比特幣收益產品：黃金是常態

鑑於 2022 年的事件，越來越多的比特幣愛好者提出了這樣的問題：我們是否應該接受比特幣收益產品，或者它們是否構成了太大的危險

Bitcoin is at present present process an enchanting evolution, with varied views on its nature. Some view it as a foreign money for on a regular basis transactions, whereas others see it as a contemporary equal of gold for storing worth. Nonetheless, an rising narrative positions Bitcoin as a decentralized world platform for securing and validating off-chain transactions.

比特幣目前正在經歷一場令人著迷的演變，對其本質有不同的看法。有些人將其視為用於定期交易的外國貨幣，而有些人則將其視為現代黃金的儲存價值。儘管如此，越來越多的敘述將比特幣定位為一個去中心化的世界平台，用於保護和驗證鏈下交易。

Whereas the above views all maintain some fact, Bitcoin is more and more establishing itself as a digital base cash. Functioning akin to bodily gold as a bearer asset, inflation hedge, and offering foreign money denominations just like the greenback, Bitcoin is reshaping the idea of financial base belongings. Its clear algorithm and glued provide of 21 million items guarantee a non-discretionary financial coverage.

儘管上述觀點都維持了一些事實，但比特幣正越來越多地確立自己作為數位基礎現金的地位。比特幣的功能類似實體黃金，作為無記名資產、通膨對沖，並提供美元等貨幣面額，比特幣正在重塑金融基礎資產的概念。其清晰的演算法和 2,100 萬個項目的黏合供應保證了非全權的財務覆蓋。

In distinction, conventional fiat currencies just like the US greenback depend on centralized authorities to handle their provide, elevating questions on their predictability and effectiveness in an age of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA). This distinction is especially notable in mild of Nobel laureate Friedrich August von Hayek’s critique of centralized financial decision-making in his work “The Pretense of Information.” Bitcoin’s clear and predictable financial coverage stands in stark distinction to the opaque and probably unpredictable nature of conventional fiat foreign money administration.

相較之下，美元等傳統法定貨幣依賴中央政府來處理其供應，這引發了人們對其在波動性、不確定性、複雜性和模糊性（VUCA）時代的可預測性和有效性的質疑。這種差異在諾貝爾獎得主弗里德里希·奧古斯特·馮·哈耶克在其著作《資訊的偽裝》中對中央集權金融決策的批評中尤其引人注目。比特幣清晰且可預測的財務覆蓋範圍與傳統法定貨幣管理的不透明且可能不可預測的性質形成鮮明對比。

To Leverage, or To not Leverage Bitcoin

利用或不利用比特幣

For staunch Bitcoin proponents, the immutable 21 million provide cap is sacred. Altering it might basically alter Bitcoin itself, making it one thing completely completely different. Thus, throughout the Bitcoin neighborhood, skepticism in the direction of leveraging Bitcoin is widespread. Many see any type of leverage as akin to fiat foreign money practices, undermining Bitcoin’s core ideas.

對於堅定的比特幣支持者來說，不可改變的 2,100 萬供應上限是神聖的。改變它可能基本上會改變比特幣本身，使其成為完全不同的一件事。因此，在整個比特幣社群中，對利用比特幣的懷疑態度普遍存在。許多人認為任何類型的槓桿都類似於法定外國貨幣的做法，破壞了比特幣的核心概念。

This skepticism in the direction of leveraging Bitcoin is rooted within the distinction between commodity credit score and circulation credit score, as outlined by Ludwig von Mises. Commodity credit score relies on actual financial savings, whereas circulation credit score lacks such backing, resembling unbacked IOUs. Bitcoiners view leveraging that creates “paper Bitcoin” as economically dangerous and destabilizing.

正如路德維希·馮·米塞斯 (Ludwig von Mises) 所概述的那樣，對利用比特幣方向的懷疑植根於商品信用評分和流通信用評分之間的區別。商品信用評分依賴實際的金融儲蓄，而流通信用評分則缺乏這種支持，類似於無支持的借據。比特幣支持者認為利用槓桿創造「紙質比特幣」在經濟上是危險的並且會破壞穩定。

Even nuanced views throughout the neighborhood are cautious about leveraging, aligning with figures like Caitlin Lengthy, who has been warning in opposition to the hazards of leveraging Bitcoin. The collapse of leveraged-based Bitcoin lending corporations in 2022, reminiscent of Celsius and BlockFi, additional bolstered the issues voiced by Lengthy and others in regards to the dangers related to leveraging Bitcoin.

即使是整個社群的微妙觀點也對槓桿持謹慎態度，這與凱特琳·朗迪(Caitlin Lengthy)等人士的觀點一致，後者一直警告反對槓桿化比特幣的危險。 2022 年基於槓桿的比特幣借貸公司的倒閉，例如攝氏度和 BlockFi，進一步加劇了 Lengthy 和其他人提出的關於利用比特幣的風險的問題。

Celsius and Co. Proved the Level

攝氏度和公司證明了這一水平

The crypto market witnessed a big upheaval paying homage to the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2022, triggering a widespread credit score crunch that affected varied gamers within the crypto lending sector. Opposite to assumptions, most crypto lending actions weren’t peer-to-peer and carried appreciable counterparty dangers, as prospects lent on to platforms, which then deployed these funds into speculative methods with out sufficient danger administration.

加密市場見證了 2022 年雷曼兄弟倒閉帶來的巨大動盪，引發了廣泛的信用評分緊縮，影響了加密貸款行業的不同玩家。與假設相反，大多數加密貨幣貸款活動都不是點對點的，並且會帶來相當大的交易對手風險，因為潛在客戶向平台提供貸款，然後平台將這些資金用於投機活動，而沒有足夠的風險管理。

It was the rise of main DeFi protocols in the course of the DeFi summer season of 2020 that supplied promising avenues for yield era. Nevertheless, many of those protocols lacked sustainable enterprise fashions and tokenomics. They relied closely on protocol token inflation to maintain enticing yields, leading to an unsustainable ecosystem disconnected from basic financial ideas.

2020 年 DeFi 夏季期間主要 DeFi 協議的崛起為收益時代提供了有希望的途徑。然而，其中許多協議缺乏可持續的企業模式和代幣經濟學。他們嚴重依賴協議代幣通膨來維持誘人的收益率，從而導致了一個與基本金融理念脫節的不可持續的生態系統。

The 2022 crypto credit score crunch highlighted varied points with centralized yield devices, emphasizing issues about transparency, belief, and dangers reminiscent of liquidity, market, and counterparty dangers. Furthermore, it underscored the pitfalls of centralization and off-chain danger administration processes, which, when utilized to blockchain-based “banking providers,” mimic conventional banking flaws.

2022 年的加密信用評分緊縮凸顯了中心化收益工具的不同點，強調了透明度、信任和風險（例如流動性、市場和交易對手風險）等問題。此外，它還強調了中心化和鏈外風險管理流程的缺陷，當這些流程用於基於區塊鏈的「銀行服務提供者」時，會模仿傳統銀行的缺陷。

So regardless of the optimism surrounding the bull market of 2020/21, many establishments as a result of lack of those processes, together with Voyager, Three Arrows Capital, Celsius, BlockFi, and FTX, went underneath. The lack to implement essential checks and balances transparently and independently usually results in over-regulation and recurrent failures and fraud, mirroring the historic challenges of conventional banking methods. However the absence of regulation is just not an answer both

因此，儘管 2020/21 年的牛市前景樂觀，但由於缺乏這些流程，許多公司（包括 Voyager、三箭資本、Celsius、BlockFi 和 FTX）都陷入了困境。缺乏透明和獨立地實施必要的製衡通常會導致過度監管以及經常性的失敗和欺詐，這反映了傳統銀行業務方法的歷史性挑戰。然而，缺乏監管並不能解決問題

Bitcoin-based Yield is just not Optionally available

基於比特幣的收益並不是可選的

The place does this depart us? Given this 2022 episode, increasingly Bitcoiner have been posting the query: Ought to we embrace Bitcoin yield merchandise, or do they pose too nice a danger, echoing traits of the fiat system? Whereas legitimate issues exist, it is unrealistic to anticipate Bitcoin-based yield merchandise to fade completely.

這離我們去哪了？鑑於 2022 年的這一事件，越來越多的比特幣愛好者提出了這樣的疑問：我們是否應該接受比特幣收益產品，或者它們是否會構成太大的危險，與法定係統的特徵相呼應？儘管存在合法問題，但期望基於比特幣的收益產品完全消失是不切實際的。

The query is changing into all of the extra prevalent with the newly rising Bitcoin ecosystem. More and more tasks are constructing (or are claiming) to construct out monetary infrastructure in addition to purposes on Bitcoin straight. Might this create the identical points once more we already witnessed within the wider crypto sphere?

隨著新興的比特幣生態系統的發展，這個問題變得更加普遍。越來越多的項目正在建構（或聲稱）除了直接使用比特幣之外，還建立貨幣基礎設施。這是否會再次創造出我們在更廣泛的加密領域中已經見證過的相同點？

Almost certainly sure. That’s simply the character of the sport. And since Bitcoin is a permissionless protocol, everybody can construct on high of it, together with the individuals who need to construct Bitcoin-powered finance. And finance will inevitably want credit score and leverage.

幾乎可以肯定。這就是這項運動的特色。由於比特幣是一種無需許可的協議，因此每個人都可以在其基礎上進行構建，包括需要構建比特幣驅動的金融的個人。金融部門不可避免地需要信用評分和槓桿。

This can be a historic reality: In any thriving society, the need for credit score

這可能是個歷史現實：在任何繁榮的社會中，對信用評分的需求