从历史来看 401(k) 养老金引入 Crypto 资产

深潮Publicado em 2025-08-10Última atualização em 2025-08-11

养老金买入加密资产相当于“囤币”,等于另外一个“加密资产战略储备”。

撰文:陈默 cmDeFi

2025 年 8 月 7 日,美国总统唐纳德·特朗普签署了一项行政令,允许 401(k) 退休储蓄计划投资更多元化的资产,包括私募股权、房地产以及首次引入的加密资产。

这一政策就像字面上看到的那样,很好解读

  • 为加密市场提供「国家级别」背书,释放推动加密市场成熟的信号。

  • 养老金拓展多元化投资和回报,但引入了更高波动和风险。

在加密领域,这已经足以载入史册。

纵观 401(k) 的发展历程,其关键转折点是在大萧条时期通过养老金改革允许投资股票。尽管历史和经济背景各异,这一变化与当前引入加密资产的趋势有着诸多相似之处。

1/6 · 大萧条前的养老金体系

20 世纪初至 1920 年代,美国的养老金主要以固定收益计划(Defined Benefit Plan)为主,雇主承诺为员工提供退休后稳定的月度养老金。这种模式源于 19 世纪末的工业化进程,旨在吸引和留住劳动力。

这个阶段养老金资金的投资策略高度保守。当时的主流观念认为,养老金应追求安全性而非高收益,受「法律清单」(Legal List)法规限制,主要被限定在政府债券、优质公司债券和市政债券等低风险资产。

这种保守策略在经济繁荣期运行顺利,但也限制了潜在回报。

2/6 · 大萧条的冲击与养老金危机

1929 年 10 月的华尔街股灾标志着大萧条的开端,道琼斯指数从峰值下跌近 90%,引发全球经济崩溃。失业率飙升至 25%,无数企业破产。

虽然养老金基金当时极少投资股票,但危机仍通过间接渠道打击它们。许多雇主企业倒闭,无法履行养老金承诺,导致养老金支付中断或缩减。

这引发了公众对雇主和政府养老金管理能力的质疑,推动了联邦干预。1935 年,《社会保障法》(Social Security Act)出台,建立全国性养老金体系,但私营和公共养老金仍由地方主导。

监管者强调,养老金应避免股票等「赌博」资产。

......

转折开始:危机后经济复苏缓慢,债券收益率开始下降(部分因联邦税收扩张),这为后续变革埋下种子。此时收益率不足的情况逐渐显现,难以覆盖承诺的回报。

3/6 · 后大萧条时期的投资转向与争议

大萧条结束后,特别是二战期间和战后(1940s-1950s),养老金投资策略开始缓慢演变,从保守债券转向包括股票在内的权益资产。这一转变并非一帆风顺,而是伴随着激烈争议。

战后经济复苏,但市政债券市场停滞,收益率降至 1.2% 低点,无法满足养老金的担保回报。公共养老金面临「赤字支付」压力,纳税人负担加重。

同时,私人信托基金开始采用「谨慎人规则」(Prudent Man Rule),该规则源于 19 世纪的信托法,但 1940s 被重新诠释为只要整体「谨慎」,就允许其进行多元化投资以追求更高回报。这一规则最初适用于私人信托,但逐步开始影响公共养老金。

1950 年,纽约州率先部分采纳谨慎人规则,允许养老金投资高达 35% 的权益资产(如股票)。这标志着从「法律清单」向灵活投资的转变。其他州跟进,如北卡罗来纳州在 1957 年授权投资公司债券,并在 1961 年允许 10% 股票配置,到 1964 年增至 15%。

这一改变引发了较大争议,反对者(主要是精算师和工会)认为,股票投资重蹈 1929 年股灾覆辙,将退休资金置于市场波动风险中。媒体和政治家称其为「拿工人血汗钱赌博」,担心经济 downturn 时养老金崩盘。

为缓和争议,投资比例被严格限制(初始不超过 10-20%),并优先投资「蓝筹股」。后面的一段时间,受益于战后牛市,争议逐渐消失,证明了其回报潜力。

4/6 · 后续发展与制度化

到 1960 年,公共养老金非政府证券占比超 40%。纽约州市政债券持有率从 1955 年的 32.3% 降至 1966 年的 1.7%。这一转变减少了纳税人负担,但也使养老金更依赖市场。

1974 年《雇员退休收入保障法》(ERISA)出台,将谨慎投资者标准应用于公共养老金,尽管初期争议,股票投资最终被接受,但也暴露出一些问题,如 2008 年危机中养老金损失惨重,重燃类似辩论。

5/6 · 信号释放

当前 401(k) 引入加密资产与之前引入股票投资的争议高度相似,两者均涉及从保守投资向高风险资产的跃迁。显然加密资产目前的成熟度更低而波动性更高,这可视为一种更为激进的养老金改革,从这里也释放出一些信号。

加密资产的推广、监管、教育都将前进一个等级,以辅助人们对这类新兴资产的接纳程度、风险意识。

从市场层面来说,股票纳入养老金计划在美股的长牛态势中受益, 加密资产要复制这条路也必须走出稳定向上的市场。同时,由于 401(k) 资金相当于被锁定,

养老金买入加密资产相当于「囤币」,等于另外一个「加密资产战略储备」。

无论从哪个层面来解读,这对于 Crypto 都是巨大的利好。

以下为资料补充,专业人士可跳过

6/6 · 附 - 401(k) 的含义与具体运作机制

401(k) 是美国《国内税收法典》第 401(k) 条下的一种雇主赞助的退休储蓄计划,1978 年首次引入。它允许员工通过税前工资(或税后工资,视具体计划而定)存入个人退休账户,用于长期储蓄和投资。

401(k) 是一种「固定缴款计划」(Defined Contribution Plan),与传统的「固定收益计划」(Defined Benefit Plan)不同,其核心在于员工和雇主共同供款,投资收益或损失由员工个人承担。

6.1 供款

员工可以从每期工资中扣除一定比例作为 401(k) 供款,存入个人账户。雇主提供「匹配供款」,即根据员工供款的一定比例追加资金,匹配金额视雇主政策而定,非强制性。

6.2 投资

401(k) 不是单一基金,而是一个由员工控制的个人账户,资金可投资于雇主预设的「菜单」选项。常见包括:标普 500 指数基金、债券基金、混合配置基金等。2025 年行政令允许加入私募股权、房地产和加密资产。

员工需从菜单中选择投资组合,或接受默认选项。雇主只提供选项,不负责具体投资。

  • 收益归属:投资收益完全归员工所有,无需与雇主或他人分享。

  • 风险承担:若市场下跌,损失由员工自行承担,无兜底机制。

Leituras Relacionadas

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 17m

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

marsbitHá 17m

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 2h

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

链捕手Há 2h

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 3h

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

marsbitHá 3h

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

The article "From Token to Machine Labor: AI is Evolving from Tool to 'Worker'" argues that the business model for AI is shifting beyond simply selling computational resources (tokens, GPU hours) or model access. Instead, a new "machine labor market" is emerging, where the core economic transaction is the purchase of economically useful work directly performed by software. The central thesis is that AI pricing will evolve through four stages: 1) raw tokens, 2) standardized LLM capabilities (e.g., text generation), 3) industry-specific labor markets (e.g., legal review, radiology), and finally 4) a programmable results market where tasks like resolving a support ticket are bid on and priced based on outcome. In this future, buyers will care less about *which* model or GPU completes a task and more about whether the work meets specified standards for accuracy, latency, and cost. This transition reframes the impact of AI on human labor. Rather than simple replacement, it suggests a re-coordination where machines handle standardized, verifiable work, freeing humans for roles involving oversight, context management, responsibility, and final judgment. In some cases, this "last 1%" of human input becomes more valuable as it enables the other 99% to be automated. Furthermore, as AI reduces the cost of work, demand may expand, creating larger markets (e.g., 24/7 customer service) rather than just cheaper versions of existing ones. The article concludes that while infrastructure (GPUs, models, tokens) remains crucial upstream, the market is converging on a simpler, tradeable unit: machine labor that can be defined, measured, priced, and procured based on contractible specifications.

marsbitHá 3h

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

marsbitHá 3h

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

The price of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.5 series API has been permanently reduced by up to 99%, specifically for the "Input (Cache Hit)" cost, which covers users re-reading historical context in long conversations. MiMo's head, Luo Fuli, published a detailed technical blog to clarify that this drastic price cut stems from genuine engineering breakthroughs, not a marketing stunt or a simple price war. The core of the achievement lies in six key engineering optimizations. First, the model architecture adopts a Hybrid Sliding Window Attention (SWA), reducing the memory footprint (KVCache) to 1/7th of a traditional model. Second, a dual-pool memory management system actually utilizes these savings, allowing a single GPU to handle over 5 times more concurrent users. Third, an upgraded prefix caching mechanism achieves a cache hit rate of 93-95% for repeated reads, meaning most such requests bypass GPU computation entirely. Fourth, a self-developed distributed cache (GCache) utilizes idle SSD space on existing GPU servers, eliminating additional storage costs. Fifth, an intelligent scheduling system (LLM-Router) efficiently routes requests to maximize cache reuse and performance. Sixth, Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) accelerates the model's text generation ("output") side. Together, these systemic optimizations dramatically lower the real computational cost per request, enabling the 99% price reduction for cached inputs while reportedly maintaining positive gross margins. Luo Fuli's disclosure aims to shift the narrative from "price war" to a demonstration of substantive AI engineering progress.

marsbitHá 5h

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

marsbitHá 5h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片