저자: 미상 · 외국인
요약 보기
워런 버핏과 찰리 멍거의 비트코인 비판(생산성 없는 자산, 금과 유사)을 소개하고 이에 대한 반론을 전한다. 반론 측은 비트코인이 분산형 네트워크로 검열 저항성이 있고 공정가치 회계 도입으로 기업 재무자산으로 쓸 수 있다고 주장한다. 버핏의 3% 세후 수익률 대비 현금 보유 손실(인플레이션 기준 약 12% 실질 마이너스)을 근거로 든다. 마이크로소프트가 현금흐름 일부를 비트코인에 배분하면 10년간 1조 달러 증가 가능성을 제시한다. 영상은 결론을 내리지 않고 시청자에게 버핏의 입장이 낡았는지 질문한다.
다듬은 글
At one point this weekend, you said that Bitcoin, and this was basic, you were asked, Charlie said Bitcoin's like rat poison. You were asked about that comment, and you said, "Well, it's probably more like rat poison squared." Uh Charlie went on in the meeting to then basically call Bitcoin turds. Um he he is an expressive sort, isn't he?
Maybe when he gets a little older, he'll mature. I just want to ask you about that because it sparked so much controversy and particularly on Twitter and some of the places where you might expect people who are trading in in cryptocurrency uh to be pretty um loud about what they heard. What what is it about Bitcoin that gets you guys so fired up?
Warren Buffett has never been subtle about his stance on Bitcoin. To him, it's not just a bad investment, it's something worse. His longtime business partner Charlie Munger didn't hold back either, famously calling it rat poison and a turds investment. Their words sparked outrage across the crypto community, raising an important question.
Is Buffett dismissing Bitcoin too quickly or is he right to be skeptical? Well, when you buy a farm, uh, you look at the crop every year and and what prices are and you decide whether it was a satisfactory investment. I mean you you look to the asset itself and what it produces for you. When we buy a business, we look at what the business earns and decide how we feel about it in terms of what we paid.
But we are buying something that at the end of the period, we not only have what we bought in the first place, but we have something that the asset produced. And when you buy nonproductive assets, uh, all you're counting on is whether the next person is going to pay you more because they're even more excited about another next person coming along.
But the asset itself is creating nothing. Buffett's core argument is simple. Bitcoin doesn't produce anything. Unlike a farm, a business, or real estate, it doesn't generate income or yield returns. It's an asset that relies on speculation rather than value creation. But is that really true? Bitcoin believers argue that it does produce something, a decentralized, trustless financial network that allows for transactions outside of government control.
Could it be that Buffett is underestimating the true power of Bitcoin? One of the interesting things u for example is is gold. Uh if you go back to the time of Christ and you look at how many hours of labor you had to give up in order to buy an ounce of gold and you take it forward to now, you'll you'll find the compound, right?
Maybe a tenth or two ten of 1%, you know, and and and then you have to insure it during that time and make sure you know somebody doesn't steal it from you and everything, but it doesn't produce anything. and uh productive assets. Uh you may you can pay too much for a productive asset, but I bought a farm in the 1980s and and every year look at how much it produced the way of soybeans and corn and at the end of that period I've still got the farm and I've gotten some significant income off of it.
Buffett equates Bitcoin to gold, a historical store of value that lacks productive output. But unlike gold, Bitcoin offers something new. An entirely decentralized network with verifiable transactions and a fixed supply. While gold sits idle, Bitcoin enables financial transactions across the world. Buffett's comparison ignores the utility Bitcoin provides as a censorship resistant asset in a digital economy.
I saw in an article where you you you you were suggesting Apple should buy $und00 billion in of Bitcoin. You said Bill Gates, call me if you want to make the next trillion, meaning buy Bitcoin. And then when I saw a number that just recently came out is that Birkshshire Hathaway, if I'm not mistaken, they're sitting on $325 billion dollars of cash.
$325 billion of cash where they're sitting at. If you right there, yeah, $325 billion of cash. Are are any of these guys in communication with you? Have you spoken to Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Tim Cook? Any of them? What? Bitcoin advocates argue that sitting on massive cash reserves is a mistake in an era of inflation.
Michael Sailor sees a different reality, one where holding dollars results in guaranteed loss of purchasing power, while Bitcoin offers a hedge against that erosion. If Buffett refuses to allocate part of Berkshire's fortune to Bitcoin, is he really protecting shareholder value? that 32 uh 320 billion that is destroying $ 32 billion a year.
They are destroying $3 billion a month in capital because they're they're generating a 3% after tax yield at best and the cost capital is 15%. So take 12% negative real yield on that. Sailor makes a compelling case that cash is a melting ice cube. With rising inflation, holding cash results in diminishing value over time.
The core of his argument is that Bitcoin as a scarce digital asset will appreciate in value while dollars lose purchasing power. Buffett's refusal to recognize this shift could mean missing out on one of the greatest financial transformations in history. Bitcoin is a major uh revolution because starting in 2025, you can uh you can account for Bitcoin on fair uh on fair value basis, which means that Bitcoin is just as good as treasury bills and it's a commodity.
So, you can have 100% of your balance sheet in Bitcoin. And what that means is Microsoft if they just if they just stopped divoting out their cash flow and stopped buying back their stock and they converted to a Bitcoin buy and you crank in like a a conservative like a 21% assumption like half their cash flow in Bitcoin you make a trillion dollars over 10 years.
This is where the argument for Bitcoin becomes particularly compelling. If Bitcoin is treated as a corporate treasury asset, it could outperform traditional reserves. Sailor suggests that companies like Microsoft or Apple could exponentially increase their value by allocating capital to Bitcoin. Yet Buffett, one of the world's greatest investors, still refuses to acknowledge this opportunity.
If Bergkshire did it, they would make more, right? I mean, they've got incent. If they flipped that, you know, put $300 billion into Bitcoin and grow 21%, you're generating $60 billion a year of investment income. If companies adopting Bitcoin as a Treasury reserve asset see exponential returns, why should Berkshire Hathaway ignore this shift?
The numbers suggest Bitcoin could offer superior long-term performance compared to traditional cash holdings. The question remains, is Buffett being too rigid in his investment philosophy, or is he simply taking a more cautious approach? Buffett's views on Bitcoin have remained unchanged for over a decade, but the world of finance is evolving rapidly.
The emergence of Bitcoin as a legitimate store of value is challenging traditional investment strategies. While Buffett continues to dismiss Bitcoin as speculation, people like Michael Sailor see it as an economic revolution. Bitcoin's decentralized nature, scarcity, and potential to preserve wealth in an inflationary world are hard to ignore.
The real question is, will Buffett eventually change his stance, or will he remain firm in his belief that Bitcoin is just another bubble? The smartest thing for the US to do is to buy up as much of that as they can. So, you buy a million coin, that's 5% of the network. buy four million coin, you got 20% of the network.
Why not buy 20, 25, 30% of the network? So, what do you think? Is Buffett holding on to outdated views, or is he simply being a responsible investor? And if Bergkshire Hathaway ever did buy Bitcoin, what impact would that have on the market? Let us know in the comments.
Comments 0