저자: FernandoUlrich · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 영상은 Bridgewater의 Ray Dalio 비트코인 보고서를 소개하며 비트코인을 장기 디지털 금 후보로 긍정 평가한다. 달리오 보고서 비판 1: 비트코인은 신용화폐처럼 무에서 만들어지지 않고 채굴에 시간·전력·자원이 든다. 달리오 보고서 비판 2: 다른 암호화폐 생성이 비트코인 희소성을 훼손한다는 주장은 틀렸다. 발행 상한 2,100만 개는 유지되며, 은·백금·팔라듐이 금의 희소성을 훼손하지 않는 것과 같다. 달리오 보고서 비판 3: 비트코인이 진화할 수 없다는 지적은 틀렸다. 2017년 및 2021년 버전 0.21.0 등 업데이트가 있었고, 오픈소스 특성상 운영 중단 없이 개선된다. 프로토콜 불변성: 사토시 나카모토가 밝힌 대로 핵심 규칙(2,100만 개 상한)은 변경 불가하며, 이 불변성이 디지털 금 후보가 되는 이유다. 인터넷 TCP/IP처럼 기반 프로토콜 위에 응용이 쌓이는 구조로 본다. 네트워크 효과: 사용자가 많을수록 가치가 커지며, 상품화폐가 자발적 채택으로 화폐가 되는 과정을 비트코인도 따른다고 본다. 장기 옵션 관점: 달리오는 전 재산의 80% 손실도 감수 가능한 작은 장기 옵션으로 봤고, 발표자도 동의한다. 금 시가총액(10~12조 달러)의 일부가 비트코인으로 이동할 경우의 가치 추정을 소개한다. 가격 전망: 현재는 가치저장 수단이 되기엔 변동성이 크다. 가격은 안정화 전까지 높은 상승을 보이겠지만, 안정화 후에는 연 50%나 2년 내 3배 같은 수익은 기대하기 어렵고 약 5년 이상 걸릴 수 있다. 결국 금처럼 지루한 자산이 될 가능성이 있다. 거시 환경: 2020년 중앙은행의 대규모 부양으로 법정화폐가 계속 인플레이션될 것이며, 기관투자자들이 비트코인의 미래를 인정하기 시작한 해라고 평가한다. 사용성 리스크: 개인 지갑 관리와 백업 등 학습 곡선이 여전히 있으며, 지갑 분실이 주요 위험으로 언급된다. 발표자는 달리오가 '완벽한 전문가가 아니다'라는 겸손한 태도를 높이 평가하며, 본인 2018년 강연 'Bitcoin: The Ultimate Asset'과 Bitcoin Hero 채널 대담을 추천한다.
다듬은 글
The famous American investor King Darius wrote an article titled "The AI-5 Death," which I think about Beach Park, and about that. To talk about it in this video, it's very good. To everyone who's just arriving here on the channel, my name is Fernando Urgente, and here we talk about economics, markets, and investments.
If you like the content, consider subscribing by activating the bell below and also sharing this video. And if you want to get into the article itself, I wanted to recommend a conversation I recorded with the Bitcoin Hero's channel. It was very cool; it was almost two hours of conversation, and they separated it into two parts.
I'll put the links in the video description. I recommend watching it; subscribe to their channel too. It's very cool; it has a lot of top- quality content and a very relaxed yet in-depth conversation. I'm sure you'll like it. Obviously, the main topic was Bitcoin. I'm talking about Bitcoin, and this article by King Darius, for those who don't know, he's the founder of Bridgewater Associates, one of the large American investment firms.
He's been writing a lot lately; he wrote that book called "Beginnings to Principles," then " The Big Daddy," "Big Debt Crises," and obviously, he's always... When asked about the Beach Boys, and until now he had avoided giving a more definitive opinion on the subject, he wrote now, actually, to give a hint on the screen, it was an article published, or rather a study published on the Bridgewater page here in the section of a start on sites where the 17W team did a study to try to understand whether or not Bitcoin has a place in clients' portfolios.
David Warner, and as an introduction to this study, King Darius wrote a short article explaining the main points. So obviously I read your part of the article, it's very interesting, and even an assessment of the content, I think it's very cool. And I admire his stance because that's what he conveys when he speaks and writes, because he always puts himself in a position of humility and intellectual honesty, first admitting, "Look, I'm not an expert.
I'm trying to understand, certainly, volume here, I would love to be corrected, but today, for the information I have, this is my opinion." I think it 's a commendable position and increasingly difficult to see nowadays, and a guy of his stature deserves to have this kind of attitude. But anyway, the first thing he says here is that he's not a Bitcoin expert.
Crypto, but he believes Bitcoin is a Hell of a Nation. One Hell of Houston is a great invention. I read the whole text, because the main part is his introduction, then the comments, the study by the addictive team, and I separated the main points that I think are worth talking about. One of the things that the author commented on there is that he thinks it's a brilliant invention and that it's amazing how, in quotes, in the same way that the credit-based money system can be created out of nothing as if it were alchemy, the same thing is Bitcoin, which is money created out of nothing, and it's not quite like that because yes, to compare, first, without money it is based on credit, or rather, demand deposits, time deposits, which are bank liabilities, credit, and which are used as if they were money, but in fact they are promises of delivery of money itself, in the past gold, today a paper note from the Central Bank.
But this is a system, I agree, it can be created out of nothing, it's almost like alchemy, and bank liabilities are used as if they were money, but contrasting with Bitcoin, it cannot be created out of nothing, it takes time, computing power, electrical energy to... They actually managed to generate a new Bitcoin unit.
Hello, my name is [unclear]. It's created out of thin air, quite the opposite; it requires effort, time, and resources to generate a Bitcoin, unlike credit-based money. So this is the first one. Another criticism I have here is that, although Bitcoin may be limited, other cryptocurrencies can be created, so this somehow undermines Bitcoin's scarcity.
I've already talked about this, but it's worth remembering that the creation of other cryptocurrencies does n't actually undermine Bitcoin's scarcity. The maximum number of bitcoins that can exist remains 21 million units. But of course, when we think about portfolio allocation in an investor's pocket, whenever there's a reason, that asset competes with the investor's pocket.
But to say that other cryptocurrencies undermine Bitcoin's scarcity is the same as saying that silver, platinum, and palladium don't compete with gold's scarcity. I want bags and backpacks, without a doubt, but that does n't mean Bitcoin's scarcity doesn't compete with pockets. Oh no. Another point he made here, and I think it's certainly something he does n't know, because he said that Bitcoin can't evolve.
And I'll say he's wrong because yes, Bitcoin can evolve. And we've seen several updates over the years, whether to correct some problem or to bring new features and improvements to it. The protocol, and this occurred especially in 2017, and now in 2021 version 0.21.0 was released, which is one of the major versions, a series of improvements.
So yes, Bitcoin evolves, but this process of evolution and improvement is very laborious, it's not easy, it's complex, and it's one of the most fascinating and difficult issues to understand because not only is Bitcoin based on open-source code, in the same way that Linux is updated voluntarily by anyone, not only is it an open-source system, but its update occurs in a timely manner; the system doesn't stop working so that a new version can be implemented.
The best way to imagine updating Bitcoin is to update or repair an airplane turbine at 10,000 feet of altitude, or however many thousand feet of altitude x 33,000 feet of altitude at cruising speed. That's the difficulty of updating a system like Bitcoin, since it's a system that needs to be constantly synchronized with all participants in the system.
It's really complex, but the system can and has evolved to a point that... Perhaps it 's understood, both from the research team's addictive point of view of King Darius, that perhaps the Rude Boy's main attribute in the protocol is its immutability. Although it can be updated, its essential properties are immutable or practically immutable.
Satoshi Nakamoto himself acknowledged this when the first version of Bitcoin was released. He said, "Look, the moment this version goes out on the street, it's almost as if the rules of the protocol are written in stone and there's no way to change them. You know, something more superficial, a functionality, yes, but for example, the 21 million of which cannot be changed." So this immutability is what makes Bitcoin be seen as a candidate for digital gold.
Because, in the same way that gold is only gold because to this day no alchemist has managed to replicate the formula; if they had succeeded, they would have left it as their master. So, the scarcity of gold has never been a problem for me, and this is intrinsically linked to its immutability, which comes from nature in its physical-chemical properties, and in the same way with Bitcoin because of its cryptographic mathematical properties.
And how the protocol works is a little more complex than that, but it is a system. Immutable EA is very important, and a comparison that I also don't think they understand is my assessment, and I think they also don't realize this. It's not clear in the text that a more correct analogy for Bitcoin in terms of technology is the internet itself.
We don't have one, two, three, four, five internets; there's the internet, there are the basic internet protocols, TCP/IP, and it's on these protocols that new applications are built, the new protocols. But we have TCP/IP, and from that, the internet is built and developed, but the base protocol doesn't change.
In the same way, Bitcoin should be seen as the base protocol for money on the internet, or for the monetary system of the future, where the base protocol and other protocols, applications are developed on top of this protocol in a kind of protocol stack, or to use the jargon of this medium, right? That's how the internet works, and that's how Bitcoin works, and in my assessment, that's how it will evolve.
And it's in this sense that I say with Bitcoin, it ends up being, let's say, catapulted and gaining more and more value due to the so-called network effect, which is both a technological issue and a matter of... The same way the internet works—because everyone uses the same network—or Bitcoin, Bitcoin tends to gain more space, both because of the technology, the network effect of the network itself, and because of the network effect as an asset, as money, because money also suffers from this, and it ends up being more valued the more people use it, the more it will be adopted as money.
That's how a commodity emerges, voluntarily adopted until it becomes the currency itself, this monetary evolution, and for me, Bitcoin tends to follow this same evolutionary process. Another important point that I found interesting is their vision, which was the conclusion of the legendary passage where he said that Bitcoin is, in his view, a long-term option for an unknown future where he would put an amount of money that, if it lost eighty percent, he wouldn't care.
I agree with this view; I think it's not wrong, and finding it a correct view is also to say that it's a long- term option, especially at this moment in history that we find ourselves in. And the next point, not getting into the part of the Bridgewater team where they say that Bitcoin is a potent, potent digital gold, a digital motto with great potential, and I'm very happy because this...
My definition of Bitcoin has been that I think it's a potential candidate for the future of digital currency. It 's not original yet because I've only been operating for 12 years, while gold has been around for a millennium. So let's give these things time. Especially when talking about money, a potentially new alternative monetary system, it won't take over the world overnight.
Time needs to pass, the system needs to be tested, and more and more people will use it and learn how to use it, securely and everything else. So yes, I agree. One point is also worth highlighting, as he mentioned how Bitcoin is still difficult to use today, this possibility of having your own bank, your own custodian.
I agree with him that it's not that easy yet; we haven't surpassed that evolutionary stage. The technology, or we don't even need to worry anymore, that the system works on its own, it's in our wallet. This is secure, whether it's on a phone, desktop, or paper, and there's no need to worry too much.
There's still a learning curve, and I always recommend this: if you want to use Bitcoin, want to have it as an investment, and know how to use a secure wallet, backing up the wallet and everything. Furthermore, it 's a step or an obstacle to greater adoption, but as time goes by and this is also being resolved, the network itself, or blockchain, has never been corrupted; there's no fund diversion, fraud, or anything like that.
But of course, someone selling a wallet can be lost due to misuse, so I agree with him on this point. Interestingly, in the study, they estimate how much Bitcoin could be worth, since we can understand Bitcoin because, in the supply and demand equation, the supply is given at 20 million units. We need to estimate how future demand will behave.
I'm also happy about this because that's exactly how I've been evaluating it since I do n't know what happened in this world. And the fourth truth wrote precisely this: we need to understand how demand will behave, and they do a comparative study with the market value of gold, which is in the range of ten to twelve trillion dollars.
This suggests that a portion of the capital currently invested in gold could migrate to Bitcoin, and how much each Bitcoin unit could be worth. This is the study I've also seen. I did it and I think it's perhaps the most pertinent comparative way to try to estimate the value of Bitcoin's future, and the fact is, with a final point, when they say that today Bitcoin is more of a buying option than a highly volatile future, and I think they're right, it's still too volatile to say it 's a store of value, it's a potential candidate for a store of value, it hasn't gotten there yet, but as I have a passing trend that keeps gaining, the price will keep increasing, its price will reach the adoption line.
My expectation is that here, I've already finished the text about the retail area, my expectation is that the price of Bitcoin will reach a point where it will rise, but it will be $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 as some people say, I don't know, it already appears at a very high price of $500,000, but there will come a time when the price will stabilize, and once the price stabilizes, it will no longer be reasonable to expect a return of fifty percent per year, or to triple in value in two years after the price stabilizes, and I think it won't stabilize for maybe five years.
Perhaps even more than that, it will end up being a boring asset, like gold, which isn't an asset that gives an absurd growth expectation, but in the long term... Ah, I understand... to gain value. Or at least preserve value. Especially because when we look at the other side of the coin, state currencies will continue to be inflated, that is, the dollar, the euro, the yen, in short, all currencies will be fractionalized, for sure.
This is perhaps the only certainty we have besides the 20 million units of Bitcoin. Anyway, I think that's my assessment of the literary text; it's quite good. I recommend that you read it and draw your own conclusions. These are the points I wanted to highlight about the text, and finally, I think there's a reflection: the end is that I would say that the great year 2020 was perhaps a watershed moment in the acceptance and perception of institutional investors in the traditional market that yes, Bitcoin has a future.
And that's what's important to have a portion of your portfolio, your allocation, in this new asset of the 21st century. Without a doubt, 2020, with all the extraordinary measures... From central banks, trillions of dollars, trillions of euros, trillions of yen. In short, without a doubt, this has caused many investors who perhaps ignored it for 23 years, even drawing it off, to change their minds and perhaps, without clothes, there really is something very valuable here that is worthwhile, at least if it represents a small portion of the portfolio.
I'll stop here. Any questions, leave them below, and I'll be back in the next video. And again, I recommend the conversation I had with the Beach Bathrooms channel; I'll put the links below, I'll also put them here on the side, and also a lecture I gave in 2018 entitled "Bitcoin: The Ultimate Asset." I recommend it, and until the next video, bye!
Comments 0