VanEck clarifies media misinterpretation: significantly increased holdings in Strategy, holding 2.84 million shares firmly in the top 75

2026-01-17 11:00:11

Abstract generation in progress

【Crypto World】VanEck Digital Asset Research Director Matthew Sigel recently spoke out on X, responding to a media report. The article in The New York Times took Jan van Eck, VanEck’s CEO, out of context — claiming he said he has “always kept a distance from Strategy,” which is indeed a bit much.

What was Jan van Eck’s original intention? VanEck is not currently adopting the DAT strategy, that’s all. This has nothing to do with his stance on Strategy company or its stock price, and certainly does not imply any bearish sentiment.

That said, data is the most convincing. VanEck currently holds 284,000 shares of Strategy on behalf of clients, ranking consistently within the top 75 in Strategy’s stock holdings. More importantly, in recent weeks, VanEck has continued to increase its holdings. This move clearly reveals VanEck’s true attitude towards Strategy — rather than maintaining distance, it is gradually increasing its position.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

UncleWhale

· 5h ago

Haha, media is just like that, best at chopping off heads and trimming the ends. The data is right here, 2.84 million shares speaking. Seeing this NYT approach many times, just the old Stanford tricks. Holding the top 75 positions and still saying to stay cautious, isn't that shooting oneself in the foot? Honestly, it's a strategy issue; it has nothing to do with whether you believe in the Strategy or not. Data does not deceive, and that's the most unsettling part. These past few weeks, you've been adding more; media, you should wipe your eyes. So there's basically no real bearishness, just not following DAT. Do I need to spell out the reasoning? VanEck's response this time is perfectly controlled, just hitting back. It's already 2024, and you're still doing this? Truly. I'm too lazy to read clickbait headlines; isn't it better to just look at the holdings data?

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentPhilosopher

· 5h ago

The media is back to cherry-picking again, truly impressive. The holding data is right here, and they still have the nerve to distort it? Wait, 2.84 million shares in the top 75? That’s a significant buying force, feels a bit like a slap in the face to some of the short-selling arguments. The New York Times really dropped the ball this time, didn’t even do basic due diligence? Data is king, idle chatter is just clouds. Looking at holdings is the most reliable way to judge. That’s why I’m increasingly losing faith in mainstream media. Selective quoting is really disgusting. VanEck’s clarification this time is very necessary, or retail investors will be misled again.

View OriginalReply0

consensus_whisperer

· 5h ago

Haha, the media is at it again, taking things out of context. This trick is really getting old. 284 million shares and still claiming to keep a distance? Do you think we're all fools? Data speaks the truth. I support VanEck's operations. The NYT's recent report is a bit outrageous. Their ability to confuse right from wrong is really impressive. Instead of listening to their nonsense, it's better to just look at the holdings.

View OriginalReply0

ColdWalletGuardian

· 5h ago

It's another case of media taking things out of context. NYT really dropped the ball. The 2.84 million shares say it all. If the top 75 can't hold, what's the point of talking about distance?

View OriginalReply0

FlatTax

· 5h ago

Another case of media taking things out of context. The New York Times has almost exhausted this routine. 284 million shares still in the top 75. The data speaks for itself; being stubborn won't help. Tsk, DAT strategy and holdings are two different things. How can someone confuse such a simple concept? Really? Is it so easy for big institutions to be misinterpreted? Luckily, someone came out to diss. Holding data is right here; the empty short thesis falls apart on its own. The media is truly incredible, always trying to lead people into a trap. As for Strategy, VanEck's actions are more honest than words. People already said they won't use DAT, so why are they still being manipulated into a bearish view? Laughable. Holding in the top 75—still called "keeping distance"? Which media outlet wrote this story?

View OriginalReply0

SelfCustodyIssues

· 5h ago

The media is starting to play this trick again; taking things out of context is truly impressive. The data is right here—284 million shares, and you still say it's bearish? That's hilarious. VanEck holds so many stocks; being in the top 75 is solid... Media really should check the holdings before writing articles. That DAT strategy was forcefully interpreted as bearish Strategy, The New York Times' move is indeed... effective. 284 million shares, friends, should speak with evidence, right? How can the detail of being in the top 75 holdings be overshadowed by a single sentence from the media? Data speaks for itself and never lies; strategy adjustments ≠ bearish outlook, such simple logic... VanEck's clarification this time was timely; otherwise, it would have been led astray by public opinion. Still doubting that the top 75 holdings are bearish? That logic is truly impressive.

View OriginalReply0