當我的信用合作社和銀行業務同行緊張地問比特幣是否是龐氏騙局

因為如果我們說實話，比特幣的最大罪可能是，它對價值在金融體系中的工作方式太透明了

Credit union and banking peers often ask me nervously if Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. I usually pause, smile, and say: “Are you sure that’s the right question? It’s not whether Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme—it’s whether you’ve ever encountered something that isn’t.”

信用合作社和銀行同行經常問我是否緊張地問比特幣是否是龐氏騙局。我通常會停下來，微笑，說：“您確定這是正確的問題嗎？不是比特幣是否是龐氏騙局，而是您是否曾經遇到過沒有的東西。”

Because if we’re being honest, Bitcoin’s greatest sin might be that it’s too transparent about how value works in a financial system built on speculation, belief, and a growth mentality.

因為如果我們誠實，比特幣的最大罪可能是，它對價值在基於投機，信念和成長心態的金融體系中的工作方式太透明了。

Let’s also set some context. The majority of our modern economy isn’t built on hard assets, production output, or even tangible value. It’s built on confidence and credit expansion, a system largely shaped by the thinking of John Maynard Keynes. And to be clear, Keynes wasn’t hiding the ball. His famous quote “In the long run, we’re all dead” was a direct nod to the reality that these systems are inherently unstable over time—and yet, we build anyway.

我們還設置一些上下文。我們的大部分現代經濟不是建立在硬資產，生產產出甚至有形價值之上的。它建立在信心和信用擴張的基礎上，這是約翰·梅納德·凱恩斯（John Maynard Keynes）的思想所塑造的系統。需要明確的是，凱恩斯並沒有隱藏球。他著名的名言“從長遠來看，我們都死了”是對這些系統天生不穩定的現實的直接點頭，但無論如何，我們還是建造的。

Don’t believe me? Just look at Tesla or Nvidia’s price to earnings ratios over the past 12 months. Take Tesla; approximately 1.5 trillion in market cap at EOY 2024, with a little over 7 billion in profit. For those of you whose calculators have a hard time with 10 and 13 digit numbers, that’s a measly 0.46% ROI, or about 150 years for your investment to double, if looking strictly at the production value of the P&L. And yet it remains one of the most valuable companies on planet earth.

不相信我嗎？只需查看過去12個月中的特斯拉或Nvidia的價格比率即可。帶特斯拉； 2024年EOY的市值約為1.5萬億美元，利潤超過70億。對於那些計算器遇到艱難時期和13位數字的人來說，這是ROI的0.46％，或者您的投資大約150年，即使您嚴格了解損益的生產價值。然而，它仍然是地球上最有價值的公司之一。

Governments, businesses, even small-town Main Street operations all depend on borrowing against future productivity. And if the inflows stop? Well, that’s someone else’s problem . . . right?

政府，企業，甚至小鎮大街運營都取決於借款，以抵制未來的生產力。如果流入停止？好吧，那是別人的問題。 。 。正確的？

OK, back to the topic at hand, is Bitcoin an actual Ponzi scheme? Let’s take some Ponzi accusations and reframe the conversation a bit:

好的，回到手頭的主題，比特幣是實際的龐氏騙局嗎？讓我們採取一些龐氏騙局的指控，並重新構架對話：

Claim: “The gains to early participants are paid directly from new participants’ principal.”

主張：“早期參與者的收益直接從新參與者的校長那裡支付。”

Reality: Yep. Welcome to literally every financial market. No one who made money on Apple stock did so without a new buyer showing up to pay a higher price. Same with Tesla. Same with real estate. Same with fine art. Same with anything speculative (even if classified as ‘securities’). What may be hard to stomach is that Bitcoin doesn’t pretend otherwise.

現實：是的。歡迎來到每個金融市場。沒有人在蘋果股票上賺錢的人這樣做，沒有新的買家出現以支付更高的價格。與特斯拉一樣。與房地產一樣。與美術一樣。與任何投機性相同（即使分類為“證券”）。可能難以忍受的是比特幣並沒有假裝。

Claim: “There’s no actual asset being traded—it’s just money in, money out, until the thing collapses.”

主張：“沒有實際的資產交易了，這只是金錢，錢，直到東西崩潰為止。”

Reality: Sounds a lot like the S&P 500 in 1999 (remember the dot-com boom and bust?). Or U.S. housing in 2008. Or NFTs in 2021. Every market—every market—is money in, money out . . . until it isn’t. Some things create value, sure. But most of what we call “investing” is just placing bets on hype cycles and hoping you’re not the last one in the pool when the music stops.

現實：聽起來很像1999年的標準普爾500指數（還記得Dot-Com的繁榮和胸圍嗎？）。或2008年的美國住房。或2021年的NFTS。每個市場（每個市場）都是金錢，金錢。 。 。直到不是。當然，有些事情會創造價值。但是，我們所謂的“投資”只是在炒作週期上下注，並希望當音樂停止時，您不是游泳池中的最後一個。

Claim: “The whole (pyramidic) structure depends on a constant inflow of new money.”

主張：“整體（金字塔）結構取決於不斷的新資金流入。”

Reality: Show me a business that doesn’t. Show me a government that doesn’t. Show me a multi-level org chart—corporate, nonprofit, or military—that doesn’t have a few at the top and many at the bottom supporting it all. Our entire economy is built on inflows, expansion, leverage, and belief. So maybe the problem isn’t what some have described as the speculative nature of Bitcoin . . . maybe the problem is the very structure of modern economies themselves.

現實：向我展示一個沒有的業務。告訴我一個沒有的政府。向我展示一個多層次的組織圖（公司，非營利組織或軍事圖表），其中最高的幾個，底部沒有任何支持。我們的整個經濟基於流入，擴張，槓桿和信念。因此，也許問題不是一些人所說的比特幣的投機性質。 。 。也許問題是現代經濟本身的結構。

Let’s talk about the U.S. Dollar for a minute. The dollar is backed by one thing: trust in the U.S. government. Given everything DOGE has turned up in the past couple of months, are we still 'sure' that trusting the government as a fiduciary is really the 'best' idea?

讓我們談談美元一分鐘。美元得到一件事的支持：對美國政府的信任。考慮到過去幾個月中，Doge出現的一切，我們是否仍然“確定”相信政府作為受託人確實是“最好的”主意？

And even if we squint past the headlines, the numbers don’t lie: the federal government runs an annual deficit north of $2 trillion, while its own currency steadily loses 2–3% of purchasing power per year on a good day. You’d be hard-pressed to find a business owner or credit union CFO who’d call that a sustainable model. There’s no need to dive into conspiracy theories or fraud scandals to see the problem. A Dollar General calculator should suffice.

即使我們拒絕了頭條新聞，數字也不會說謊：聯邦政府的年度赤字在2萬億美元以北，而其自身貨幣在美好的一天中穩步降低了每年購買力的2-3％。您很難找到一個企業主或信用合作社CFO，他將該可持續模式稱為可持續模型。無需潛入陰謀理論或欺詐醜聞即可查看問題。一美元的一般計算器就足夠了。

The dollar isn’t redeemable for gold. It’s not collateralized by anything. It’s a token backed by debt, printed in theoretically (actually?) infinite quantities, and absolutely dependent on continuous belief (faith

美元不可贖回黃金。它沒有任何東西。這是一個由債務支持的代幣，理論上（實際上是？）無限的數量印刷，並且絕對取決於連續的信念（信仰