黄金牛市,一场国际货币体系“礼崩乐坏”下的反诈骗运动

深潮2025-11-12 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-11-13 tarihinde güncellendi

黄金牛市——当现代货币的信仰裂缝遇见五千年不灭的古老信任

最近两年黄金价格大幅上涨,最近现货黄金在突破4000美元/盎司后又快速突破4400美元的历史纪录,今年来涨幅超过50%,不过10月底以来,黄金又开启暴涨后的回落模式。

无论是主权国家央行,机构投资者还是普通个人,这两年都开始买入黄金,一些投资大佬对黄金更是情有独钟。

“货币天然是金银”,马克思的名言犹言在耳,黄金也常常被视作真正的货币或真正的财富储备。然而,当金本位制在百年前隐入历史的烟尘,当今黄金的价格被各国的法币所标注,黄金这个千年古董资产的价值早已“我命由天不由我”!那么,金价暴涨暴跌的幕后推手到底是谁,价值和泡沫的临界点在哪里?

实际上,并非黄金资产本身的价值提高了多少,而是以美元为代表的现代货币价值一直在大幅缩水。全球不断创新高的天量发债,各国央行为了购买债务“敲击键盘”式的天量印钞,过剩流动性造成的资产荒,美国突破现代金融文明底线对海外美元资产的长臂制裁,以及挡不住、根本挡不住的AI股市泡沫,让越来越多的人嗅到了后现代金融危机的味道。或者说,法币的印钞机器和AI巨头的绚丽叙事,在古典金融学范式来看更像是一种“金融诈骗”。感受到被欺骗是信仰裂缝的开始,而黄金此时不失时机的成为了一种金融古典主义和保守主义的慰藉,或者策略上的一种“货币反欺诈”对冲工具。

不产生利息的黄金

是一种“庞氏骗局”吗?

当然,在黄金超级牛市周期的强劲上涨过程中,质疑黄金价值的声音也一直不绝于耳,甚至也有人称其为人类历史上最大的泡沫,最大的骗局。

第一,最大的问题,黄金没有利息,没有分红,非有息资产;

第二,因为自身无法产生持续的净现金流,也就无法用经典的资产定价模型来定价,经典的金融学教科书认为一种资产的价格是其未来净现金流的折现,黄金不具备这一点;

第三,既然黄金本身无法产生利息或租金,那么其定价就只能来自于资本利得,也就是价格上涨带来的价差。而这种模式又是一种典型的击鼓传花的“庞氏骗局”,也就是当前的价格完全依靠未来更高的价格支撑,这不就是典型的泡沫吗?

而与此同时,黄金又是经典的“避险资产”,所谓的“乱世买黄金”。除此之外,黄金还是经典的“抗通胀资产”,在物价飞涨的年代,黄金成为财富保值最可靠的“压舱石”。最神奇的是,黄金是历史最为悠久,至少五千年来一直经久不衰的财富代表;同时也是被认可范围最广,超越种族、国家、地域、文化的超主权、超文明财富。

如果苛刻的将黄金定义为人类文明史上的泡沫,那么一个经历五千年之久,几十亿人认可的“不灭的泡沫”,又是一种怎样的泡沫?如此坚硬的泡沫,又如何定义为泡沫?

与黄金相比礼崩乐坏的现代货币体系更像是一种“骗局”

相反,与黄金这种实物资产相比,失去纪律和规则的法币可能才是最大泡沫或“骗局”。

黄金的全球储量至少算得清,具有客观的硬约束。而对于当前的法币来说,只要各国央行轻轻的“敲击键盘”,上亿、百亿、千亿甚至是万亿级别的新钞就无中生有的创造出来了(MMT的核心观点)。虽然形式上有各种法律和机制约束,但每当遇到大的危机,都会有借口突破法律和机制的约束,所谓博弈论中的“动态不一致性”。

时至今日,美国政府突破债务上限已经高达100余次,债务总额已经加速度地突破了37万亿美元,以至于其所设的债务限制已经成为公开的摆设,对货币和债务毫无约束力,市场也对这个摆设不以为然。因为对于法币来说,央行的独立性或者央行不沦落为政客们的印钞机,是货币信用最后的底线。而特朗普政府对美联储毫不掩饰地横加干预和指责,更加重了投资者们的担忧。

美国特朗普政府在这条底线上疯狂试探,其它国家也好不到哪里去,纷纷东施效颦。美元作为世界货币和霸权货币,本来是其它国家货币的“约束之锚”。但今天美元充满了不确定性,其它国家为了维护汇率的稳定,同时也为了充分利用美元宽松的空间解决国内经济衰退的问题,也都大幅发债、印钞。可以说,在全球经济增长动能不足,都在苦苦寻找市场需求和“甲方”的国际贸易内卷格局下,竞相让本国汇率贬值是更加巧妙的贸易战方式。这对投资者来说又像是一种隐秘的骗局。

从黄金二十年的熊市看今天的超级牛市

当然,黄金的信仰也并非一直牢固,也曾经有一段信仰破灭的“失去的二十年”。

在现代金融发展的初期,即上个世纪七十年代布雷顿森林体系解体之后,到本世纪初美国互联网泡沫危机之间的三十余年,随着全球化、民主化的一波波上层建筑革新浪潮,伴随着互联网科技革命和华尔街金融创新的大潮,人们对人类文明的进步,对现代金融体系充满了信心,对当时货币财政体系纪律严明、美联储独立性极强、财政收支甚至是出现盈余的美元充满了信心,持久的信心积累起来就是信仰。美元信仰的形成就是黄金信仰的破灭。

在布雷顿森林体系解体后,黄金经历了一段时间迅猛的“再平衡”或“重定价”式的升值后(从35美元涨到850美元),竟然进入了时间最为持久的“熊市”,近二十年从850美元跌到252美元,跌幅达到70%。可以说这二十年间是美国和美元的高光时刻,却是黄金的“至暗时间”。

今天,世界的政治、经济、金融环境与黄金熊市时间似乎完全相反。黄金熊市时期是全球化高歌猛进,第三大资源国俄罗斯和第一大人口国中国加入世界经贸体系的时代,是美联储由沃尔克、格林斯潘等技术官员独立治行,遵从货币规则的时代,是冷战结束,“世界是平的”、地球村等普世理想蒸蒸日上的时代。

今天是反全球化论调和思潮尘嚣日上,贸易战如火如荼的时代,是大国博弈和地缘冲突不断、国家主义和种族主义盛行、极端右翼大回潮的时代,是美国带领着全球央行竞相“敲击键盘”印钞,国际货币治理体系“礼崩乐坏”的时代,是货币和债务洪水大爆发的时代。

在这样的大争之世,我们必须重新反思人类财富的最底层资产或终极之锚的问题了。泡沫的本质来自于信仰,泡沫之所以不灭是因为信仰不灭。而信仰一旦动摇,且不说崩溃,对价值体系的影响都将是地动山摇。

黄金牛市是对今天货币金融体系现代性危机的反思

如果人们感受到了现代货币和金融的“欺诈性”,那么如何来保护自己脆弱的金融财富。特别是对于管理着国家万亿美元级别的各国央行来说,如果看到了美元资产的这种不安全性,他们将如何采取反欺诈的措施来保护国家金融安全呢?这样一个微妙的问题就产生了:在人类现代货币金融体系如此发达,金融家们创造的现代金融工具和产品如此琳琅满目的今天,为什么一个来自于千年历史深处的“古董资产”却突然焕发了青春,最近几年成为各国政府(央行)、金融机构、个人投资者纷纷疯狂购买的对象?

黄金的超级牛市是一种“货币返租”、“金融返租”现象。然而在一个依靠现代货币和金融工具无法提供安全感的体系里面,除了从历史深处寻找价值之锚的信仰慰籍,投资者还能有什么选择呢?

现代货币和金融的“欺诈性”,当然只是一种调侃和比喻的说法。我们不能反现代,但也要客观看待现代性的危机。现代性内生着不稳定危机(明斯基主义的核心观点),现代金融体系的历史就是一部周期性爆发的现代金融危机史。霸权货币没有节制的全球铸币征税,金融资本主义的过度攫取,普通大众的贪婪和疯狂,学者的“这一次不一样”理论,自媒体的绚丽叙事,都让现代金融充满了“欺诈式”的虚幻。当越来越多的人担忧现代货币金融的欺诈性时,特别是管理着万亿美元级国家财富的央行开始担忧的时候,增配超主权、超文明、超历史的拥有几千年信仰不灭的黄金,当然也就再容易理解不过。而在此投资行为之上表现出来的黄金超级牛市,也就可以看作是一场全球投资者集体的“金融反欺诈”运动。

当然,这样的集体运动也难免变得疯狂,恐怕就连最为激进的黄金投资者,也都会对最近几年黄金价格的持续飙升叹为观止。这是否意味着一场反泡沫行动却带来了新的更大的泡沫?我并不这么认为,因为只要世界仍然处于大争之世,黄金给予的安全感、信任感和终极价值锚定信仰就不会动摇,黄金仍然是资产组合的战略级“底仓”。

İlgili Okumalar

Claude Accused of Becoming Dumber by the Entire Internet, Anthropic Steps In to Reveal: It’s Not the Model That’s Tricking You

When users complained that Claude was "getting dumber," the root cause wasn't the AI model itself. In an official blog post, Anthropic clarified the critical difference between two key settings in Claude Code: Model and Effort. Model refers to the core "brain"—the fixed, trained weights of a specific AI (like Sonnet, Opus, or Fable). Changing the Model addresses *capability* ("can it do this?"), but its knowledge is static post-training. Effort, however, controls the AI's *approach and thoroughness* for a specific task. A higher Effort level instructs Claude to read more files, run tests, perform verification, and complete multi-step reasoning before responding, significantly increasing its "work output" for that job. Conversely, low Effort leads to quicker, less thorough replies. This distinction explains the March 2024 uproar where users experienced a sudden drop in Claude's performance. The cause was not a model change but Anthropic quietly lowering the *default* Effort setting from "high" to "medium" to reduce latency, which was later reverted. The key insight is that a smaller, capable model (like Sonnet) on high Effort can often outperform a larger, more powerful model (like Opus) on low Effort for many tasks. The article provides a practical troubleshooting framework: if Claude makes an error, first check the context and instructions. If it seems to skip necessary steps or validations, increase Effort. If it diligently attempts the task but fails conceptually or makes consistent factual errors despite good context, then consider switching to a more capable Model. The takeaway is a shift in focus: effective AI programming is less about always choosing the "strongest" model and more about intelligently *orchestrating* models and effort levels—acting like a project manager to assign the right "brain" with the right level of diligence for each job, optimizing both results and cost.

marsbit1 saat önce

Claude Accused of Becoming Dumber by the Entire Internet, Anthropic Steps In to Reveal: It’s Not the Model That’s Tricking You

marsbit1 saat önce

Will the Ethereum Foundation Evolve into a 'Mascot'? Diversified Organizations Are Fragmenting Its Functions

The Ethereum Foundation (EF) is undergoing significant internal turmoil and functional erosion. Following its largest-ever layoff of 54 staff (20% of its workforce) and a major organizational restructuring announced in June, its Protocol Support Team has been officially dissolved. This comes alongside the high-profile resignation of key figures like co-executive director Xiaowei Wang, bringing senior departures this year to at least eight. Criticism of EF's rigid structure, opaque decision-making, and perceived lack of a clear value narrative for ETH has intensified within the community. The layoffs have catalyzed the emergence of independent, non-profit organizations like Ethlabs and Ethereum Institutional, founded by former EF researchers and members. These entities are now taking on core functions such as protocol research/development and institutional adoption, effectively fragmenting the EF's traditional leadership role. Concurrently, EF's security team is adapting to technological change, deploying specialized AI agents to audit Ethereum's codebase, which successfully discovered a critical vulnerability (CVE-2026-34219). While EF states AI complements rather than replaces researchers, it signals a potential future shift in its operational model. Faced with these challenges—internal restructuring, talent drain, the rise of competing organizations, and AI integration—the Ethereum Foundation appears to be stepping back from a central commanding role. Analysts and community observers speculate it may increasingly transition towards a symbolic "ecosystem mascot" function, while decentralized initiatives drive Ethereum's future growth and institutional adoption.

marsbit1 saat önce

Will the Ethereum Foundation Evolve into a 'Mascot'? Diversified Organizations Are Fragmenting Its Functions

marsbit1 saat önce

Nearly a Hundred Players Rush into Embodied Data: With 4.47 Billion Yuan in Financing in One Year, Who Can Really Make Money by 'Selling Data'?

The domestic embodied AI data industry has attracted nearly 100 players, with 70 focused on data collection and 27 on data infrastructure. In the past year, 15 independent embodied data service providers raised approximately 4.47 billion yuan. Despite this growth, the sector remains early-stage, fragmented, and faces significant challenges. Data collection methods are diverse, categorized into four main routes: teleoperation of real robots, human demonstration without a robot (using motion capture, exoskeletons, etc.), simulation synthesis, and distillation from internet videos. Most companies (43%) adopt hybrid approaches, combining multiple routes, as no single method can meet all training needs. Teleoperation alone is pursued by 31% of players, often by state-owned platforms and robot companies, while newer firms favor asset-light, no-hardware human demonstration. Independent data service providers now form the largest player group (40%), indicating the emergence of a distinct industry segment rather than just a subsidiary function for robot makers. Two-thirds of all players are "embodied-native" startups, while one-third are companies that pivoted from fields like AI data annotation, which are more prevalent in the data infrastructure layer. Current annual industry capacity is estimated at 1.6-1.8 million hours plus 70-80 million data points, with a short-term goal to increase this 15-20 fold within 1-3 years. Data collection factories are spread across 20 provinces in China, concentrated in the Yangtze River Delta, Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, and Pearl River Delta regions. Financially, the 4.47 billion yuan raised in the past year pales compared to the 43.8 billion yuan raised by the broader embodied intelligence sector in just the first half of 2026, highlighting that data remains a less "sexy" bet for investors. The 15 funded independent providers show clear stratification: a top tier led by a unicorn (Lightwheel Intelligence, 3.1 billion yuan), a middle tier of 11 firms raising tens to hundreds of millions, and an early-stage tier of 3 companies. Sixty-nine investment institutions have participated, but none have made concentrated bets, reflecting uncertainty about viable business models. Over half of these funded companies are less than a year old, most are at pre-A or A rounds, and profitability remains largely unproven. In summary, the embodied data industry has become an independent track creating jobs and local economic activity. However, it is still nascent, with unformed consensus, unsolved problems, and unproven business models. The coming 1-2 years will be a critical validation window to see if companies can build sustainable, profitable businesses purely by "selling data."

marsbit4 saat önce

Nearly a Hundred Players Rush into Embodied Data: With 4.47 Billion Yuan in Financing in One Year, Who Can Really Make Money by 'Selling Data'?

marsbit4 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片