【Bitpush 头条大拷问】加密资产纳入美国401(k)计划,你会投吗?

比推Publicado a 2025-08-11Actualizado a 2025-08-11

image.png

政策背景

上周,美国特朗普正式签署通过了一项行政命令,允许美国退休储蓄账户401(k)正式投资包括加密货币在内的“另类资产”。政策并非强制,而是为401(k)的受托人(fiduciary)提供了新选项。这意味着,如果计划提供方认为合适,未来美国数千万退休账户持有人或能直接在养老金账户中持有加密货币ETF。

这一举措,被部分人士解读为对数字货币的再度背书,也被视作推动加密资产“主流化”的里程碑。但与此同时,它也触动了长期以来关于养老金投资安全性的争论——尤其是在高波动资产进入退休账户的背景下。

市场影响

短期来看,该政策可能对比特币、以太坊ETF形成直接利好,吸引更多机构和个人资金入场,扩大交易量和市场深度。对于加密行业而言,这不仅意味着新的资金来源,也可能提升其在传统金融体系中的合法性与认可度。

然而,中长期影响则更为复杂。首先,401(k)的投资限制和合规要求非常严格,受托人需要对投资适宜性负责,因此并非所有计划都会开放加密选项。其次,加密资产的高波动性和政策不确定性,可能加大退休投资的风险管理难度,尤其是在全球宏观环境不稳定的时期。

从投资者结构来看,年轻群体更可能拥抱这一变化,把加密货币视为资产组合多元化的自然延伸;而保守投资者和靠近退休年龄的群体,则可能更倾向于规避此类高风险资产。

五类声音,不同立场

传统保守派:稳健优先,抗拒高风险

  • Nadia|前大厂高管(已退休)

“这是高风险,等于给了玩弄民众养老金的许可。”在她看来,这是押注数字货币的政治动作,不值得用养老金去试。

  • Howard|资深律师

答案简短明确——“不会投。”

理性客观派:关注制度设计与宏观风险

  • Winston Ma (@Winston_W_Ma)|CFA、律师、GPIFF执行主任、NYU法学院教授

“允许,不是强制。关键在于受托人是否采纳。”

  • Jane Liu|内布拉斯加大学奥马哈分校教授

“投资伴随风险,法律法规配套和宏观环境同样重要。现在国际形式、政治经济风险不确定因素都挺强的。”

年轻激进派:拥抱新资产的潜力

  • Jerry|在职软件工程师

“投啊!比特币、以太坊ETF早就有了,Solana的也要上线,我觉得和股票差不多。”

结语

从五位嘉宾的回答可以看出,加密资产进入401(k)计划并非单纯的市场事件,而是一场跨越代际与风险偏好的分歧。它既可能为加密市场注入极大的流动性,也可能因为制度限制和风险考量而只是小范围流行。最终,市场和投资者的反应,将决定这一政策的真正影响力。

往期阅读:

Bitpush 头条大拷问】ETH能涨到一万U吗?


Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

比推 TG 交流群:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

比推 TG 订阅: https://t.me/bitpush

说明: 比推所有文章只代表作者观点,不构成投资建议

Lecturas Relacionadas

Alibaba 'Stocks Up', ByteDance 'Trains'

"In late May, two closely timed events in China's AI industry clearly revealed the divergent strategic approaches of two tech giants: Alibaba and ByteDance. Alibaba is aggressively integrating AI into its existing commercial ecosystem, prioritizing immediate monetization. Its Qwen App now fully integrates with Taobao, leveraging the platform's 4-billion-item database for AI-powered shopping features like virtual try-on and price comparison. Internally, Alibaba has reorganized to incentivize AI-driven business growth, notably through the 'Agentic Commerce Trust Protocol' to enable AI-agent transactions. Financially, it emphasizes ROI, with CEO Daniel Wu stating every AI chip purchased is generating revenue. Alibaba's strategy bets that foundational AI model capabilities won't be leapfrogged in the next five years, allowing its 'AI-as-a-utility' approach to succeed. In stark contrast, ByteDance's Seed division focuses on pushing the frontiers of AGI with a long-term, research-oriented mindset. Its video generation model, Seedance 2.0, topped international benchmarks. The division, led by researchers Wu Yonghui and product head Zhu Wenjia, is tasked with 'exploring the upper limits of intelligence,' even considering open-sourcing its models—a rare move among Chinese firms. ByteDance is investing heavily, with reports of its 2026 capital expenditure plan being nearly triple that of 2024, funded by its substantial private profits. This allows it to pursue projects like an 8-month research paper questioning if video models are true 'world models,' devoid of immediate commercial pressure. The core divergence is less about corporate philosophy and more about structural constraints. As a publicly traded company, Alibaba is bound to quarterly financial expectations, forcing a pragmatic, revenue-focused AI integration. As a private entity, ByteDance has the luxury to fund long-term, high-risk foundational research without answering to public markets. The article concludes that the true determinant of a Chinese company's AI path is its IPO status, suggesting that if ByteDance were public, or if Alibaba were private, their strategies might well be reversed."

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Alibaba 'Stocks Up', ByteDance 'Trains'

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

Editor's Note: As AI Agents become cheaper and easier to use, a new constraint emerges: the cost isn't in launching more Agents, but in the human attention required to manage, judge, and integrate their outputs. This hidden cost is called the "orchestration tax." The article argues that a developer's cognitive bandwidth is the key bottleneck—a serial, non-parallelizable resource akin to a Global Interpreter Lock (GIL). While many Agents can run concurrently, their results ultimately require human judgment for review, conflict resolution, and final integration. Therefore, more Agents don't automatically mean higher productivity; they can simply create longer queues, lead to cognitive fatigue, and create the illusion of busyness without real output. The core solution is to design workflows around this scarce human attention. Key strategies include: scaling the number of Agents to match review capacity (not UI capacity), categorizing tasks (delegating independent ones, keeping complex judgment-heavy ones serial), batch reviewing results to minimize context-switching costs, automating verifiable checks to reserve human judgment for critical decisions, and protecting focused, uninterrupted thinking time. Ultimately, the critical skill is not launching many Agents, but architecting systems that respect the fundamental limit of human attention. Unpaid "orchestration tax" accumulates as both technical and cognitive debt, undermining system understanding and quality. True productivity comes from thoughtfully managing the single-threaded resource—your focus.

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbitHace 9 hora(s)

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbitHace 9 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片