比特币收益产品：黄金是常态

鉴于 2022 年的事件，越来越多的比特币爱好者提出了这样的疑问：我们是否应该接受比特币收益产品，或者它们是否构成了太大的危险

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.

比特币目前正在经历一场令人着迷的演变，对其本质有不同的看法。一些人将其视为用于定期交易的外国货币，而另一些人则将其视为现代黄金的储存价值。尽管如此，越来越多的叙述将比特币定位为一个去中心化的世界平台，用于保护和验证链下交易。

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.

尽管上述观点都维持了一些事实，但比特币正越来越多地确立自己作为数字基础现金的地位。比特币的功能类似于实物黄金，作为无记名资产、通胀对冲，并提供美元等货币面额，比特币正在重塑金融基础资产的概念。其清晰的算法和 2100 万个项目的粘合供应保证了非全权的财务覆盖。

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.

相比之下，美元等传统法定货币依赖中央政府来处理其供应，这引发了人们对其在波动性、不确定性、复杂性和模糊性（VUCA）时代的可预测性和有效性的质疑。这种区别在诺贝尔奖获得者弗里德里希·奥古斯特·冯·哈耶克在其著作《信息的伪装》中对中央集权金融决策的批评中尤其引人注目。比特币清晰且可预测的财务覆盖范围与传统法定货币管理的不透明且可能不可预测的性质形成鲜明对比。

To Leverage, or To not Leverage Bitcoin

利用或不利用比特币

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.

对于坚定的比特币支持者来说，不可改变的 2100 万供应上限是神圣的。改变它可能基本上会改变比特币本身，使其成为完全不同的一件事。因此，在整个比特币社区中，对利用比特币的怀疑态度普遍存在。许多人认为任何类型的杠杆都类似于法定外国货币的做法，破坏了比特币的核心理念。

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.

正如路德维希·冯·米塞斯 (Ludwig von Mises) 所概述的那样，对利用比特币方向的怀疑植根于商品信用评分和流通信用评分之间的区别。商品信用评分依赖于实际的金融储蓄，而流通信用评分则缺乏这种支持，类似于无支持的借条。比特币支持者认为利用杠杆创造“纸质比特币”在经济上是危险的并且会破坏稳定。

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.

即使是整个社区的微妙观点也对杠杆持谨慎态度，这与凯特琳·朗迪(Caitlin Lengthy)等人士的观点一致，后者一直警告反对杠杆化比特币的危险。 2022 年基于杠杆的比特币借贷公司的倒闭，例如摄氏度和 BlockFi，进一步加剧了 Lengthy 和其他人提出的关于利用比特币的风险的问题。

Celsius and Co. Proved the Level

摄氏度和公司证明了这一水平

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.

加密市场见证了 2022 年雷曼兄弟倒闭带来的巨大动荡，引发了广泛的信用评分紧缩，影响了加密贷款行业的不同玩家。与假设相反，大多数加密货币贷款活动都不是点对点的，并且会带来相当大的交易对手风险，因为潜在客户向平台提供贷款，然后平台将这些资金用于投机活动，而没有足够的风险管理。

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 夏季期间主要 DeFi 协议的崛起为收益时代提供了有希望的途径。然而，其中许多协议缺乏可持续的企业模式和代币经济学。他们严重依赖协议代币通胀来维持诱人的收益率，从而导致了一个与基本金融理念脱节的不可持续的生态系统。

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 年的加密信用评分紧缩凸显了中心化收益工具的不同点，强调了透明度、信任和风险（例如流动性、市场和交易对手风险）等问题。此外，它还强调了中心化和链外风险管理流程的缺陷，当这些流程用于基于区块链的“银行服务提供商”时，会模仿传统银行的缺陷。

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，尽管 2020/21 年的牛市前景乐观，但由于缺乏这些流程，许多公司（包括 Voyager、三箭资本、Celsius、BlockFi 和 FTX）都陷入了困境。缺乏透明和独立地实施必要的制衡通常会导致过度监管以及经常性的失败和欺诈，这反映了传统银行业务方法的历史性挑战。然而，缺乏监管并不能解决问题

Bitcoin-based Yield is just not Optionally available

基于比特币的收益并不是可选的

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.

这离我们去哪儿了？鉴于 2022 年的这一事件，越来越多的比特币爱好者提出了这样的疑问：我们是否应该接受比特币收益产品，或者它们是否会构成太大的危险，与法定系统的特征相呼应？尽管存在合法问题，但期望基于比特币的收益产品完全消失是不现实的。

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?

随着新兴的比特币生态系统的发展，这个问题正在变得更加普遍。越来越多的项目正在构建（或声称）除了直接使用比特币之外，还构建货币基础设施。这是否会再次创造出我们在更广泛的加密领域中已经见证过的相同点？

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.

几乎可以肯定。这就是这项运动的特点。由于比特币是一种无需许可的协议，因此每个人都可以在其基础上进行构建，包括需要构建比特币驱动的金融的个人。金融部门不可避免地需要信用评分和杠杆。

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

这可能是一个历史现实：在任何繁荣的社会中，对信用评分的需求