CEO Pantera Capital спрогнозировал создание биткоин-резервов геополитическими противниками США

cryptonews.ru2025-03-23 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-09-24 tarihinde güncellendi

  • CEO Pantera Capital заявил, что в ближайшее десятилетие такие страны, как США и Китай создадут биткоин-резервы.
  • Этому способствуют ослабление доллара и укрепление биткоина.

В ближайшее десятилетие геополитические противники США начнут инвестировать в биткоин, поскольку доллар постепенно теряет свою роль резервной валюты. Об этом заявил CEO Pantera Capital Дэн Морхед в подкасте Empire.

В ходе этого выпуска участники обсудили множество вопросов, от циклов биткоина до деятельности казначейских компаний (DAT) и глобальных трендов. В числе прочего, Морхед поделился своим мнением относительно того, может ли биткоин стать мировой резервной валютой.

Комментируя это, он отметил, что таковая меняется каждые 80-100 лет. Если в прошлом это были сначала золотые монеты, эскудо, а потом британский фунт, что в современном мире резервной валютой является американский доллар.

«Никто не продержался дольше 100 лет. И уже сейчас вы видите, что некоторые страны переходят к инвестициям своих резервов в биткоин», — отметил Морхед.

По его словам, следующими на такой шаг пойдут страны Персидского залива. После них биткоин-резервы создадут, вероятно, геополитические противники США, в том числе РФ и Китай.

«Почему? Потому что, если подумать, Китай держит около $1 трлн в казначейских облигациях США, и эти активы могут быть аннулированы. Это безумие — держать все свои национальные сбережения в активе, который может быть просто аннулирован противником. В течение десятилетия, возможно, не за одну ночь, страны, такие как Китай или Россия, начнут переводить часть своих резервов в биткоин и другие криптовалюты», — подчеркнул Морхед.

CEO Pantera Capital позиционирует биткоин и, в частности, золото в качестве альтернатив доллару. Он также уверен, что текущий рост цен на драгоценный металл продиктован, в том числе, закупками со стороны разных стран.

Ранее мы сообщали о том, что золото обновило исторический максимум на фоне глубокой коррекции биткоина.

«Что касается макроэкономики, то риск для облигаций и валют очень высок. Инфляция остаётся на высоком уровне, а фискальная политика очень либеральная. Доллар был сильно укреплен, но сейчас начинает ослабевать. Политические и торговые войны также подрывают доверие к доллару как к резервной валюте. Люди начинают искать альтернативы — золото и биткоин становятся этими альтернативами, потому что стабильность валюты и предсказуемость — это ключевые факторы», — подчеркнул Морхед.

Он также отметил по-прежнему низкую корреляцию биткоина с высокорисковыми активами, в частности индексом S&P 500. Как объяснил Морхед, скачки этого показателя обусловлены лишней ликвидностью, но сейчас он находится на низком уровне.

CEO Pantera Capital ожидается в ближайшие 12-18 месяцев дальнейшего ослабления доллара и, как следствие, роста биткоина.

İlgili Okumalar

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton has filed to launch two ETFs that embed a "default configuration" logic into Bitcoin investment, aiming to tap into massive pension fund flows. These "Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETFs" will initially hold 95% equities and 5% Bitcoin, automatically reinvesting stock dividends to buy Bitcoin. However, a quarterly rebalancing rule forces selling of Bitcoin if its allocation exceeds 5%, capping its maximum holding at 20%. While the product cleverly circumvents advisor reluctance and compliance hurdles by labeling itself as a U.S. equity product, its actual Bitcoin buying power is minimal. Given low dividend yields (e.g., ~1% for broad market indices), annual Bitcoin purchases from a fund the size of Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF would be a mere $3.6 million—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. Crucially, during bull markets, the fund becomes a programmed, passive *seller* of Bitcoin, potentially creating sustained sell pressure if many similar funds emerge. The strategy leverages investor inertia and automatic enrollment, similar to the success of target-date funds in 401(k) plans. It also uses an offshore Cayman subsidiary for holding Bitcoin and raises a tax complication where investors must pay taxes on dividends they never receive as cash. Although recent U.S. regulatory changes allow crypto in retirement plans, widespread adoption as a default option faces legal hurdles. The core premise remains: the system doesn't need to convince anyone to buy Bitcoin actively; it simply relies on people doing nothing.

marsbit26 dk önce

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

marsbit26 dk önce

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Major Bull Loses $15 Billion On June 25th, Bitcoin fell below $60,000, hitting a low of $58,030—its lowest level since October 2024. The sell-off triggered over $1 billion in leveraged liquidations in 24 hours, with longs accounting for $788 million. This marks a more than 53% decline from the October 2025 all-time high of $126,198. A critical factor in the downturn is the weakening position of MicroStrategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. With 847,363 BTC at an average cost of $75,651, the company now faces over $14.6 billion in unrealized losses. Its core financing flywheel—raising capital to buy Bitcoin—is stalling. Its variable-rate preferred shares (STRC), a key fundraising tool, have fallen 25% below their $100 target. This raises doubts about its ability to continue providing steady institutional demand for Bitcoin. Simultaneously, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs are experiencing significant outflows, with a single-day net outflow of $469 million on June 24th. This represents the most severe sustained capital flight since their launch. The macroeconomic backdrop remains restrictive, with persistent inflation delaying expected Fed rate cuts. Analysts note a shift in capital allocation, with institutional funds moving away from crypto towards AI infrastructure stocks. Immediate pressure comes from approximately $10 billion worth of Bitcoin options expiring on June 26th, which could increase market volatility. The combined effect of these factors—eroding core demand pillars, macro headwinds, and capital rotation—has decisively broken the $60,000 support level.

Foresight News32 dk önce

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Foresight News32 dk önce

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

The article analyzes whether the STRC (a perpetual preferred stock issued by MicroStrategy) presents a buying opportunity after its price fell below its $100 par value to around $80, offering a seemingly high yield of 13-15%. The core argument is that STRC's discount reflects market skepticism about the sustainability of MicroStrategy's capital structure model, not just temporary panic. This model relies on issuing securities (like STRC) to raise funds to buy more Bitcoin, a "flywheel" that works in a bull market. The recent small sale of BTC to fund dividends, while minor, broke the psychological "never sell" anchor and signaled potential strain. Key risks identified are not a traditional Ponzi collapse but a potential breakdown in the financing narrative: 1) If Bitcoin enters a deep bear market, crushing MicroStrategy's stock premium (mNAV), its ability to raise cheap capital weakens. 2) If STRC remains deeply discounted, it signifies permanently higher funding costs. 3) The high cash dividend yield represents a significant ongoing expense. 4) If selling BTC to pay dividends becomes routine, the bullish narrative reverses. The conclusion is that STRC is not a risk-free high-yield asset. It is a high-coupon bet on whether MicroStrategy's BTC treasury financing model can withstand a bear market. Buying it is a wager that the market will continue to believe in and fund this structure at acceptable costs. The current price asks if this cycle's "casualty" might be a BTC treasury company's融资 model itself.

marsbit48 dk önce

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

marsbit48 dk önce

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

**Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Names?** In the crypto world, changing a project's name is common—over 16% of projects have done so, including major ones like Polygon (formerly Matic Network). This contrasts sharply with traditional businesses, which fiercely protect brand equity. The core reason is that in crypto, brand loyalty is often weak. Users are frequently investors, airdrop hunters, or yield seekers, not traditional consumers. A name associated with price crashes, hacks, or failed narratives becomes a liability, not an asset. Renaming can be a strategic reset to shed this baggage. Name changes serve as a potent marketing tool. They can signal a genuine pivot in strategy or scope (e.g., EthSign dropping "Eth" as it expanded). However, they are often used to "narrative surf," rebranding to align with hot trends like AI, RWA, or the metaverse (e.g., Elrond → MultiversX). Critically, renaming is also a PR tactic to distance a project from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap → Multichain). The most significant risk emerges when a name change is coupled with a token migration or swap. This process can allow projects to reset exchange price charts, erase visible historical downtrends, and create an illusion of a fresh start. It often facilitates liquidity resets, where low float can be exploited for pumps. More alarmingly, migrations sometimes mask overhauls to tokenomics, introducing substantial new token supply through "ecosystem funds" or "node rewards," effectively diluting existing holders. The fundamental issue isn't renaming itself, which can be valid for strategic evolution. The problem is when it functions as an escape from history—a way to avoid accountability for past mistakes, failed promises, and poor performance. When a project announces a rebrand, the critical questions are: What tangible new capability or strategy does it represent? Has the tokenomics changed? And what part of its past is it most trying to make users forget?

marsbit54 dk önce

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit54 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片