加密貨幣回神！馬斯克一放話，帶比特幣、以太幣、狗狗幣價格全面飆高｜數位時代 BusinessNext
知名創業家馬斯克（Elon Musk）透露，除了自己創辦的特斯拉（Tesla Inc.）及SpaceX之外，他個人擁有的「三大有意義資產」就是比特幣、狗狗幣及以太幣，且特斯拉、SpaceX各自都持有比特幣部位。消息傳來激勵加密貨幣全面飆高。
FOX Business、Barron’s等外電報導，馬斯克21日與推特（Twitter）執行長Jack Dorsey、方舟投資（Ark Invest）執行長凱薩琳伍德（Cathie Wood）共同出席「The B Word」線上論壇時指出，他擁有的比特幣遠多於以太幣或狗狗幣，若比特幣報價下滑、「我就會賠錢」。
「我或許會設法提振、但決不拋售（I might pump, but I don’t dump）。」「我不相信炒高出售這種做法，我希望看到比特幣成功。」
特斯拉已暫停接受客戶以比特幣付款，主因馬斯克對挖礦消耗的大量能源感到憂心。此前多數加密貨幣挖礦作業都在中國進行，當地主要以煤炭發電。不過，中國最近嚴令禁止加密貨幣挖礦，加密貨幣網路也開始轉移至美國等地，這也許能提高可再生能源用量，若這項趨勢能延續，馬斯克表示，特斯拉有望恢復比特幣付款機制。
馬斯克表示，「我們希望多做些功課，確認可再生能源用量是否達50%以上、有沒有繼續增加的趨勢，若確定如此，那麼特斯拉就會再次接受比特幣付款。」
馬斯克並說，特斯拉在資產負債表持有比特幣的其中一項理由，就是全世界的利率目前都接近零，歐洲甚至轉為負利率。他說，特斯拉在歐洲的銀行存款就面臨了負利率，「看到歐洲銀行存款不斷下滑著實令人心煩，真的太瘋狂。」
馬斯克並未撤回對狗狗幣的支持。他說，「狗狗幣有些無厘頭，還有極佳迷因」，也不過分嚴肅。他相信，部分最不可能的投資，最終利潤卻可能最豐碩。
針對比特幣，馬斯克希望其「核心效率」能夠改善，如此才能為個人帶來更好的生活水準及力量。
加密貨幣聞訊全面跳高。Coindesk報價顯示，截至台北時間22日上午7時58分為止，比特幣報32,140.30美元、較24小時前大漲7.7%；以太幣報1,995.70美元、較24小時前大漲11.25%；狗狗幣報0.190417美元、較24小時前大漲11.32%。
本文授權轉載自：MoneyDJ
責任編輯：林佳葦、蕭閔云
亞馬遜出面闢謠 否認將接受比特幣支付傳聞
美國電商龍頭亞馬遜 (AMZN-US) 據傳考慮在 2021 年底之前，接受顧客使用加密貨幣的比特幣 (Bitcoin) 付款，不過根據《路透社》26 日 (週一) 報導，亞馬遜 26 日已否認該則消息。
英國倫敦 City A.M. 報社報導，匿名「內部人士」透露，亞馬遜將於年底之前接受比特幣的付款方式。該則消息傳出後，比特幣一度大漲 14.5%，之後漲幅回吐，截稿前約上揚 6% 至 37,684.04 美元。
亞馬遜的公關負責人表示，雖然該公司正在留意這塊領域，但有關亞馬遜對加密貨幣方面具體規劃的報導並非事實，純屬臆測。
亞馬遜曾在 7 月 22 日刊登一則和數位貨幣及區塊鏈產品有關的徵人廣告，也讓接受比特必支付的傳言甚囂塵上。
How Bitcoin Solves The Store Of Value Problem
When a valuation of a company is made, it is done by modelling future cash flows and discounting them to the present-day value in a discounted cash flow model. Fundamentally, this relies on the estimates of future cash flows to accurately determine what the current valuation for a company should be. All sorts of assumptions need to be made to accurately determine this competition in the marketplace — future demand for the product or service, and technological innovations all among them.
Another factor that has to be accounted for is monetary policy, which is something we’ve seen largely increase the value of equities as a result of looser monetary policy, cheap debt and pulling back future cash flows. So even though a discounted cash flow model is severely flawed, it can give us a starting point through which to value a company because there are fiat cash flows associated with it.
Looking at this through the lens of bitcoin, it has no fiat cash flows, so trying to determine a fiat valuation the same way we do for a company is entirely flawed. A better way to understand it is looking at it through the lens of “What problem does this solve?” Not only does this eliminate the issues presented earlier in the discounted cash flow model, but it also gives a relative framework through which to evaluate it relative to other assets.
One of the questions you should ask when evaluating any product is functionally, “What problem does it solve?” That’s the first question you should ask when evaluating a product; but functionally this is more important when evaluating an asset. Since bitcoin is both a product and an asset, understanding the product/market fit is a fundamental pillar in beginning to determine a dollar valuation for it.
That moves us to answering the question. When you begin to go down the line and look at the various asset classes, the answer becomes clear. It solves the store of value problem. But, not necessarily in the way that is commonly thought of as solving that problem. The way we can see this in the real world is to look at other asset classes and ask “Does this solve the store of value problem?” What we see is that no other asset or asset class does, leaving a gap in the market (people that want a sound place to store their monetary energy) and the products that solve that (more on that below).
Gold is technically a store of value that’s broadly kept up with the money supply in recent decades, however, it is a failed store of value. The reason it’s a failed store of value, is that while gold has kept up with the M1 supply, it has failed to keep up with real estate — and the bonds that back that real estate. This is largely due to physical properties of gold that make it a poor store of value. Lack of easily verifiable supply, not being salable, and largely centralized in practice make it fully unfit to store value. And the market has determined that to be the case. Real estate has eclipsed gold many times over as it functionally — along with bonds — became the de facto store of value of the late 20th and early 21st century.
The bond market serving as a store of value “worked,” at least to some degree, until the 2008 financial crisis when nominal yields went close to zero and real yields went negative. Since bonds (Treasury and agency – and lately even corporate and junk bonds) cannot even keep up with the pace of inflation, bonds have now also become a completely failed store of value.
Real estate then would be the next place one would look for a store of value — and for the last decade plus, it has served that purpose. However, real estate (especially residential) was never intended to serve as a store of value. Among the issues that prevent real estate from being a long-term store of value are it’s reliance on monetary policy (without the credit expansion and fiscal policy it cannot sustain), demographic shifts in populations (baby boomers in the United States hold the vast majority of the real estate value, and younger generations do not have the wealth to buy these homes at record values), and salability across time and space (real estate is time consuming to transfer and takes multiple third-party intermediaries).
That leaves us with equities, and why nominally, we’ve seen record high valuations for equities over the last decade plus. Not because equities provide a true stable store of value (again we are discounting unknown future cash flows to come up with the valuations here), but because everything else has failed. The problem with equities is that functionally rates cannot go much lower, so they are close to being “tapped out” as a store of value (they can continue to go higher nominally, if the government implements Universal Basic Income payments).
Circling back to bitcoin and trying to come up with a dollar valuation around it, it solves the problems that gold faces (it’s more salable, censorship resistant, and less centralized), while also being less likely to be subject to manipulation (through the ease of storing your own keys). That gives us a really low-ball end on which we can say we could value bitcoin at — and that’s above gold’s market cap — $10 trillion.
Again though, gold is functionally a failed store of value so this is just a starting framework for which we would set a lower-bound estimate. I think the broader valuation that we can use is the bond market. The global bond market is between $130-300 trillion depending on different sources/estimates. Conservatively, if we assume bitcoin solves the store of value problem better than bonds and real estate — and this is definitely true on a long enough time scale, as bonds have lost real value for over a decade — then we can safely assume it solves the store of value problem better than the bond market. Therefore, a $130 trillion valuation is a safe, conservative estimate for bitcoin’s valuation framework. This would put the price per coin at approximately $6.5 million per coin, based on today’s U.S. dollar value. That’s arguably extremely conservative, as it does not account for the derivatives market which is estimated to be over a quadrillion U.S. dollars.
This is a guest post by Mind/Matter. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.