Kevin O'Leary: Why Cryptocurrency Infrastructure Is More Important Than Token (and Shutdown Risks for Most Projects)

Leading Shark Tank investor, Kevin O’Leary, is now shifting his focus from token speculation to real infrastructure—a strategy that reflects a profound change in how financial institutions view cryptocurrency. By acquiring 26,000 hectares of land in various strategic locations, O’Leary is making a massive bet on the thesis that the true power in the crypto ecosystem lies not in the tokens themselves, but in the physical foundations that enable the industry to operate.

This shift has significant implications: the majority of the thousands of cryptocurrency projects out there face risks of shutdown or fundamental failure, while only two assets—Bitcoin and Ethereum—continue to attract serious institutional capital.

Land and Power: Assets More Valuable Than Cryptocurrency Itself

O’Leary’s strategy reveals a paradox in the crypto industry that is still widely misunderstood. In an interview with CoinDesk, he explained that control over land and energy sources—rather than digital tokens—is the real bottleneck in developing crypto and AI infrastructure.

Of the 26,000 hectares he controls, 13,000 hectares are in Alberta, Canada (previously announced), while the other 13,000 hectares are still in permitting stages in undisclosed locations. All this land is being prepared with full utilities—including electricity, water, fiber optics, and air rights—specifically to support high-energy-demand operations.

O’Leary’s approach is not about building data centers or mining operations himself. Instead, his model is to prepare the land with all necessary permits and then lease it to companies that need it. “My job is to ensure all regulatory requirements are met and infrastructure is ready for use,” he explained. Power contracts in some locations, according to O’Leary, are even worth more than Bitcoin itself—especially those offering prices below six cents per kilowatt-hour, a highly competitive rate in the industry.

His assessment of the relative value of infrastructure versus tokens reflects a growing view among institutional investors: in earlier eras, token speculation might have been profitable, but in the crypto maturity phase, control over physical resources becomes the dominant factor.

Data Center Projects: Overcapacity and Upcoming Shutdowns

O’Leary made a rather striking statement about the future of crypto and AI infrastructure expansion. He estimates that about 50% of all new data centers announced in the past three years will never actually be built. His analysis points to a “land grab without deep understanding of technical and regulatory requirements”—a situation that will ultimately lead to shutdowns or project cancellations.

This estimate aligns with market dynamics often seen: companies announce large expansions for PR and valuation purposes, but when faced with permitting challenges, energy costs, or long-term power contracts, they are forced to cancel plans. These failures not only impact operations but also investors who have committed to these projects.

Data shows that land and power contracts are real hard constraints that cannot be solved by technology or capital alone. Companies that fail to secure both will face shutdowns or significant business transformations.

Only Bitcoin and Ethereum Matter to Institutions

While thousands of new tokens are created each year, O’Leary states firmly that institutional capital is only interested in two assets: Bitcoin and Ethereum. His view is supported by concrete data from Charles Schwab indicating that nearly 80% of the estimated $3.2 trillion crypto market value is tied to these two largest blockchains. The remaining $600-700 billion is spread across thousands of altcoin projects competing for attention.

A more concerning fact: most alternative tokens have experienced price declines of 60-90% from their peaks and, according to O’Leary, will never return to previous levels. Therefore, for investors outside of Bitcoin and Ethereum, the risk of shutdown or fundamental failure is a serious systemic risk.

Volatility data shows that to capture 97.2% of total crypto market volatility since inception, an investor only needs to hold positions in Bitcoin and Ethereum. This explains why large financial institutions are not interested in small tokens—their risk-return profile doesn’t make sense within institutional asset allocation.

Recently launched crypto ETFs, while bringing some retail capital, are practically insignificant from an institutional perspective. “In professional asset management, crypto ETFs are still too small to be considered seriously,” O’Leary said, reflecting a common view on Wall Street.

Regulation: Key to Institutional Adoption and Preventing Mass Shutdowns

When asked what will drive further institutional allocation into cryptocurrency, O’Leary pointed to one crucial factor: clear and conducive regulation. Specifically, he highlighted the ongoing discussion of the Crypto Market Structure Bill in the US Senate.

While overall supportive of this new regulatory framework, he criticized one specific clause: the ban on yield on stablecoin accounts. This restriction, he said, creates an uneven playing field, giving traditional banks a competitive advantage over crypto platforms.

Coinbase, for example, reported $355 million in revenue solely from its stablecoin yield services in Q3 2025. Circle (issuer of USDC) and Coinbase have strongly advocated for allowing yield on stablecoins as part of the new regulation. However, when the yield ban clause was included in the draft bill, Coinbase withdrew its support at the end of January.

“Until regulation allows stablecoin holders to earn yields on their accounts, this framework will remain hindered,” O’Leary stated. His view reflects a consensus among crypto players that without regulatory clarity, institutional adoption will stall, and the risks of shutdowns or bank runs will remain high.

Other crypto companies also identify provisions related to DeFi regulation, securities frameworks, and regulatory oversight as additional areas of concern. Nonetheless, O’Leary remains optimistic that the bill will be refined before final passage, and once that happens, large-scale institutional allocation into Bitcoin will follow swiftly.

Conclusion: Infrastructure Wins, Average Cryptocurrency Faces Shutdown

O’Leary’s positioning on physical infrastructure rather than tokens reflects a maturation stage in the cryptocurrency industry. While the coin boom and ICO era created many short-term winners, the next phase is dominated by players controlling scarce resources: land, energy, and bandwidth access.

O’Leary’s investments—comprising 19% of his crypto-related assets and infrastructure—are not speculative but strategic positioning for the decades ahead. By acquiring land and utility-ready infrastructure, he positions himself to profit from Bitcoin mining growth and AI data centers, regardless of token volatility.

For retail investors, O’Leary’s message is clear: most other cryptocurrencies are likely to face shutdowns or become irrelevant, while Bitcoin and Ethereum will continue to grow supported by institutional capital. With BTC at $79,040 and ETH at $2,430 (as of February 2026), these two assets maintain an unstoppable market dominance. The evolving US regulation will be the key determinant whether this momentum continues or stalls in the medium term.