特朗普解锁9万亿美元退休金:加密货币正式打入美国养老金体系

比推Publicado em 2025-08-08Última atualização em 2025-08-08

综编:Felix, PANews

原标题:特朗普签署行政令:美国退休金可投资加密货币,近9万亿美元市场或迎巨变


美国总统唐纳德·特朗普于周四(8 月 7 日)签署了一项行政命令,允许美国人将 401(k) 退休储蓄投资于加密货币、私募股权和房地产等其他另类资产。签署的行政命令中指示:

  • 在 180 天内,劳工部重新评估《雇员退休收入保障法》(ERISA)管辖的 401(k) 计划和其他固定缴款计划中的另类资产投资方面的义务的指导意见。

  • 劳工部长澄清劳工部对另类资产的立场,以及与提供包含另类资产投资的资产配置基金相关的适当的受托流程。

  • 劳工部长与财政部长、美国证券交易委员会(SEC)和其他联邦监管机构协商,以确定是否应在这些机构进行类似的监管改革。

  • 美国 SEC 通过修订适用的法规和指导意见,为参与者导向的固定缴款退休储蓄计划提供获取另类资产的便利。

在特朗普的行政命令中,明确将加密货币与另类资产归为一类,并纳入 401(k) 退休储蓄投资计划。此前美国劳工部曾发布指导意见,要求受托人“在考虑将加密货币添加到 401(k) 计划参与者的投资菜单中之前务必格外谨慎”。今年 5 月,该指导意见已被完全撤销。

受此消息影响,行情数据显示,比特币过去 24 小时上涨近 2%,以太坊上涨超 7%。

近9亿美元美国退休金将开放加密货币敞口

美国的养老金分为三个部分:第一部分是国家层面的社会保险金,保证就业者退休之后的基本的养老生活。第二部分是企业的养老金计划,401(k) 计划是其中重要组成部分,只应用于私人公司的雇员,是美国最为普遍的就业人员退休计划。第三部分是私人年金计划。

401(k) 计划是一种由雇主提供、享受税收优惠的退休储蓄计划。该计划以雇员供款为主,即员工从自己的税前工资中提取一部分存入 401(k)账户,雇主通常也会提供一定比例的匹配供款。例如员工存入工资的 6%,雇主也额外存入 3%或 6%(具体比例和规则由雇主设定)。

2025 年美国国税局设定员工自愿供款的上限为 23,500 美元,50 岁及以上者可额外追加 7500 美元。员工通常可以从雇主提供的一系列投资基金中选择进行投资,自行承担投资风险。但是雇员在 59.5 岁之前提取资金,通常需缴纳 10% 的额外罚款税,并补缴所得税。

目前美国 401(k) 平台提供商市场集中度较高,据估算,前五大提供商(Fidelity、Empower、Vanguard、Principal、ADP)合计掌握了超 60% 的 401(k) 市场资产。

在商业模式方面,Fidelity、Empower、Principal 和 Voya 偏向综合型,同时提供记录保管、投资管理、自有基金产品。Vanguard 和 BlackRock 主要擅长投资管理。

根据 Investment Company Institute(ICI)于今年 6 月发布的报告,401(k) 计划持有 8.7 万亿美元资金,超过 9000 万美国人参与了雇主赞助的固定缴款计划。在 401(k) 中,共同基金管理资产为 5.3 万亿美元,占比 61%;其中权益基金占 3.2 万亿美元,为最大类;其次为混合基金,持有约 1.4 万亿美元。

各方褒贬不一,对加密货币利好

虽然将加密资产引入401(K)加大了退休基金的风险,但这对于新兴的加密行业无疑是一种利好。

分析师 Geiger Capital 发推称,“401k 养老金持有约 9 万亿美元的资产。如果仅将 5% 的资金投入比特币,那么价值将达到 4500 亿美元。比特币的总市值为 2 万亿美元。”

投资机构 Varys Capital 合伙人 Tom Dunleavy 分析指出, “大多数美国人每两周从雇主那里收到工资时,都会将其中的一部分(通常在 1% 到 10% 之间)分配到他们的 401(k) 退休账户中。通常情况下,股票占比 60%,债券占比 40%。如果突然间加密货币的配置比例变成 5%,那么未来几年,你会看到上千亿美元的资金涌入这一资产类别。”

Bitwise 研究主管 Ryan Rasmussen 表示: “特朗普 401(k) 行政命令的短期影响在于,它向投资者发出了另一个信息,即加密货币的监管觉醒将持续下去。” “这显然会推高市场。” “从中期来看,行政命令和 401(k)计划提供商的回应将把数百亿(甚至数千亿)的资金引入加密资产。”

相对于加密圈的一片喝彩声,传统金融领域也发出了理性的声音,提醒此举也伴随着一定的风险和挑战。

首先投资费用可能会蚕食收益。私募股权基金一般每年会向投资者收取 2% 的管理费,外加基金利润的 20%。晨星分析师 Jason Kephart 表示,这项行政令为资产管理公司带来了“巨大的机遇”,但也引发了个人投资者的担忧。“由于增加了额外费用、增加了复杂性,而且透明度降低,情况就变得不那么明朗了”。

其次,相应的诉讼案件也会增加。Stifel 首席华盛顿政策策略师 Brian Gardner 预计,劳工部将需要审查其关于计划受托责任的指导意见,因为 401k 计划参与者在私人投资中亏损可能导致针对经理的诉讼。

再次,缺乏流动性也是一大弊端。401(k)允许投资私募股权,但这类资产往往缺乏流动性,投资者的资金通常会被套牢数月甚至数年。这可能意味着,401(k) 计划中的私募股权基金持有者可能难以快速出售股票,无论是为了筹集现金还是购买其他投资产品。

最后值得一提是,尽管行政命令已签署,但 Fidelity 和 Vanguard 等提供商需要开发合适的产品,而这些产品的普及可能需要数年时间。


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

Leituras Relacionadas

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.

marsbitHá 57m

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

marsbitHá 57m

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.

marsbitHá 7h

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

marsbitHá 7h

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手Há 10h

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手Há 10h

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbitHá 10h

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbitHá 10h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片