저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
영상 내 Chamath는 미국 자산 강세와 달러 약세 구조를 설명하고, 데이터센터·에너지 공급 문제와 태양광 투자 관점을 언급한다. 비트코인 관련 가격 예측은 자막 기반 영상 소개 내레이션(해설자 발언)에 주로 등장하며, 'Chamath가 1.14백만 달러 예측'이라는 내용은 Chamath 본인 발언으로 확인되지 않는다. 자막 오인식이 많아 실제 발언 여부 확인이 필요하다.
다듬은 글
always ultimately going to be on the wrong side of the trade betting against the United States. And it's probably important to then say, well, what would a boundary condition be? I don't think the boundary condition is the dollar. I actually don't think the boundary condition is the debt. I think the boundary condition is if something were to happen with the quality of the human capital inside of the United States and its inability to innovate, then we're probably in trouble.
But even that story will take 50 to 100 years to play out. Hey guys, welcome to Everyday Finance. This week, Bitcoin soared over $17,000, a gain of more than 6%. It is now showing strong buying momentum just below the important $100,000 barrier zone. Traders are now closely watching for a push above $18,000.
This could confirm a bullish rise and make the momentum even stronger. OnX, well-known analyst Wrecked Capital said that if Bitcoin gets its highest weekly close ever, it could set the stage for a strong rise to all-time highs that have never been seen before. But traders should be careful on the weekends because there is usually less money moving around which can cause false rallies.
At the same time, Vivvec shared a movie that had been hidden for a while. In it, Chimath Palahapa made a bold prediction. He said that Bitcoin could skyrocket to $1.14 million right now, not years from now. This shocking prediction came with a strong analysis that is hard to ignore. Before you go any further, don't forget to follow, like, and turn on notifications so you never miss our new posts.
Let's begin right away. I dip my toe into real estate. I've never done real estate before, but just outside of Phoenix, we're building a 1 gawatt data center. That's a $25 billion total investment cycle of which we'll be into it for 2 or 3 billion of equity when it's probably all said and done. What I can tell you is the reason why you can underwrite that deal or why I was able to underwrite the deal was it's located downstream of a nuclear reactor and so there's effectively infinite energy that we can tap but we still need gas and a bunch of other things.
The problem is that you know if we put in an order right now we can't get a n gas turbine viable and turned on until 2030. It's not a technology issue. It's purely a supply chain issue. So I think what our energy policy needs to make sure we contemplate is that many of the things that we are debating are no longer issues of production, but they're issues of supply, transmission, and distribution.
And as long as we can make sure that we allow energy to be made wherever and whenever possible and then stored however possible, we'll be on the forward foot. The big risk is that if we don't have that ability and then all of a sudden we have these incredible achievements in technology in robotics and we don't have the electricity to power them.
That's the big risk. As long as we can fix that, I still worry that with nuclear the issue won't be the federal regulations. I think that it's good that the president cleaned it up. The real problem is going to be the local and state regulators and how quickly they're willing to turn these on. And the reality is that, you know, these are 10-year projects.
And so even if you say go from today, the earliest these things can be turned on really in 2032, 2033. That's far too late. And that's a lot of risk too, Chimath, because what if you get blocked at the last minute? This is where solar and other projects, you know, we're solar as well. I'll tell you a story.
In 2020, right before the pandemic, I I don't even know if I should say the name of the company, but I almost went after a coal company to buy it. And I had been obsessed with this company for a year and it was cheap. It fell on hard times. It was like a billion two, a billion three. And my team went up in arms.
They were like, "Oh my god, it's so dirty. You can't own a coal company." And it was such a huge miss on my part. I should have just bought the bloody thing. Then we went into co then you know everything went upside down and lo and behold that company's like quintupled since then. So I'm a fan of all forms of energy production.
I think the marginal cost of energy has to go to zero which means that any single way you can get your hands on electricity production is a winning trade over the next 20 years in the United States. This is look let's take the subsidies off the table. Ultimately you don't want any of these markets subsidized.
The reality is it is faster and more efficient to put solar panels up and start generating electricity. It's just that it's like 17 months from start to finish. 17 months. So that's probably in my opinion the single most valuable underwriting feature of solar which is you put a dollar in, you can start generating revenue in 17 months from that dollar going in.
That's very different than when you're putting a dollar in and you're not going to see it back for a decade plus. That's scary. And so you need to generate a rate of return that justifies a 10 or 15 year investment cycle. And that's hard to do because there's a lot of volatility in the world and things can go, you know, down as well as up.
So I don't know. My my perspective is get rid of all the subsidies at this point. Create a clean slate, but don't do anything to hinder the production of electricity because we need literally as much of it as we can get our hands on. And then we need to find a way of storing it in a safe way and then we're off to the races.
How many days a year do you think California is in an energy deficit? How many days a year is California in an energy deficit? Doesn't have enough energy. It would be during the summer months. You know where electricity prices go crazy? Where they have to find all kinds of ways of generating massive amounts of base load.
How many like a third of the time? 100. Five. That's it. Wow. Yeah. So, we've really made progress. We, you know, in California, our grid is on average about between 45 and 50% utilized. This is for PG& I don't know what it's like for SoCal Edison. Yeah. Down south. But the point I'm trying to make is that in normal market conditions for residential, we have tremendous amounts of power and for most needs, we have tremendous supply.
So things can be pretty good. The problem is all of the stuff downstream from the making of it. And if we don't clean that up, we're going to create these artificial constraints that will come back to bite us when we really need the power to do something very exciting. People aren't just guessing about Bitcoin's rise anymore.
It's being seen as a major change in the way the world handles money. Chimath Palahapasha forecast a huge rise that wasn't based on hype but on people becoming less trusting of fiat currency regulations becoming clearer and institutions accepting it. He said that Bitcoin's path was similar to that of other tech breakthroughs and that it was becoming important infrastructure.
Hunter Horsley, CEO of Bitwise, backed up this idea by saying that the US is seriously thinking about creating a national Bitcoin reserve. This would change the way people think of Bitcoin from a fringe asset to a financial center. In a big change from the past when the government was skeptical, the US vice president recently called Bitcoin strategic.
Big institutions are not only buying Bitcoin, but they are also hanging on to it. This is because inflation and falling currency values are pushing money towards Bitcoin as a safe haven. It's no longer about crazy predictions. It's about realigning the whole system. Plus, the facts back it up. Bitcoin ETFs have had net inflows for 14 days in a row, led by Fidelity, Black Rockck, and ARK.
The total value is billions of dollars, which shows that investors are very confident. Ether ETFs are also on the rise, which shows that digital assets are becoming stronger overall. All of these changes show that the market is getting more mature and that Bitcoin is no longer a choice. It's becoming a necessity.
I mean, I think it's just important to recognize that on the one side you have the most powerful person in the world and on the other side you have the most important powerful entrepreneur and richest man in the world. And when you have people that are that accomplished, it's not as if you're going to get along a 100% of the time.
So, I think a lot of the breathlessness around all of this stuff is overblown. I think the reality is that when push comes to shove, I think that they agree on more things than they probably disagree. And I think when everybody realizes that the alternative is essentially some insane form of socialism and redistribution, I think the alliance will hold and that they'll find some common ground.
I think the dollar has devalued 50% in the last 35 or 40 years. So, I think it's somewhat useful to look at any single couple of months in time, but this has been a one-way trade for a very long time. And it's probably important to understand why that is. And I think it generally has to do with the fact that the United States finances a lot of growth.
And that has been the right decision. So unless you see a complete collapse in the currency, I suspect that this decay continues to happen. So the question is, is it a bad thing? And the answer is it depends because if asset prices increase faster than the dollar devalues, you're still ahead. You may not be ahead as much, but you're still ahead.
And if you look at asset prices in the United States relative to asset prices any place else in the world, it is the flight to quality, which is to say that it is the thing that everybody wants to own. And you see that in the equity markets, you see it in real estate, you see it in hard assets. So I don't know.
I think that it's part of the fact that until we run surpluses and or completely eliminate the debt. There will always be a reason to be somewhat short the dollar. But the reality is that a lot of people still want to own these assets more than they want to own any other asset. And those assets are dollar denominated.
And so as long as that continues to hold in the push and pull, it'll be a slow bleed, but it's probably manageable. And that's just sort of like the mathematical trend of it all. So I don't know, unless there's some like cataclysmic collapse in asset prices, I think that this is just a thing that you have to deal with.
It's sort of like the carry of it all. And it happens. There's all kinds of other trades where you sort of pay a carry, and that's okay. Well, I think the reality is that, you know, if you think about a country that all of a sudden has to pay a tariff. So, let's take the Vietnamese example that Freeberg said.
Let's just say that they had to prepay one year of it just to make the math simple so you can understand. They have to come up with 23 odd billion dollars, I think, is what Freeberg the number that you said or something like that. So, yeah, like 26 billion on 130. Yeah. How do you do that? Well, the first thing that you're going to do is you're going to sell dollar denominated assets that you already own and you're going to generate those US dollars and then you're going to send it to the United States Treasury.
So, you may be selling bonds. So, you would think, okay, well, that's not really good for asset prices. Okay? But then what you quickly realize is that all of that is far outweighed by the fact that all the rest of the stuff that you own, whether it's gold denominated or whether it's in local currency denominated, you want to actually go and buy these dollars because you want assets that are safe in turbulence and volatility.
And so would you rather be long the Vietnamese dong or the Vietnamese equity markets? To a degree, yes. But if you have obligations that the Vietnamese government needs to fund, their central bank is probably deciding that they need to be long US bonds and fixed income. And other people who hold assets in that country are probably going to be, you know, on a weighted basis adding exposure to the United States while all of this stuff is happening.
Why? Because you're seeing the balance sheet of of America burgeoning and growing. 23 billion from Vietnam, tens of billions over here, tens of billions over there. It all adds up. So again, I I think that this is like a very complicated multivariate problem, but the net takeaway is that the dollar devaluation is not something that's new.
It is a phenomenon that has existed through market cycles for 50 plus years. It's a decay that has happened and will continue to happen. So I think the way that I think about it is there's a drag, but can the drag be overcome by the increase in asset values of the hard assets that are dollar denominated?
And the answer is yes and meaningfully so. And so as long as that's the case, I think you're going to continue to have a bid for equities. If all of a sudden the MAG7 decided to delist and not be American companies and all of a sudden showed up in the CAC 50 in France, yeah, we'd be in big trouble. But I don't think that's going to happen.
And so as long as you know there's American ingenuity and American supremacy again which goes back to the other thing which is we can't kill these golden geese nor should we kill the emerging and growing golden goose which is AI. And as long as those things are the same there will be a constant bid for American assets.
And that will keep the enterprise of America going for far longer than most people would guess up to a point. pull up pull up this chart that I said this is the Yeah, I think that this is why Buffett sort of speaks about this in these extremely long arcs that you're always ultimately going to be on the wrong side of the trade betting against the United States.
And it's probably important to then say, well, what would a boundary condition be? I don't think the boundary condition is the dollar. I actually don't think the boundary condition is the debt. I think the boundary condition is if something were to happen with the quality of the human capital inside of the United States and its inability to innovate, then we're probably in trouble.
But even that story will take 50 to 100 years to play out. I just think for most of our lifetimes, this is a safe trade because it's a winning trade. It wasn't a chart or a big statement this time that made waves. It was just two quiet but powerful words from Bitcoin founder Tim Draper for all time.
It was said without any hesitation and showed years of unwavering confidence. Draper believed in Bitcoin even when everyone else thought it was a scam. He has been through every crash and crackdown. These days, he's not running away as more institutions and states try to catch up. Instead, he's going allin.
The discussion has changed, though. No longer is it about trying to catch the highest prices. Draper sees a bigger change. People are losing faith in fiat currencies and old banking systems, which is putting money into Bitcoin not to make money, but to stay alive. His infinity isn't just a wild guess.
It's a measure of how much money is going down. Money like dollars and euros keeps losing value, then using them to measure Bitcoin has no point. Draper doesn't just think Bitcoin's price will go up. He thinks it will become the new standard. As the world's financial system changes, Bitcoin might not just rise, it might replace.
Now, we leave you with this question. Is Bitcoin now ready to take on its role as the basis of a new golden age of money? Leave your ideas below. Click like and click subscribe to get
Comments 0