저자: Redacted · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 워런 버핏·찰리 멍거의 2021년 주주총회 비트코인 비판을 다루며, 진행자는 비트코인을 법정화폐 대안으로 옹호하고 이더리움·도지코인 등 투자 기회를 언급함. 워런 버핏과 찰리 멍거는 주주총회에서 암호화폐를 강하게 비판. 멍거는 비트코인을 '혐오한다'며 범죄 악용과 문명에 반하는 발전이라고 주장. 버핏은 직접 답변을 피하고 로빈후드 등 소매투자 플랫폼이 사람들의 도박 본능을 이용한다고 비판. 진행자는 두 사람의 비판에 반박하며 비트코인이 탈중앙화된 새로운 통화 시스템이고 법정화폐는 역사상 살아남은 사례가 없다고 주장. 달러는 무제한 발행되는 반면 비트코인은 총량이 정해져 있다고 설명. 근거 수치: 버크셔해서웨이가 과거 현금 보유로 금을 놓쳤다고 주장하며, 130억 달러를 금에 투자했다면 현재 세계 최대 기업이 됐을 것이라고 언급. 테슬라의 15억 달러 비트코인 투자 성과도 근거로 제시. 2012년 론 폴 조언을 따라 2만 달러를 투자했다면 현재 1억 6,700만 달러였을 것이라고 말함. 암호화폐 시가총액 약 2조 달러 언급. 이더리움: 비자가 이더리움 기반 거래 플랫폼 구축을 언급했다고 소개하며 비트코인 다음으로 투자 대상이 될 수 있다고 제시. 가격 목표는 제시되지 않음. 도지코인: 질문이 없었다는 농담 섞인 언급만 있음. 로빈후드: 게임스톱·AMC 사태에서 소액투자자 보호를 내세우면서도 매수를 제한한 것은 모순이라고 비판. 리스크 및 조건: 게임스톱 등 밈주식 사태로 피해를 본 투자자가 있었다는 점을 인정. 진행자는 구체적 매도 시점이나 손절 조건은 제시하지 않음. 출연자 전망: 진행자는 비트코인이 미래 통화 시스템이라는 장기 견해를 밝힘. 단기 가격 방향에 대한 명시적 예측은 없음.
다듬은 글
Warren Buffett's remarks over the weekend on cryptocurrency, Robinhood, and more. He seemed to be just in his older age now, not pulling any punches, saying exactly how he feels about these things. And so this is how I feel: I'm not a big fan of this retail space.
Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett and his longtime business partner Charlie Munger, who haven't been together on stage in quite a while, at ages 90 and 97, pushed back on some of the big trends in investing at the company's annual shareholder meeting on Saturday. It was interesting to hear their take on cryptocurrency and on this retail investing movement, certainly with Robinhood and GameStop and all of it. Here are a few takeaways.
On Bitcoin, Munger said, "Of course I hate Bitcoin." He said cryptocurrencies are used for criminal enterprises, and, modestly, "the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interests of civilization." I don't understand how anyone gets to the idea that this is contrary to civilization, when government fiat currency keeps collapsing. We talk about this on the show all the time: no fiat currency in world history has ever survived. For the very first time, you have a new monetary system that is decentralized, not run by any state or any one government. If something goes offline it doesn't matter, because no government controls it and can simply print whatever it wants. So I just don't understand that.
When asked whether he still considers cryptos worthless artificial gold, now that the overall crypto market is valued at two trillion dollars, Buffett dodged the question. He said he knew a Bitcoin question would come, and that with hundreds of thousands of people watching who own Bitcoin and maybe two who are short, answering means making 400,000 people unhappy to make two people happy, which is a dumb equation. He joked that a former Nebraska governor used to answer tough questions by looking at the person and saying "I'm all right on that one," and then walking off. Buffett also said Munger would be more truthful, and Munger said those who know him well are waving the red flag of the bull: he hates Bitcoin's success, doesn't welcome a currency so useful to kidnappers and extortionists, and doesn't like shuffling billions of dollars to someone who invented a new financial product out of thin air.
Warren missed a golden opportunity there. He could have said, "I'm going to doge that question." He didn't bring up Dogecoin, but the questions they did ask were good ones. Bill Maher also went on about this on HBO this week, the idea that Bitcoin is fake and made up. You can say that all you want, but this may be the future of our monetary system. Look at how many projects are now being built on Ethereum. Visa is talking about building its transaction platform on Ethereum. Ethereum may be number two to Bitcoin's number one, and that's fine.
The key difference is supply. Bitcoin is finite, and currency has to be finite to hold value. The US dollar is effectively infinite: the government can print as much as it wants, and it keeps printing. Bitcoin is backed by labor, the dollar is backed by nothing. We know how much Bitcoin exists, but we can keep pushing out dollars. Ask any financial expert whether they keep their money in cash. The answer is absolutely not.
This connects to Buffett's own mistake on gold. Twenty years ago Berkshire Hathaway had about 70 billion dollars in cash, and later around 130 billion, and he kept it in dollars. Even if he had used only half of it and put it into gold instead of sitting in dollars, Berkshire would now be the largest company in the world, a three-trillion-dollar company, three times the size of Apple. Imagine if it had gone into Bitcoin instead. Look at what Tesla did when Elon Musk invested 1.5 billion in Bitcoin: its profits exploded as a result. I've said before that if I had listened to Ron Paul in 2012 and invested the 20,000 dollars I had, I'd have around 167 million dollars right now. You didn't learn your lesson last week, when I said hold Bitcoin and you sold it. If you had held it a few more days, you'd have been up. Maybe third time's a charm, and I might try some Ethereum.
As for where to get Ethereum, it's available on most major exchanges like Coinbase. I use Binance, and I'm starting with Bybit, which I'll cover in more detail soon. Both have very low fees. The market has exploded since last week, so there's a theory you can get in on as this runs up.
Buffett also talked about Robinhood, saying the platform takes advantage of the gambling instincts of society, that it isn't admirable, and that it creates its own reality for a while, until nobody tells you when the clock strikes twelve and everyone turns back into pumpkins and mice. It sounds like he could be describing the US dollar too.
On Robinhood, I think it's an interesting discussion. I believe Buffett truly wants as many people as possible involved in trading and learning about investing in businesses. That's been his lifelong mission, empowering people to take control of their financial future, and I think it's similar to what I'm trying to do with this show. Where I disagree is lumping everyone together and saying that a flashy, fun platform means everyone will get screwed. He's partly right. Social media and Reddit forums drove people into GameStop and AMC, and people got burned because they didn't know what they were doing.
Robinhood, though, plays into that. It released a statement saying it doesn't think it's right to insult retail investors, that it has built a platform that democratizes trading and lets everyone get involved. Of course it would say that, since it makes a lot of money from people who shouldn't be trading and don't understand the markets. It can play the populist, defending the right to trade. But then why did it stop people from buying GameStop when it was going crazy and allow only selling? If it's so in favor of the little guy, why did the little guy get screwed when it pulled back the ability to buy GameStop? It's hypocritical to talk out of both sides of its mouth.
I'd love to hear your thoughts. Is Warren Buffett right about Robinhood? Is he right about crypto? What about Charlie Munger? Drop a comment below.
Comments 0