저자: Chris및패널P · 외국인
요약 보기
Peter Schiff의 푸에르토리코 은행 계좌가 순자본 기준 미충족을 이유로 동결된 사건을 다룬다. 사건 개요: 주말 사이 Schiff의 펀드 고객 자산이 든 은행 계좌가 폐쇄됐으며, 은행은 순최소자본 요건 미충족을 이유로 들었다. 출연자들은 자금세탁방지(AML)·KYC 위반 가능성을 추측했으나 확인되지 않았고, Schiff는 혐의 없이 신규 자본 투입 매수자와의 매각을 막았다며 반발했다. 비트코인 관점: 패널은 이 사건을 중앙화 금융기관이 개인의 자산 접근을 임의로 제한할 수 있다는 근거로 해석했다. 비트코인은 은행 같은 중개자를 제거해 자산 통제권을 개인에게 돌려준다는 논리다. 반론 및 리스크: 패널은 신뢰할 수 없는 제3자는 보안 위험이며, 지갑 앱이나 커스터디 라이트닝 서비스에도 자금 경로 문제 등 위험이 있다고 인정했다. 오픈소스 검증의 중요성도 언급했다. 모순 지적: Schiff가 금 투자를 자산의 5%만 하면서 금을 은행 금고에 보관하고 해외 주식도 보유하고 있어, 그도 같은 동결 위험에 노출돼 있다는 점을 비판했다. 전망: 금이나 비트코인 가격 방향에 대한 1~3개월 예측 발언은 없다. Schiff의 비트코인 전향 가능성도 농담 수준으로 일축됐다.
다듬은 글
what is the most exciting thing that has happened in your mind over the last let's say 72 hours i think peter shift into a bitcoin maximalist potentially is the most exciting thing in the world yeah for sure uh i don't know if you heard about this take us through it take us through it so over the weekend um peter shift had his banks closed so uh he is obviously a fund manager so he lives in puerto rico but the puerto rican regulars actually closed down peter schiff's bank accounts that actually had his customers assets in them so uh under the guise of not meeting net minimum capital requirements is what they were saying uh i'm not too familiar with hedge funds and how that works but i'm assuming basically you need to have a net minimum amount of cash in there and i don't know if he's moving assets around or whatnot but uh ultimately they closed his accounts other people actually in cafe bitcoin this morning were speculating that he uh didn't disclose under proper kyc or aml laws that if one of his clients was moving money in and out of his fund and if something weird was happening you know uh it was an issue with not meeting basically anti-money laundering rules or kyc regulations this is just a speculation but they don't know i mean they could close down for net minimum requirements they can close down for any number of reasons uh the regulars of puerto rico actually have not commented yet peter shift is obviously claiming no fault of his own um but yeah i'll just leave it at that p what are your thoughts i mean the irony is staggering here so peter schiff notorious goldbug has been shitting on bitcoin forever he loves to uh you know just fight with bitcoiners constantly his frame of course is that gold is the only sound money and that bitcoin is just this crazy fad which is hilarious um it's part of his brand it's part of how he brings in more followers um but he's you know a favorite punching bag of the uh the bitcoin space and it is uh amazing that his bank account in puerto rico has been shut down uh this is an incredibly strong case for bitcoin right the whole idea of bitcoin is that it disintermediates the process of transferring and storing value so if you have your money with a bank you are beholden to them and at any time for any reason uh or rather for specific reasons which they can shift and change uh and they can surprise you with your access to the the the value the money that you have earned fairly can be taken away from you and it is incredibly uh the shutting front is uh just massive here that someone who is such a famous popular person who shits on bitcoin just experienced in real time the reason that bitcoin is so important it removes the need for banks and financial institutions and it brings the power of uh of controlling your own destiny financially into the hands of the people so man if this is not a case for bitcoin i don't know what is some people i was talking to were like oh my gosh is peter schiff finally going to embrace bitcoin no no he's fucking not his entire business is built on him not embracing bitcoin and arguing that gold is the only answer but it is very very funny chris what do you think yeah no i think you hit the nail on the head there uh i'll just quote peter schiff himself here so this is one of his tweets in response to what happened despite no evidence of crimes puerto rico regulars closed my bank anyway for net capital issues rather than allow a sale to a highly qualified buyer promising to inject capital far in excess of regulatory minimums as a result accounts are frozen and customers may lose money i'm not sure if that means that they could just keep the funds but i think that to this is this is to bitcoin's ethos trusted third parties are a security risk whether that's peter shift whether that's a bank in the united states whether it's a bank abroad whether that's a lending platform like block fi celsius or whatever if you are trusting another party to do anything um it's a it's a risk even to even to bitcoin's ethos like you download blue wallet or moon wallet or any of these different platforms if you do not check the code which i am not a coder or a computer science major and i do not understand code that well i understand the principles of it but um checking it myself is very difficult i don't go line by line and say like this line says that it's something that you can do and that's they advocate for free and open source software but that is a risk too i mean i know even just not to bash on blue wallet but i like them a lot but they were having issues with their uh custodial lightning wall just a couple like i'd say four or five weeks ago where people were having uh trend like it would said funds in transit but then the funds would return to you because they couldn't find a way to route around it so they're having issues with their custodial lightning network uh p i don't know if you want to add to that basically anything i said there well i think that there it's a spectrum right so um there is a massive difference between using a centralized bank or a centralized authority that can shut down your funds for any number of reasons right the problem one of the big problems is that what what tends to happen over and over again through history is that these centralized systems are used to kind of control the destinies of the people so when basically the government decides that uh you know its own interests or the people that are in power's interest do not align with people having you know their access to their finances uh the banks will come up with a reason for basically limiting bad access uh we saw this in canada with the uh sorry for the dog parking we saw this in canada with the uh the you know the uh the freedom convoy and any number of other things uh throughout history that just continues to happen so to your point about you know blue about the blue wallet it uh again it's a spectrum right so one of the values i don't actually think that everyone needs to understand how to code and to be able to read through line by line that by having software that is ideally open source you basically create a situation where more people more eyes from people that are extremely qualified are able to you know really sink their teeth into what's going on behind the scenes and then form strong opinions about it yeah no i think that's great it's also uh i guess this is my one gripe with peter shift as well he only allocates five percent of his fund to gold and to make matters worse it'd be it almost like i'd give him a pass not saying i don't invest in gold myself i don't advocate for people doing that i think bitcoin's far superior but he evens like oh like you don't want banks confiscating your wealth but then he even it discloses that the gold that he has is stored in a vault at a bank so it's like he's like yeah 95 stocks outside the united states and i've kind of heard his pitch before it's like dude they're closing down your bank account your stocks are included in that yeah they're closing your bank account that's included the gold that's in the vault in the bank is included in that so it's like he's he's exposed to all those risks which uh i just find baffling i guess i don't know if there's anything else you want to add there well just you know if you if you own stocks or you own gold really all that you have is an iou for those assets so again when the government decides that you're a bad person you did a bad thing and they don't want you to have access to those funds they will manufacture a reason for taking those funds or limiting your access to them you
댓글 0