저자: ChamathPalihapitiya/InvestocracyCRYPTO진행자·게스트 · 외국인
요약 보기
달러 유동성 확대와 비트코인 장기 옹호론을 중심으로, 비트코인 가격 하락 배경과 시스템 리스크(부채 한도, 상업용 부동산, 금리 정책)를 논의. 비트코인은 소수 투자자 중심의 단기 매매 성격이 강하며 기관 채택 확대와 규제 환경 개선 기대가 장기 펀더멘털로 제시됨.
다듬은 글
I'm sorry, the million-dollar biology bitcoin bet that this is the end of days... I think it's not the end of days, but I think you're conflating a bunch of things together. So, MMT. Yes, I am. In hindsight it was idiotic. In the moment it never quite made sense, but in hindsight it's clearly idiotic, and I think we can properly dispense with that.
But the reason we print so much money is what Friedberg says: we just want a well-functioning society, and the simplest way to do that is to make sure there aren't any winners and losers anymore. The most effective way to do that in the markets is to print a bunch of money, and then there are no more winners and losers. Everybody can kind of win. Some people may win more, but nobody really ever loses. I think that's the thing we're operating under.
Chamath, you're alluding to "no losers," which is more of a philosophical commentary on capitalism and a bunch of other things. You're right, I don't think it makes sense. I do think you need winners and losers for society to really function well. But the other part is whether it reinforces or decays US dollar hegemony. I think it actually reinforces it. Practically speaking, look at how dependent other countries are on the US dollar. In times of stress they become *more* dependent, and that has a lot to do with the plumbing—the amount of dollars central banks outside the United States need.
So what did we see in a moment of stress? The Fed opened swap lines to all the central banks it works with, its most important operating partners: Europe, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, and so on. They moved the liquidity window from weekly to daily and pounded the swap lines. Most people who keep crying wolf—maybe at some point somebody will be right—will lose so much money trying to take a point of view on this topic that it's more practical to just look at dollar flows. And dollar flows go *up* in moments of stress, not down, distributed across the monetary plumbing of the world.
There's a rumor going around—I don't know how true it is—that FTX was days away from getting a critical SEC approval to further legitimize its US exchange before it went out of business. Gensler had to pivot very hard from being very pro-FTX, at a minimum, and there are all kinds of stories about his relatedness with Sam and his family, to being very anti-bitcoin or anti-crypto in general. That clearly happened.
But I think this is a lot of tinfoil-hat thinking, which isn't very productive. Look at the total number of nonzero bitcoin wallet addresses in the world—let's be extremely generous and say 100 million. There are still 7 billion people in the world. Everybody who speaks about the fragility of the US and worldwide banking system is right, and that part is quite lucid and unemotional. But every time they try to connect it to bitcoin, they sound like crazy people, because they're just talking their book.
Bitcoin, often called the undisputed king of cryptocurrencies and the cornerstone of digital finance, is snared in a turbulent whirlwind as its value plunges below the once-unfathomable $93,000 mark. The decline is happening amid a broader wave of investor caution toward risk assets, reverberating across all financial landscapes after the Federal Reserve's latest statements. Bitcoin is far from the sole player in this scene, but it undoubtedly stands as a crucial linchpin. Tesla and Nvidia are also grappling with post-election fluctuations.
If bitcoin or crypto assets in general were truly a legitimate off-ramp and salvation from US dollar hegemony, why isn't bitcoin at least at $35,000 right now? It's barely above $28,000 and hasn't moved that much. I think the real answer is that most people holding bitcoin aren't trying to hedge their existing fiat exposure. They're picking off retail and day-trading it. How else do you explain an asset that isn't absolutely ripping in the face of all this terrible news about the financial system? Because it's still a cul-de-sac of users. It's not broadly available, not broadly adoptable, not broadly used. I still believe it's valuable. I was one of the earliest proponents of bitcoin in 2011–2012, so I think there's a place for it in a portfolio. But connecting these dots misses the point.
The point is much bigger than a crypto off-ramp. We have a lot of systemic shocks building up in the system. We've broken a ton of the systems that make the financial infrastructure work properly, and we're just starting to uncover how they're broken. We need to focus our energy there and dial down some of the bitcoin maximalism, because it distracts from a really important set of topics that are more inclusive and actually touch 7 billion people. Put the bitcoin-as-savior idea in the "who cares" bucket and get back to the facts. Friedberg mentioned a looming debt ceiling problem. Sacks mentioned a commercial real estate crisis. We just talked about how the Fed neither raised rates enough nor cut enough, so we're in this weird middle path. Those are the facts on the ground, and they'll have implications for how people borrow, start businesses, and capitalize risk assets. That's the big problem.
Bitcoin's notorious volatility is like an enthralling page-turner. Not so long ago it climbed to an all-time high beyond $18,000, a figure that captured global attention. But that explosive momentum didn't last; the price plummeted with unanticipated swiftness, sending ripples of anxiety through investor circles. A pivotal element of the narrative is the Fed's maneuvers and forecasts. Its signal of fewer rate cuts in the coming year sent seismic shock waves through equity markets, which inevitably reached cryptocurrencies. Picture bitcoin as the hair-raising roller coaster in the financial amusement park, where every upward or downward tick is a thrilling twist or a heart-stopping drop. It's hardly surprising that bitcoin's big leap and dramatic descent happened amid major financial milestones. Former President Trump's election victory, with its pro-crypto stance, initially propelled bitcoin to unprecedented heights. It's a roller coaster without seat belts, and investors are clinging on for the ride.
Yeah, good afternoon. I think you have to have a positive medium-to-long-term view on bitcoin to be positive on MicroStrategy. Going back to Michael Saylor's analogy of Manhattan real estate: there's not much more of it that will ever be created, so there's a scarcity value proposition. MicroStrategy is going to keep buying more bitcoin. What's important in this strategy is its ability to increase bitcoin held per share. It doesn't necessarily show up in financial statements or earnings numbers, but every day, if you own a share of MicroStrategy, that share represents an increasing amount of bitcoin on a per-share basis. I think that's what investors are really looking at, and that's why they've rewarded the company so much over the last couple of years.
Amid this web of market interdependencies, major stocks are under pressure, with Tesla and Nvidia as notable examples. Tesla's post-election slide mirrors broader market dynamics, while Nvidia's parallel decline shows the ripple effects of shifting sentiment. Even in this high-stakes drama, humor relieves the tension. One might joke about bitcoin's fluctuating value: "Why make decisions like an adult when you can invest like a millennial?"
Bitcoin has more than doubled in value this year. Key drivers, such as the arrival of spot exchange-traded funds and the political climate, have shaped the story. Alongside the gains comes heightened scrutiny, amplified as market patterns shift suddenly. As bitcoin drags digital peers like ether and XRP into its downward spiral, the crypto sector is at a critical juncture, a stark reminder of the inherent volatility of digital assets.
*(영상 중 구독·좋아요 요청 멘트는 생략했습니다.)*
Joseph, what do you think of the asset? Ultimately, this comes down to a call on bitcoin. I'm not questioning your ability to make that call. I'm curious what your call is, because that's really what this is about. This does feel different from a miner going out and securing physical assets in its industry. Are you buying bitcoin forever, or where do you go with this trade?
Well, you may be just buying bitcoin forever. Taking a phrase from Michael Saylor's pitchbook, bitcoin is the exit strategy. If you look at bitcoin over the last few years, it's come a long way. It's seeing broader institutional adoption, and under a second Trump administration we're expecting a much kinder regulatory backdrop. We've dealt with a very menacing regulatory backdrop over the last couple of years. If we get a broad regulatory framework in place, digital assets will keep making their way into the mainstream. There will be more buyers. Other players could mimic the MicroStrategy approach, or large tech companies, the Magnificent Seven, could allocate 1 or 2% of their balance sheets to bitcoin. Nothing's perfect, and not every asset class is for everybody, but the fundamentals backdrop for bitcoin has really only been improving over the last year and a half.
As this chapter of bitcoin's epic odyssey closes, one can't help but wonder whether bitcoin's decline heralds a new dawn of opportunity. There's enduring potential for growth, built on the foundations of past performance and ongoing innovation and market adaptation. Bitcoin stands at a pivotal crossroads: its value is challenged, yet it's poised for a potential resurgence. Predictive financial models suggest a favorable trajectory over the long haul. The current turbulence may serve as a springboard for the next wave of digital asset appreciation. As with any investment, due diligence and vigilance are indispensable.
So what are your thoughts? Is this turbulent storm the ideal prospect for investors, or is it wiser to wait for the tempest to pass and trade in calmer markets? Share your perspectives and join the conversation about the future of crypto investment.
Comments 0