrics. It includes GitHub commits, project contributors, social media activity (especially from influential accounts), and broader developer engagement, especially on smart contract platforms. In addition to these factors, we use different models depending on the type of token. For example, if a protocol (like Ethereum or Solana) generates cash flow, we can use a discounted cash flow (DCF) model. This is something any traditional investor can understand. We also use a network model, where we rely more heavily on metrics like growth, quality, and value, especially for tokens that don't generate traditional revenue. We then apply statistical models, employing technical analysis and regression techniques. For example, we might look at which assets a particular token is most correlated with, derive a beta, and use that to estimate its potential behavior. Crucially, we don't view the space as a monolith. We approach it with the same analytical rigor as any other asset class, and I think that's what gives us an advantage over many other players. CN: How do crypto projects compare to traditional venture equities in terms of valuation? MG: Valuations are certainly high: closer to early-stage venture capital than to established public companies. That makes sense. For example, Solana is more like a Series C or Series D startup than a large tech company. The difference is that you can trade it like a public company. From a democratization perspective, that's actually one of the cool things about digital assets: anyone can get access to early-stage infrastructure. That being said, we see a real correlation between our valuation model and price action. That's important. It's a sign that the market is maturing. But honestly, the most important factor right now is still momentum. If we want to achieve long-term institutional adoption, that needs to change. As the momentum effect fades, fundamentals like usage and revenue will become more important. We're already seeing this shift, especially as volatility starts to decline. Interestingly, intangible factors like developer activity and social impact are already having a significant impact on token performance. Yes, cash flow is starting to be priced in as well. Nonetheless, this is a highly momentum-driven market. But closely behind that, we're seeing real traction in areas like daily active addresses, network usage, and supply dynamics. As the space becomes increasingly institutionally owned and trading becomes less of a speculative frenzy, we expect the balance to continue to tilt towards fundamentals. CN: Just to clarify, are cryptocurrency valuations closer to AI companies or to traditional tech companies? MG: They're closer to AI startups or venture-stage tech companies. That makes sense, as many of these companies are still early in their lifecycles. A project like Solana should be compared to a Series C or D venture-backed firm.Rather than a full-fledged public company, Solana is unique in that you can trade like a public company. This is quite revolutionary. From a democratization perspective, it means anyone can access innovation that has traditionally been tethered to private markets. You can't just go out and buy shares in a private AI startup. But you can buy tokens tied to the blockchain protocol infrastructure. This is a significant shift in access. Despite high valuations, we see a clear correlation between the underlying metrics we track (like usage, cash flow, and development activity) and actual price performance. This correlation is crucial. It gives investors confidence that this isn't just speculative bluff. These tokens are starting to trade based on real-world dynamics, not just hype. CN: The trend toward asset tokenization is growing, and even Nasdaq recently hinted at a potential entry into the market. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this model? MG: For public stocks, the advantages are very limited. You can already trade stocks after hours. You can already buy fractional shares. So, tokenizing traditional stocks doesn't add much advantage. Where tokenization truly shines is in private assets: private equity, venture capital, real estate. These are, by definition, illiquid. Secondary markets exist, but they're difficult to access and often require deep connections. Many firms, including us, have built an advantage in the secondary market through these relationships. Tokenizing private assets allows institutional investors to create liquidity for themselves in a transparent, on-chain manner without relying on intermediaries. On the other hand, for individual investors, tokenization can provide access to asset classes that have traditionally been excluded. Imagine being able to buy private equity in your 401(k) without running into liquidity problems. This is a game-changer. Zoom out: the US economy is now largely dominated by private equity. In the past, small-cap US stocks were considered the "real economy." But now, the Russell 2000 Index is filled with companies that private equity has abandoned. The public markets are dominated by the Big Seven. Everything else? Private markets. So, when we talk about democratizing access, tokenizing private equity is incredibly significant. It addresses real inequalities in access to economic growth. We're also exploring entirely new asset classes enabled by tokenization, such as cultural assets or music royalties. These don't really exist in traditional investments because they require smart contract infrastructure. Five years from now, the private asset landscape could be dramatically different. Even the word "private" might lose its meaning. You might have some liquid but unlisted assets that can be traded 24/7 in a peer-to-peer structure, without having to touch a centralized exchange. We've built this infrastructure with the Benji on-chain money market fund. The same technology can be applied to tokenized real estate or income-generating assets. Imagine transferring billions of dollars of tokenized real estate and receiving immediate returns. No settlement delays, no middlemen. This is a huge upgrade for every type of investor. CN: How does the current macroeconomic environment affect crypto assets? MG: This is something I've been thinking about lately, the macro environment, especially since we've just started a new cycle of interest rate cuts. We're in a period of stagflation, even if Powell didn't explicitly use the term. Rate cuts aren't driven by a strong economy and falling inflation, but rather by a weakening labor market. CEOs are worried about tariffs, and they'll pass those costs on to consumers. Consumer confidence is declining. Unemployment is rising. Inflation remains high and could rise further. All of this points to a structurally weaker dollar. If you're a foreign entity, like a sovereign wealth fund, and you're impacted by US tariffs, you'll want to reduce your dollar exposure. This doesn't necessarily mean you'll buy cryptocurrency, but it does mean that the dollar's global dominance is weakening. As the dollar weakens, the use cases for digital assets are strengthening. Cross-border transactions are a good example. Outside the dollar system, these transactions are slow, expensive, and full of friction. Digital assets, especially smart contract-based platforms, are seamless. This creates a strong impetus for the adoption of digital assets. So from a macro perspective, I'm particularly bullish on transaction protocols like Solana and Ripple. The less the dollar plays a role as the default medium for global trade, the greater the demand for faster, more decentralized alternatives. Businesses and consumers will increasingly move their transactions to the chain. This is a long-term trend, not a cyclical one. And it's accelerating