I saw an interesting viewpoint that says Bitcoin has nothing to do with ordinary people; it only matters to you once you get involved. If you don't enter, then it's just an internal struggle, and the wins and losses have nothing to do with you. Whether it rises to 1 million or 10 million dollars per coin has nothing to do with you, because it is simply a zero-sum game casino. Is that true?
Whether it's Bitcoin, gold, or real estate in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, or Shenzhen, what is it fundamentally? It is the process of participating in wealth redistribution. If I buy something for one dollar and you buy it for one million, doesn’t that mean the fruits of your ten years of labor belong to me? You say you don’t buy, but similarly, you can choose not to buy real estate in major cities; you can choose not to buy anything at all. In what form is your asset stored?
Cash? In the first 20 years, if you held cash while others bought houses, was your labor really not exploited? You’re wrong. When the gears of fate begin to turn, whether you actively participate or not, you will inevitably be drawn in.
The resources of this world are limited and will be allocated to specific individuals through various carriers and rules. For example, we work and create value for society, thereby participating in the distribution. Those who create more value get a bigger share of the pie, while those who create less value, who are just lying at home, can only accept being cut. If you don’t consume and your cash amount remains unchanged, won’t you still be cut?
No, money is just a way to calculate the proportion of social resources. If there is a total of 10,000 dollars, and you hold 1 dollar, you possess a 1/10,000 social resource voucher. If the government can’t provide your money, it might as well open a new venue and create more money there, so the total amount becomes 100,000 or 1,000,000. It doesn’t have to touch your money, and your money will naturally disappear. Why? Because under the premise of unchanged social resources, you can only exchange for 1/100,000 or 1/1,000,000 resources.
Thus, the absolute value of money doesn’t represent anything; it’s the proportion of the total that determines how much you can exchange for. In the agrarian civilization era, facing the earth with a hoe, a person creates social wealth to obtain a share of social resources. But in the industrial civilization era, someone can do the work of 1,000 people and seize 1,000 shares using more efficient tools. Is this unfair? No, it’s just that you don’t have the right tools to seize wealth, so you are left to be seized.
This is the 'logic of creation', which is easy to understand, and many people agree. You see, even though he took 1,000 shares of resources, he contributed 1,000 times more to society than ordinary people, which is very reasonable.
However, the logic of Bitcoin is harder to understand because it involves financial logic, predictive logic, consensus logic, risk logic, and shareholder logic. Given that we have been on the wrong path for a long time, there is a natural misunderstanding and aversion to things like 'making money through judgment' in user education, so many people fail to understand it and think it’s unfair.
It’s actually easy to understand. If there’s something that everyone wants, no matter what it is, even if it’s just a fancy painting that everyone wants to hang in their home, once you realize 'this thing might have more demand', it will inevitably attract more people to compete for it. Should this 'awareness' make money? Of course, because I also bear the risk of 'what if no one wants it and it becomes worthless'.
So it’s simple: if more people want Bitcoin in the future, then everyone will invest their hard-earned cash into this pool to participate in this wealth redistribution game. As everyone continuously pours wealth into it, it inevitably draws blood from other pools. Can you understand this?
For example, if there are only two pools in this world, the stock market and the cryptocurrency market, as people continuously invest their wealth and resources into the crypto market, is it not true that funds are drawn out of the stock market, causing the price of every stock to plummet? Those who chose the wrong pool have their wealth taken away, right? If you don’t play and just hold cash, you are essentially passively playing because, in a continuously expanding pool, if you don't compete, you lose, and if you don't compete quickly enough, you still lose.
So is it a game of 'mutual cutting among friends'? Of course not; there is constantly new wealth coming in. How can it be called 'mutual cutting among friends'? Bitcoin is a yardstick; the amount of coins you hold relative to the total supply determines how much fiat currency you can access in the market. It is the basis for distributing fiat currency in the market.
You say it doesn’t create new value? Then I have to start explaining how much the 'world's first and largest peer-to-peer trustless decentralized value transfer system' is worth. Just think about it: how much is the internet worth? If you were an 'original shareholder of the internet' or an 'original shareholder of SWIFT', how many times would your stock have multiplied over the decades? You might already be the richest person in the world.
You can choose not to buy Bitcoin, and you can choose not to buy anything else, but remember that cash is also an asset. Essentially, using cash to hold a proportion of societal wealth to participate in the distribution of social resources is the same as participating with any other asset. What’s the difference? Some assets will garner a larger consensus, causing other people's wealth to flow towards you, while other assets will lose consensus, causing your wealth to flow away from you. This game, regardless of whether anyone is willing or not, is mandatory for anyone who is part of society; no one can escape it.
$BTC $ETH $FTT #USUAL现货开盘预测 #加密用户突破1800万 #比特币冲向11万？ #市场全线看牛？ #BTC持续刷新高点
