|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
作為對歐洲央行(ECB)最新反比特幣論文的回應,一篇題為「挑戰歐洲央行比特幣分析中的偏見」的新學術論文已經發表。
An academic paper titled “Challenging Bias in the ECB’s Bitcoin Analysis” has been published in response to a recent working paper by European Central Bank (ECB) officials Ulrich Bindseil and Jürgen Schaaf. The paper offers a comprehensive critique of the ECB officials' analysis of Bitcoin (BTC).
一篇題為「挑戰歐洲央行比特幣分析中的偏見」的學術論文是為了回應歐洲央行 (ECB) 官員 Ulrich Bindseil 和 Jürgen Schaaf 最近發表的工作論文。該論文對歐洲央行官員對比特幣(BTC)的分析進行了全面批評。
The original ECB paper, titled "Bitcoin: A speculative asset with limited intrinsic value and significant risks," portrays BTC as a speculative asset with limited intrinsic value and significant risks. It criticizes BTC's volatility, lack of productive contribution and wealth concentration, while advocating for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) as a superior solution for modern financial systems, as previously reported by Bitcoinist.
歐洲央行最初的文件題為《比特幣:一種內在價值有限且風險重大的投機資產》,將 BTC 描述為一種內在價值有限且風險重大的投機資產。正如 Bitcoinist 先前所報導的那樣,它批評 BTC 的波動性、缺乏生產性貢獻和財富集中度,同時主張央行數位貨幣(CBDC)作為現代金融體系的卓越解決方案。
The rebuttal, authored by Murray A. Rudd, together with co-authors Allen Farrington, Freddie New and Dennis Porter, systematically addresses and refutes the key assertions made by Bindseil and Schaaf.
這篇反駁由默里·A·拉德(Murray A. Rudd) 與合著者艾倫·法林頓(Allen Farrington)、弗雷迪·紐(Freddie New) 和丹尼斯·波特(Dennis Porter) 共同撰寫,系統地闡述並反駁了賓德塞爾和沙夫的關鍵主張。
Here's a summary of the main points raised in the rebuttal:
現將反駁中提出的要點摘要如下:
1. Political Lobbying Influence: Bindseil and Schaaf argue that the industry's lobbying exerts disproportionate influence, skewing regulatory policy in its favor. However, the rebuttal counters this by highlighting the decentralized nature of Bitcoin. “not have a CEO, legal or marketing departments, or lobbyists: it is a neutral, global, leaderless protocol. Bitcoin advocates typically operate without the institutional backing enjoyed by the corporations that dominate the crypto industry,” the authors write.
1. 政治遊說影響:Bindseil 和 Schaaf 認為,該行業的遊說施加了不成比例的影響,使監管政策向對其有利的方向傾斜。然而,反駁透過強調比特幣的去中心化性質來反駁這一點。 「沒有執行長、法律或行銷部門或遊說者:這是一個中立的、全球性的、無領導的協議。比特幣倡導者通常在沒有主導加密貨幣行業的公司所享有的機構支持的情況下運作,」作者寫道。
They point out that traditional financial institutions spend far more on lobbying than the nascent industry noting that in 2023, crypto-related lobbying expenditures in the US constituted less than 1% of financial sector lobbying expenditures.
他們指出,傳統金融機構在遊說方面的支出遠多於新興產業,並指出,到 2023 年,美國與加密貨幣相關的遊說支出僅佔金融部門遊說支出的不到 1%。
2. Wealth Concentration: Addressing the claim that ownership is highly concentrated among a small number of large players, the rebuttal emphasizes that this view overlooks the widespread dispersion of BTC holdings. “Institutional and exchange wallets represent the holdings of diverse investors rather than single entities,” the authors explain. They note that many of the largest wallets belong to exchanges like Coinbase and Binance, as well as ETF issuers like BlackRock and Fidelity, who hold BTC on behalf of millions of users.
2. 財富集中:針對所有權高度集中於少數大型參與者的說法,反駁強調這種觀點忽略了比特幣持有量的廣泛分散。 「機構和交易所錢包代表了不同投資者而不是單一實體的持股,」作者解釋道。他們指出,許多最大的錢包屬於 Coinbase 和 Binance 等交易所,以及 BlackRock 和 Fidelity 等 ETF 發行人,他們代表數百萬用戶持有 BTC。
The authors also challenge the notion that wealth concentration in coins is inherently unfair. “They imply that any form of inequality is unjust, yet fail to explain why this applies—a free market for Bitcoin has been available to all since its inception,” they write. “Unlike the vast majority of cryptocurrency tokens (‘altcoins’), Bitcoin had a fair and public launch. There was no pre-launch distribution of Bitcoin, no ‘founder shares,’ and no venture capital backers purchasing Bitcoin at a discount.”
作者也對「財富集中在硬幣上本質上是不公平的」這一觀點提出了質疑。他們寫道:“他們暗示任何形式的不平等都是不公正的,但卻無法解釋為什麼會出現這種情況——比特幣的自由市場自誕生以來就向所有人開放。” 「與絕大多數加密貨幣代幣(『山寨幣』)不同,比特幣的發行是公平且公開的。沒有比特幣的預發行,沒有‘創始人股份’,也沒有風險投資支持者以折扣價購買比特幣。
3. Lack Of Productive Contribution: The ECB paper asserts that BTC's rising price creates positive consumption effects for holders but does not increase overall productivity or economic growth. The rebuttal disputes this by highlighting BTC's significant role in driving financial innovation and efficiency. “Bitcoin functions as a technological protocol, similar to the TCP/IP protocol that underpins the Internet, enabling the development of new financial services,” they argue.
3.缺乏生產性貢獻:歐洲央行文件聲稱,比特幣價格上漲為持有者創造了正面的消費效應,但並沒有提高整體生產力或經濟成長。反駁強調了比特幣在推動金融創新和效率方面的重要作用,對此提出了質疑。他們認為:“比特幣作為一種技術協議發揮作用,類似於支撐互聯網的 TCP/IP 協議,從而促進新金融服務的開發。”
The authors also emphasize the impact in developing regions, particularly in the remittance market. “For countries that derive a large proportion of their GDP from remittances, slashing transaction costs could have dramatic impacts among the poorest households, who are traditionally excluded from banking services,” the paper notes.
作者也強調了對發展中地區的影響,尤其是匯款市場。該文件指出:“對於國內生產總值(GDP)很大一部分來自匯款的國家來說,削減交易成本可能會對傳統上被排除在銀行服務之外的最貧困家庭產生巨大影響。”
4. Bitcoin Wealth Redistribution: Bindseil and Schaaf suggest that Bitcoin’s price appreciation results in wealth redistribution, benefiting early adopters at the expense of non-holders and latecomers. The rebuttal counters that this argument disregards the voluntary nature of BTC markets, where participants freely choose to enter based on their own assessment of the asset’s potential.
4. 比特幣財富重新分配:Bindseil 和 Schaaf 認為,比特幣價格上漲會導致財富重新分配,讓早期採用者受益,但以非持有者和後來者為代價。反駁者反駁說,這種論點忽略了比特幣市場的自願性質,參與者可以根據自己對資產潛力的評估自由選擇進入。
“Like early investors in stocks or venture capital, Bitcoin’s early adopters assumed significant risk in exchange for potentially high returns—an inherent feature of markets for emerging technologies,” they explain. They also highlight the broader implications of inflation, which redistribute wealth from savers to debt holders through inflationary policies. “Bitcoin’s fixed supply and deflationary characteristics counteract this erosion, offering a long-term store of value,” they assert.
「就像股票或創投的早期投資者一樣,比特幣的早期採用者承擔了巨大的風險,以換取潛在的高回報——這是新興技術市場的固有特徵,」他們解釋道。他們還強調了通貨膨脹的更廣泛影響,即透過通貨膨脹政策將財富從儲戶重新分配給債務持有者。他們斷言:“比特幣的固定供應和通貨緊縮特徵抵消了這種侵蝕,提供了長期的價值儲存。”
5. Lack Of Intrinsic Value: The ECB paper claims that Bitcoin lacks intrinsic value and cannot be priced using traditional asset valuation models. The rebuttal argues that this narrow definition ignores the role that scarcity, decentralization, and utility as a store of value play in asset valuation.
5.缺乏內在價值:歐洲央行文件聲稱,比特幣缺乏內在價值,無法使用傳統的資產估值模型進行定價。反駁認為,這種狹隘的定義忽略了稀缺性、去中心化和作為價值儲存手段的效用在資產估值中所扮演的角色。
“Bitcoin operates similarly to gold, providing an alternative store of value, particularly in periods of monetary instability,” they state. They further assert, “Their argument is fundamentally flawed: they claim BTC cannot be considered money because it cannot be valued as a security, whereas the reality is that it cannot be valued as a security precisely because it is money.”
他們表示:“比特幣的運作方式與黃金類似,提供了另一種價值儲存手段,特別是在貨幣不穩定時期。”他們進一步斷言,「他們的論點從根本上來說是有缺陷的:他們聲稱比特幣不能被視為貨幣,因為它不能被視為一種證券,而事實是,它不能被視為一種證券,因為它是貨幣。
6. Bitcoin Is A Speculative Bubble: Addressing the assertion that BTC’s price movements are indicative of speculative bubbles, the rebuttal points out that volatility is a characteristic of emerging technologies. “Bitcoin’s price appreciation is driven by its scarcity, adoption, network effects, and recognition of its utility as a hedge against fiat currency de
6. 比特幣是投機泡沫:針對比特幣價格走勢顯示投機泡沫的說法,反駁指出波動性是新興技術的特徵。 「比特幣的價格升值是由其稀缺性、採用率、網路效應以及對其作為對沖法定貨幣的效用的認可所推動的。
免責聲明:info@kdj.com
所提供的資訊並非交易建議。 kDJ.com對任何基於本文提供的資訊進行的投資不承擔任何責任。加密貨幣波動性較大,建議您充分研究後謹慎投資!
如果您認為本網站使用的內容侵犯了您的版權,請立即聯絡我們(info@kdj.com),我們將及時刪除。
-
- Aptos (APT) 逆市調整,TVL 創歷史新高,飆漲 8%
- 2024-10-24 10:20:01
- Aptos (APT) 表現出色。而整體市場在過去24小時內小幅回檔了1.92%
-
- SUI 最近的復甦以暴跌告終,這就是發生的事情
- 2024-10-24 10:15:01
- SUI(第一層區塊鏈 Sui 的原生代幣)最近的復甦令加密貨幣市場大吃一驚,它經歷了七個月的掙扎,創下了新的價格高點。
-
- Bonk 加密貨幣:社群驅動的力量徹底改變數位貨幣交互
- 2024-10-24 10:15:01
- 在不斷發展的數位貨幣格局中,Bonk 加密貨幣已成為一個有趣的參與者,引發了加密貨幣愛好者的好奇和猜測。