“常規貨幣的根源問題是使其正常工作所需的全部信任。”

創建比特幣是為了消除對受信任中介的需求。它以透明度，可審核性和分散驗證取代了不透明的，有權限的系統。

"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve.” — Satoshi Nakamoto (2009)

“傳統貨幣的根源問題是使其正常工作所需的全部信任。中央銀行必須信任不要使貨幣貶低，但是法定貨幣的歷史充滿了對該信任的違反。必須信任銀行以持有我們的資金並以電子方式轉讓它，但它們以較少的信用泡沫中的儲備率使它付出了巨大的儲備。” - Nakamoto Satoshi（2009）

Bitcoin was created to eliminate the need for trusted intermediaries. It replaced opaque, permissioned systems with transparency, auditability, and decentralized verification. The ethos was clear from day one: don’t trust—verify.

創建比特幣是為了消除對受信任中介的需求。它以透明度，可審核性和分散驗證取代了不透明的，有權限的系統。從第一天開始，這種精神就清楚了：不要相信 - 驗證。

And yet, many of the institutions now holding Bitcoin—custodians, exchanges, ETFs, even public companies—continue to rely on trust-based assumptions, the very problem Bitcoin was designed to solve.

然而，現在許多機構都持有比特幣（Custodians，交流，ETF，甚至是上市公司），旨在依靠基於信任的假設，比特幣旨在解決問題。

For Bitcoin treasury companies, this contradiction is especially glaring. These are firms that claim to operate on a Bitcoin standard—yet without verifiable Proof of Reserves (PoR), there’s no way for shareholders to know whether the Bitcoin is actually there.

對於比特幣國庫公司而言，這種矛盾尤其明顯。這些公司聲稱可以按比特幣標準運營 - 但沒有可驗證的儲量證明（POR），股東無法知道比特幣是否真的存在。

The Problem: Unproven Bitcoin Is Just Another IOU

問題：未經證實的比特幣只是另一個

Bitcoin is designed to be verifiable—but most corporate disclosures aren’t. When companies report BTC holdings without public wallet visibility or on-chain proof, investors are left to trust balance sheets, auditors, and custodians.

比特幣旨在可驗證，但大多數公司披露不是。當公司報告沒有公共錢包可見性或證明鍊鍊的BTC持有量時，投資者將留下資產負債表，審計師和保管人。

That opens the door for several systemic risks:

這為幾種系統性風險打開了大門：

* The mere presence of Bitcoin on a balance sheet is not a guarantee. Without verification, it’s no different than a fiat-denominated claim—an IOU dressed up in BTC terms.

*資產負債表上僅存在比特幣並不能保證。沒有驗證，它與菲亞特（FIAT）的主張沒有什麼不同，這是用BTC術語打扮的。

* This lack of transparency also hinders efficient capital allocation. When investors can’t independently attest to a company’s solvency with respect to its Bitcoin treasury, they are less likely to allocate capital to that company in the first place.

*這種缺乏透明度也阻礙了有效的資本分配。當投資者無法獨立證明公司的比特幣財政部的償付能力時，首先，他們不太可能將資本分配給該公司。

* In the public markets, a lack of verifiable PoR could also lead to mispricing and valuation discrepancies, as Bitcoin treasury companies are valued differently by investors who have different levels of trust in their disclosures.

*在公共市場中，缺乏可驗證的POR也可能導致誤差和估值差異，因為比特幣國庫公司受到對披露的信任程度不同的投資者的重視程度不同。

What We Learned from Gold: The ‘Paper’ Problem

我們從黃金中學到了什麼：“紙”問題

Bitcoin isn’t the first hard asset to face this challenge. The gold market offers a cautionary tale.

比特幣並不是第一個面臨這一挑戰的困難資產。黃金市場提供了一個警示性的故事。

For decades, gold investors have dealt with “paper gold” systems—unallocated accounts, synthetic ETFs, and derivatives with little or no linkage to actual metal. These claims often outnumber real reserves many times over, leading to widespread suspicion of price distortion and systemic misrepresentation.

幾十年來，黃金投資者一直在處理“紙黃金”系統 - 未分配帳戶，合成ETF和衍生品幾乎沒有與實際金屬聯繫的衍生品。這些說法通常超過了真實的餘地多次，導致人們普遍懷疑價格扭曲和系統性的虛假陳述。

Most gold investors don’現在売却するつもりはないと言います。

大多數黃金投資者並不表示目前不打算出售它。

But they have no way to independently verify it.

但是他們無法獨立驗證它。

Bitcoin gives us the tools to break this cycle. But only if companies choose to use them.

比特幣為我們提供了打破這個週期的工具。但是，只有公司選擇使用它們。

Bitcoin Is Built for Proof—and Companies Should Use It

比特幣是用於證明的，公司應該使用它

Unlike legacy assets, Bitcoin is designed to make proof of ownership and solvency a native function of the asset itself. Through public key cryptography, on-chain auditability, and permissionless transparency, Bitcoin enables real-time, trust-minimized verification.

與傳統資產不同，比特幣旨在使所有權和償付能力證明成為資產本身的本地功能。通過公共密鑰密碼學，鏈的可審核性和無許可的透明度，比特幣可以實時，信任最小的驗證。

This isn’t just a technical capability—it’s a governance feature. Bitcoin allows companies to demonstrate, cryptographically and without intermediaries, that their reserves exist, are intact, and are unencumbered. No bank statements. No opaque custodial claims. Just data, on-chain.

這不僅僅是技術能力，這是一個治理功能。比特幣允許公司在沒有中介的情況下證明，密碼，沒有中介，其儲量存在完整，並且不受限制。沒有銀行對帳單。沒有不透明的託管索賠。只是數據，鏈。

That’s a radical shift—and it’s one that Bitcoin treasury companies are uniquely positioned to take advantage of. In doing so, they can reduce audit complexity, strengthen shareholder communication, and align their internal capital practices with the trustless architecture of the asset they’re holding.

這是一個徹底的轉變，這是比特幣國庫公司獨特地利用優勢的轉變。通過這樣做，他們可以降低審計的複雜性，加強股東的溝通，並使其內部資本實踐與他們持有的資產的無信任體系結構保持一致。

And it’s already happening. Metaplanet, Premiere Member of Bitcoin For Corporations, is disclosing its BTC reserve addresses and transaction history. Anyone in the world—including shareholders, analysts, and regulators—can independently verify the existence and movement of their treasury.

它已經在發生。比特幣公司的首映會員Metaplanet正在披露其BTC儲備的地址和交易歷史記錄。世界上任何人（包括股東，分析師和監管機構）都可以獨立核實其財政部的存在和行動。

That’s not just compliance. That’s Bitcoin, applied.

那不僅是合規性。那是比特幣，應用了。

Public Companies Face the Greatest Responsibility

上市公司面臨最大的責任

Public companies don’t operate in a vacuum. Their disclosures shape market perception, influence investor behavior, and—especially when Bitcoin is involved—serve as a proxy for the maturity of the asset class itself.

上市公司不會在真空中運作。他們的披露塑造了市場的看法，影響投資者的行為，尤其是在涉及比特幣的情況下，將其作為資產類別本身成熟的代表。

When a publicly traded company holds Bitcoin but offers no visibility into how that Bitcoin is held or verified, it exposes itself to multiple levels of risk: legal, reputational, operational, and strategic. It undermines trust at the very moment it claims to be embracing a trustless system.

當一家公開交易的公司持有比特幣，但對該比特幣的持有或驗證方式尚無可見性，它會面臨多種級別的風險：法律，聲譽，運營和戰略性。它在聲稱擁抱無信任系統的那一刻破壞了信任。

More importantly, public companies send signals. Whether they like it or not, they become de facto representatives of the Bitcoin strategy they’ve adopted. Their behavior becomes part of the playbook for others considering similar moves.

更重要的是，上市公司發送信號。無論他們是否喜歡它，他們實際上是他們採用的比特幣戰略的代表。考慮類似動作的其他人，他們的行為成為劇本的一部分。

That’s why the responsibility is higher. Transparency isn’t optional for companies who lead with Bitcoin. It’s a duty. And companies that choose opacity not only take on unnecessary risk—they weaken the credibility of the entire movement.

這就是為什麼責任更高的原因。對於領導比特幣的公司而言，透明度不是可選的。這是一種職責。選擇不透明度的公司不僅承擔不必要的風險，而且削弱了整個運動的信譽。

What Proof of Reserves Should Actually Include

儲備的證明實際上應包括

For Proof of Reserves to have real integrity, it must

為了證明儲備金具有真正的完整性，它必須