저자: TomLee · 외국인
요약 보기
블록체인은 신뢰 없는 당사자 간 거래를 해결하는 핵심 기술이며 AI 에이전트 경제에서 더 중요해질 것이라 주장. 올해 비트코인·이더리움 약세는 긴축 쪽으로 기운 통화정책, 지연된 CLARITY법, AI로의 자본 쏠림이라는 일시적 역풍 때문. 비트코인 생산원가 대비 50% 하회 시 구조적 문제로 판단. 연말까지 BTC 10만달러, ETH 5,000달러 회복 전망.
다듬은 글
Bitcoin topped $100,000 and Ethereum returned to $5,000 by the end of this year. That's exactly the conclusion Tom Lee is drawing now, in a year when cryptocurrency has quietly become the biggest laggard in the entire market. Stocks are rising. The Scottish National Party ( SNP) had a strong first half of the year, but Bitcoin has fallen by about half from its highs and Ethereum has lost almost 2/3 of its value.
While everything else was growing, cryptocurrency was almost completely holding back this growth. Tom Lee, head of research at Funstrat, was asked bluntly why he was still optimistic after such a year. His answer was not about rebounding or short-term trading. It was about what Bitcoin and Ethereum were really made for, and why he believes the pain investors have felt this year still fits a pattern that has appeared time and time again in the history of cryptocurrencies.
So today, we'll look at exactly what he said, the arguments for why blockchain is still important, the specific price levels he's referring to, and the one number he says will tell him something is really wrong. Let's get down to business. The reason we were bullish on cryptocurrencies earlier this year, and indeed for the past 10 years, is that cryptocurrencies and blockchains solve an important problem, which is how to make trusted transactions between two untrusted parties.
And this type of settlement and finality has been proven because, as you know, Bitcoin and Ethereum have never recorded a fraudulent login in their entire history. Hmm, and that's why Wall Street is creating tokenized assets and stablecoin rails, and I think that over time, I think blockchain will actually replace a lot of the legacy financial rails.
For example, today in Europe, in London, the Goldman Sachs conference is taking place, and the number of participants has almost tripled compared to last year. Hmm, I'm also optimistic about cryptocurrencies because I think as agents and AI become much richer and we start to see, you know, agents creating wealth for us and robots creating wealth for us.
The opportunity for us is that we can reach a point where agents actually own more wealth than we do. You know, and I'll call it the " uncanny valley of riches." There may come a time when, if our delegated agents make more money than we do, we will wonder whether we work for them or they work for us.
And I think that's why cryptocurrency and a lot of technologists are starting to realize that cryptocurrency is actually one way for people to control the future of agents. So I think those two megatrends are still there, but cryptocurrency prices this year have been, ahem, absolutely terrible. Lee's starting point is simple.
Cryptocurrency and blockchain solve one specific problem that nothing else fully solves, which is how two parties who don't trust each other can still make a transaction with complete confidence. Bitcoin and Ethereum have never recorded a fraudulent login in their entire history. This track record is the foundation upon which everything else is built, and that is why Wall Street firms have spent the last few years creating tokenized assets and stablecoin infrastructure based on these networks.
But the more interesting part of his answer looks forward, not backward. Lee pointed to a shift that most people haven't fully considered yet, namely that AI agents and robots are starting to create real economic value on their own. As this trend grows, there may come a time when agents working on our behalf generate more wealth than we do directly.
Lee calls this the uncanny valley of riches, the moment when it becomes truly unclear whether we are the ones servicing our AI tools or whether we have quietly begun working for them. In his opinion, blockchain is one of the clearest tools that people have to control these relationships as they develop.
If agents are going to transact, store value, and make decisions at scale, having a transparent, auditable layer of settlement underneath all of this matters more , not less. Before we continue, only a small number of people watching this are actually subscribed. If this distribution is useful to you, click " Subscribe".
It's free and it helps keep this channel going. I think it's partly due to macroeconomic policy. You know, monetary policy is not "dovey." Six months ago, it looked questionable, did n't it? The market was looking for two cuts. Now that's two rate hikes. Um, that's a headwind. The Clarity Act, which was intended to help ensure and create federal primacy of regulation for cryptocurrencies and allow the CFTC to essentially have control over the industry.
You know, it's still stuck in Congressional processes. And, um, artificial intelligence, of course, has performed so well that, in my opinion, it has not only diverted attention, but has actually taken away investors' capital. So, I think for me these are, um, headwinds, but they don't create what I call inter-generic substitution .
I think blockchain will still be central to the future of the financial services industry and, indeed, how we manage artificial intelligence. Even with this long-term perspective, Lee doesn't shy away from explaining why prices have been so weak this year. He points to three specific headwinds. Monetary policy has changed from where it was 6 months ago, when markets were pricing in rate cuts.
Now expectations have shifted to the upside, and tighter policies are rarely favorable for risky assets like cryptocurrency. Secondly, it is regulation . The Clarity Act, a piece of legislation designed to give the crypto industry a clear federal framework and hand over control to the CFTC, is still stuck in Congress.
Without it, a significant portion of institutional funds that would otherwise be channeled into digital assets remain on the sidelines for a little longer. Third, and perhaps most underrated, is that AI has simply diverted attention and capital away from cryptocurrencies this year. When one sector delivers such returns as AI stocks, money and attention naturally flow there first.
In Lee's opinion, none of this violates the main thesis. His point is that it is a headwind, not a replacement. Nothing has emerged that performs the function of a blockchain better. Infrastructure built on its basis. From tokenized assets to stablecoin rails and systems designed to manage AI agents, things are still moving forward even when the price is stationary.
You know, cryptocurrency is hypervolatility. So, Bitcoin fell from 120,000 to 58,000, and Ethereum, which is in beta, fell from 5,000 to 1,600, which is still within historical parameters such as bull and bear market cycles for crypto. So the price hasn't reached a level that would indicate that something has broken.
But what broke down was that stocks performed well this year , while cryptocurrencies performed poorly . And, um, I think part of it has to do with some macroeconomic factors, and, you know, Scott and I discussed, for example, the fact that the Fed has become a little bit more hawkish, and AI has really taken away some of the capital, and that the Clarity Act, and that the positive release that goes with that has not happened yet.
Hmm, but none of these factors really break the history of cryptocurrencies because I, you know, like a mousetrap, blockchain is still the best way to transfer and store value and record transactions without trust. Hmm, and that's why I think Wall Street is still going to build, and build fast, on blockchains.
You know, this just doesn't happen in our everyday lives yet. And for the same reason, I think, many AI engineers are experimenting with using blockchain to govern future agents to protect us, because when AI gets rich enough, humans could be taken out of this economic cycle. Um, so I think that's why I think Bitcoin will fully recover .
You know, I think by the end of the year, Bitcoin will be over 100,000, and Ethereum will be back over 5,000. So, I think investors' patience is clearly being tested, because, I think, Bitcoin has been down for three quarters in a row. Um, but I don't think he's ever fallen four quarters in a row. So that will be a test that if they don't recover from June to September, then you're right, maybe something is broken.
Lee is specific on this issue. Bitcoin's fall from around $ 120,000 to a high of $50,000 and Ethereum's drop from around $5,000 to around $1,600 sound dramatic in themselves, but Lee sees both movements as falling within the normal range of cryptocurrency's historical bull and bear cycles . It hurts, yes .
Unprecedentedly, no . What he calls truly unusual is the gap between cryptocurrency and stocks this year. Stocks rising while cryptocurrency falls is not a typical trend, and he directly links it to the three obstacles just discussed: tighter political expectations, regulatory stagnation, and AI capital raising .
His actual goals are straightforward. He expects Bitcoin to return above $100,000 by the end of the year, and Ethereum to above $5,000. He also presents a circumstance that would cause him to question this view. Bitcoin has been falling for three consecutive quarters, and by its own admission, it has never fallen for four consecutive quarters in its history.
If Bitcoin and Ethereum fail to rise from now until September, this will be the first time this trend has been broken. And Lee says outright that this will be a real test of the thesis. The way to look at it is its production cost. Hmm, because there is the cost of mining and finding the next block, and I think Bitcoin is currently about 5% below production cost.
If Bitcoin falls below 50% of its production value, it literally means that you simply shut down the network if you cannot support the management of the Bitcoin network at its current price. I mean, to me, it would be equivalent to JP Morgan trading at half book value. Further, when asked if there is a specific price at which he would call a story a failure, Lee does not specify a round number.
It indicates the production cost, that is, how much it actually costs miners to produce a new Bitcoin. By his estimate, Bitcoin was trading only a few% below production cost at the time of the conversation. The level he closely monitors is 50% of the production cost. If the price of Bitcoin were to fall so far below the cost of mining, he says, the economics of operating the network itself would begin to collapse, as miners simply wouldn't be able to operate at such steep, sustained losses.
He compares this to a bank trading at half its book value. A level that signals something structural, not just a volatile period of sentiment. It is this formulation that makes his overall decision noteworthy. Lee doesn't ignore the pain that cryptocurrency has experienced this year. He built a certain line in the sand for what would prove his opposite.
And until Bitcoin actually passes that production cost threshold, he views this drop as another chapter in a cycle that the cryptocurrency has gone through many times before. So, here's where it all leaves off. Bitcoin and Ethereum have had one of the most difficult years compared to stocks in recent memory.
Lee's arguments are based on the premise that the computational level of feces is holding, the AI agent economy is creating new demand for blockchain rails, and the current headwinds are temporary, not permanent. His goals are clear. Bitcoin above 100,000 and Ethereum above 5,000 by the end of the year.
As is his test. The fourth quarter in a row is lost–this is the first time in history. From now until September, this is the indicator worth monitoring. See you next time.
Comments 0