The most important reason Bitcoin deserves an award is that it is evidently not just a technology or theory, but a true practice of economics—this is not the post-hoc smoke-and-mirrors economics that has already won awards, nor is it an abstract illusion detached from real-world concerns. Instead, it has solidly created a unique and unprecedented economic financial fact/object. After fifteen years of good operation, it has also brought friendly and profound inspiration to the existing financial ecology and social governance. Of course, in recent years, as global grassroots and official recognition of Bitcoin has broadened, this year, compliant crypto assets such as major market ETFs have gradually been launched, marking that Bitcoin has truly begun to enter the mainstream. However, there is no rush to give it an award; we can wait a few more years, observe under a broader user scale and adoption scenarios, and with a positive regulatory and operational environment globally solidifying, then consider awarding Bitcoin the economics prize, which would be more timely. Recently, the physics prize produced unexpected results, with two artificial intelligence scientists who seem unrelated to physics winning, representing a beautiful combination of expanding the boundaries of physics and public life perception. If in a few years the economics prize is awarded to a cross-disciplinary achievement like Bitcoin, it would also become a model of expanding the boundaries of economics combined with public life perception, and it will be a moment when this dreary 'academic award' shines anew in the 21st century, rather than the other way around where Bitcoin is enhanced by the Nobel Prize—clearly, it doesn't need that. Returning to Bitcoin, some may still question that the true identity of the main inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, is unclear, and it is even possible he has passed away as the legend goes. The Nobel Prize rules only award living individuals, which complicates matters. If we are daring and flexible, and continue to open boundaries, this is not too big of a problem. Firstly, whether or not the real person behind Satoshi Nakamoto is still alive, if he does not wish to or has not established a connection, then Satoshi's identity can be treated as a cyber persona/digital persona. Nowadays, as the digital society evolves deeply, many anonymous identities in various fields make significant contributions, so it may be prudent to expand the award recipients to include cyber personas based on actual achievements, though we shouldn’t let it become excessive. Moreover, it is necessary to include two additional awardees among the computer scientists who have contributed the most to Bitcoin, particularly in electronic currency design. For example, David Chaum, the leader of the cypherpunk movement who laid the foundation for many theories in cryptocurrency (inventor of ecash, currently 69 years old), and Adam Back, the only cryptographer cited in Nakamoto's white paper (inventor of Hashcash, currently 54 years old, Hashcash being the most direct reference for designing Bitcoin).

With the addition of two individuals, overall it can be considered a fair lineup, and it includes both real people and cyber personas, combining the virtual and the real, keeping up with the times, and reflecting the strong cyberpunk character of cryptocurrency itself.

As for the prize money, if the Nobel Foundation can be a bit flexible and, after obtaining the consent of the Bitcoin Foundation, they can forgo the payment for Satoshi Nakamoto's portion. A reference practice would be for the Nobel Foundation to purchase 5 bitcoins and hold them for 50 years, which at the current price would amount to approximately the $100/300,000 that Nakamoto should receive. This would also be a recognition of Bitcoin that aligns with both theory and practice; who knows, in 50 years it could turn into a astronomical figure, continuing to replenish the prize pool.

Finally, do not miss out on the creators of Bitcoin like they missed Tolstoy for the literature prize; that would be a regret for the Nobel Prize itself and a neglect of true wisdom in this digital age.