저자: EugenioBenetazzo · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 비트코인은 가격이 0으로 갈 것이라는 Jim Rogers의 주장과 달리, 자산 분리(segregation) 수단으로서 쓸모가 있다고 주장한다. 발언자는 Jim Rogers가 비트코인을 '쓸모없다'고 한 것은 비트코인의 기본 기능(자산 분리)을 모르는 데서 나온 말이라고 비판한다. 비트코인의 원래 목적이 소액결제였다는 점도 언급하지만 이 목적은 사실상 무시되었다고 본다. 자산 분리 기능 설명: 거래소에서 개인 지갑으로 옮기면 중앙화된 통제(은행, 금융중개기관, 법원 등에 의한 자산 압류나 회수)를 피할 수 있다고 주장한다. 기존 자산(펀드, 주식, 채권, 예금, 회사 지분 등)은 법적 개입으로 공격받을 수 있는 반면, 비트코인은 탈중앙화 덕분에 이를 막을 수 있다고 본다. 활용 사례: 사업가, 전문직, 이혼자, 제3자와 분쟁 중인 사람 등이 부당한 금융 공격을 피하기 위해 일부 자산을 비트코인으로 분리하는 것을 돕고 있다고 말하며, 이혼 소송 중인 사람들의 예(배우자 측 변호사의 부당한 청구로부터 자산 보호)를 든다. 리스크: 해커에 의한 탈취와, 지갑 복구 키(paper wallet 등)를 잃어버려 본인이 접근하지 못하게 되는 위험. 이 두 가지를 주요 위험으로 제시한다. 종목/자산 가격 방향 발언: 본 영상에서는 대상 자산의 1~3개월 가격 방향에 대한 구체적 예측이 없음. 장기적 기능(자산 분리)에 대한 견해만 있음. 결론적으로 발언자는 비트코인의 가격 전망보다는 자산 보호 수단으로서의 가치를 강조하며, 관련 심화 자료는 영상 설명란 보충 노트에 있다고 안내한다.
다듬은 글
A recent statement by Jim Rogers, a famous financial wall and institutional investor, about Bitcoin has caused a stir in the keto sphere. It is his prediction, according to the well-known American tycoon, that Bitcoin will go to zero because it is useless. Let's take a step back more than 10 years, let's go back to when Bitcoin was conceived, especially the mission that it originally had was supposed to be a Lola Ten.
It is printed in mind that digital falls, that is, a cryptocurrency for making instant micropayments. All in all, 0. Well, we all understand this type of mission. It has been completely ignored. Saying that Bitcoin is useless can help us understand that Jim Rogers is probably unaware of any of the basic functions of Bitcoin, which is the segregation of assets.
Specifically, today, using Bitcoin but also other cryptocurrencies that are similar in concept to Bitcoin, I can segregate a portion of capital that is expressed in conventional currency, therefore with a countervalue in euros, dollars, pounds, and so on. And the moment I go to move it from an exchange to a wallet, even better if On a wallet, that type of digital asset cannot be attacked by anyone.
Institutionally speaking, the only people I have to worry about are hackers or myself if I lose access to move money. This is an aspect that must be considered significantly because in everyday life, anyone who runs a business, a professional, a divorced person, or someone who has problems with third parties can often find themselves the target of unpleasant financial attacks that can be justified in some cases, but many times they are not.
The holding of capital from a conventional point of view, therefore with all the currencies we know in the world that are subject to centralized control, apart from a monetary institution, it can be a central bank, a financial intermediary, and so on. A savings management company or a simple financial intermediary can be attacked precisely because there are legal intervention mechanisms that allow a third party to recover that capital for various reasons.
I am thinking right now of the various people I am helping who are saving themselves from the evil clutches of their ex-wife who is literally putting them in their underwear by making demands that They are crazy and senseless. Well, thanks to bitcoin, at this moment they are managing to prevent a part of their capital from being attacked by their wife's lawyers for absurd or phantom agreements.
Everything that represents so-called conventional capital, such as funds, shares, bonds and liquidity, accounts, company shares and so on, can be attacked precisely because they represent conventional and traditional assets that fall within a world that, when centralized, bitcoin allows, thanks to its decentralization, to perform this main function, namely that of segregating a quantity of capital in order to prevent it from being attacked by you.
Obviously, the only risks we face, as we have previously mentioned, are protecting ourselves from hackers and also from a lack of memory of ourselves, should we inadvertently lose access to our paper walls and/or with the walls. For those who want to delve deeper into the topic of asset segregation using digital assets, I leave you an in-depth article in the supplementary note to the clip.
Comments 0