저자: LisaEllis · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 버핏과 멍거는 비트코인을 생산성 없는 투기 자산으로 보며 강하게 비판했지만, 이 영상에는 앞으로 1~3개월 가격 방향에 대한 예측 발언은 없다. 버핏·멍거의 비트코인 비판: 비트코인은 농장이나 공장처럼 무언가를 생산하지 않는 '비생산적 자산'이라는 주장. 버핏은 25달러를 준다 해도 비트코인을 받지 않겠다고 했고, 멍거는 비트코인이 어리석고 악하며 자신을 나쁘게 보이게 한다고 평가했다. 비트코인 가치 평가 방식: 비트코인은 통화, 자산, 결제 시스템 가스 역할 등 여러 의미를 가지며 단순한 투기만은 아니라는 관점. 일부 투자자는 결제 사용 사례와 거래량, 인프라 투자 비용을 계산해 목표가를 설정한다. 제로 가능성: 멍거는 비트코인이 0이 될 가능성이 매우 높다고 언급. 출연자는 각국의 전면 금지나 사토시 나카모토 신원 공개 시 신뢰 붕괴 등 꼬리 위험을 제시하면서도, 이는 위험 자산 일반에 존재하는 분포 중 하나라고 설명. 중국 비교: 멍거는 중국 공산당 지도부가 비트코인을 금지한 것을 들어 미국이 더 어리석다고 비판. 출연자는 미국이 스테이블코인을 지원해 달러 기축통화 지위를 디지털 기술로 현대화하고 있어 어리석은 위치는 아니라고 평가. 기타 코인: 버핏과 멍거가 비트코인만 언급하고 이더리움 등은 언급하지 않은 점에 대해, 출연자는 이더리움이 통화보다 운영체제에 가까워 유틸리티가 있을 수 있다고 봄. 출연자 전망: 비트코인 가격 방향에 대한 명시적 단기 예측은 없음. 제로 가능성은 꼬리 위험으로 언급.
다듬은 글
welcome back everyone during the first berkshire hathaway annual shareholders meeting held in person since ovid warren buffett and charlie munger didn't hold back on their disdain for bitcoin for more on why i'm joined by lisa ellis partner at moffat nathanson good to have you lisa obviously no surprise they've made no secret about this what would you compare their disdain to bitcoin to oh it's very similar at least they're consistent uh they've long um lambasted gold for many of the same reasons they view gold and bitcoin as what they refer to as unproductive assets assets that you know aren't like a farm or a factory that make things but ones that are sort of intrinsically more speculative um that's fine valid like that's a style choice there are other investors that believe that some of these more you know we call commodity assets hold long-term value because they're tied to big macro factors like how gold is uh tied to you know elevated um uh times of geopolitical risk etc or elevated periods of inflation it's just sort of a different investment style but uh but that's yeah that's the point they're making they're saying bitcoin like as the currency bitcoin is an unproductive asset and so they uh they don't they don't invest in unproductive assets and he was very specific he said even for all the bitcoin in the world for 25 he wouldn't take it i i'm not 100 sure i believe him but perhaps but he did but he did say quote whether it goes up or down in the next year or five or 10 years i don't know but the one thing i'm pretty sure of is that it doesn't multiply it doesn't produce anything it's got a magic to it and people have attached magic to lots of things now keep in mind he was also comparing that to farmland or rental properties things that obviously you can make money from but is that a fair comparison do you think yeah i don't know i mean one of the complicating aspects when it comes to bitcoin is that there are different ways to view bitcoin and the word bitcoin actually means a few different things it refers to the currency the unit of value within the bitcoin system but it also refers to the overall like capital b bitcoin payment system and what's complicated is that bitcoins are used to power the whole system they're like uh gas or oil or um you know or a toll booth right there's sort of transaction costs associated so if you believe that the bitcoin system will be used for for something like use cases like for example for a method of payment in countries that are autocratic or have unstable currencies for example you can do the math on like okay what are those use cases how many transactions how much investment in the infrastructure is required to power those transactions much like like a payment network like visa or mastercard and therefore what am i willing to pay for that juice like that electricity that powers it which is also a bit of what bitcoin is and that's the math actually a lot of people do when they're trying to set you know a target price for bitcoin so you know they're kind of mixing that's a little bit of a complicated thing when you're looking at this space is like there are different different ways to view the value so to speak of bitcoin it's arguably not fully just speculative and as you mentioned it could be viewed as a currency it could be used as an asset or as you mentioned it the gas that this all runs on but we did see charlie munger saying that he avoids things that are stupid evil and make him look bad and said bitcoin does all three now regarding the stupidity part he actually says it's very likely that bitcoin will go to zero but how likely is what would need to happen for that to be the case you think yeah you'd have to i mean for bitcoin to go to zero um there are i guess there's a few dif one you'd probably have to see countries widely outlawing it uh which is the opposite of the regulatory direction we've seen generally speaking governments have sort of embraced bitcoin and other digital assets um there's also i guess this tail scenario where there's an argument that if uh the identity of satoshi nakamoto was discovered um uh definitively that perhaps the integrity of the system which is really built on its anonymity uh uh would crumble right and people would no longer sort of trust the anonymity um of bitcoin the trustless aspect of the system uh and uh that's kind of a tail risk i suppose that's out there but it's another scenario um where it could potentially go to zero but you know that's the case of many things you know that are riskier assets that you invest in that there's always sort of uh some distribution that may end up with the company you know going bankrupt or going to zero it's not dissimilar from that and and that's and that's a fair that's a fair point as well i do want to mention china because we did see um charlie munger did mention it saying that by by us continuing with bitcoin he's saying it makes us look foolish compared to the communist leader in china he said he was smart enough to ban bitcoin there and with all of our presumed advantages in civilization we are a lot dumber than the communist leader in china but obviously the us still exploring these risks exploring the gray area when it comes to risks and opportunities and they did they just specifically mentioned bitcoin are not all cryptos so is the u.s in a foolish position when it comes to this i don't think so i mean the the us is also being quite progressive in supporting stable coins you know a different flavor of coin besides bitcoin which are tied to the dollar you know the us dollar they're they're typically us dollar back they could also be euro backed or something fiat backed stable coins which is a which is a way actually of permeating the dollar you know the us dollar as the global reserve currency in a much more modern way than how it's done today leveraging uh digital asset technology that is very progressive actually so in many ways in embracing bitcoin as kind of the granddaddy of crypto but then also embracing a wide array of coins associated with this technology stable coins nfts uh uh ethereum and everything being built off ethereum the us is particularly around supporting stable coins actually um being a bit progressive in making sure that they maintain the us dollar as the global reserve currency by modernizing essentially the underlying technology that it's uh that it's run on i thought it was interesting i mean to your point that they keep only commenting on bitcoin and they're not commenting on some of these other tokens it actually leads me to believe that they may see more utility and some of the other ones like ethereum for example which is more like an operating system it's a bit like buying into microsoft azure like an open source version of microsoft azure has nothing to do with currency really right so it's it's a it's a you know it's uh i'd love to hear their perspective frankly on some of those other uh those other uh types of coins we'll certainly watch this place it was conspicuously left out that it was just bitcoin or not the others lisa ellis there thank you so much partner at moffat nathanson thank you so much
Comments 0