加密行业已经快 20 年了。在这个阶段，每一个新的加密产品都必须真正解决现实世界的问题——要么更好、更便宜、更快，或更公平。这就是门槛。 Crypto is almost 20 years old. At this point, every new product should solve a real-world problem. Better, cheaper, faster, or more fair than the alternative. That’s the bar.

2025/11/29 17:32 UTC

观点原文

加密行业已经快 20 年了。

在这个阶段，每一个新的加密产品都必须真正解决现实世界的问题——要么更好、更便宜、更快，或更公平。

这就是门槛。

Crypto is almost 20 years old.

At this point, every new product should solve a real-world problem. Better, cheaper, faster, or more fair than the alternative.

That’s the bar.

Sharing

相关观点

Bank of America 最近表示，银行业正走向一个多年期的链上未来（onchain future）。几年前，这样的说法听起来还很激进；而今天，它听起来已近乎不可避免。 20 多年前，我在媒体行业开始职业生涯，亲眼见证了模拟（analog）行业与数字（digital）行业碰撞时会发生什么。曾经看似牢不可破的商业模式，几乎在一夜之间崩塌。分发被拆解（unbundled）。把关者失去权力。新平台崛起，重写规则。很多人曾担心数字化会摧毁媒体业，但事实是：它迫使媒体进化。代币化（tokenization）对金融的颠覆性，将不亚于数字化对媒体的影响——而且很可能更快。多年里，这个未来看起来仍是理论。而如今让它成为现实的，是机构层面的清晰度。立法动能、监管指引、银行参与以及会计准则，终于开始汇合。这不再是假设。BlackRock 正在提供代币化基金；Franklin Templeton 在公链上运行代币化的货币市场基金；全球主要银行正在试点链上结算、代币化存款以及实时资产流转。清晰度带来稳定性，而稳定性释放资本、创新与规模。可以预见，阻力也随之出现——一向如此。当利润、控制权和相关性受到威胁时，既有参与者往往最激烈地抵制结构性变化。媒体行业也曾经历这一刻。 2008 年，Jeff Zucker 曾著名地警告媒体行业必须避免“用模拟美元换数字便士”。这种担忧可以理解，但它忽略了要点：你无法通过冻结进步来保护旧有经济。创新不会征求许可，它会迫使适应。历史证明，这种抵抗终将徒劳。媒体业并未消失，但近二十年后已被彻底改造：分发、变现与权力结构都发生了变化。幸存下来的公司，不是那些对抗转型的，而是最早拥抱它的。金融将是下一个。 Citi、Bank of America、JPMorgan Chase 及其同业，20 年后仍会存在，但形态将截然不同。正如银行在 ATM 取代柜员时完成适应，或电信公司在 VoIP 将长途通话成本压到近乎为零时完成转型，金融机构也将再次进化。结算将从“天”压缩到“分钟”。资本将变得可编程。资产将默认全球可达，而非例外。趋势线非常清晰：世界运行得更快、效率更高、运营成本更低。 AI 与加密并非彼此独立，而是相互补充。正如 John D’Agostino 精辟地指出：AI 是可规模化的智能；加密是可规模化的真相。一个改变决策如何产生，另一个改变信任如何建立。需要澄清的是：金融行业不会消失。但它长期主导的许多中介角色——对账、结算、清算与托管——将越来越多地由软件、协议与代码来完成。未能适应的机构不会一夜消亡，但会逐步流失利润率与战略控制权。赢家将是那些在链上构建、拥抱代币化，并在可编程金融体系中重新定义自身角色的机构。链上未来不是将要到来——它正在被构建之中。 Bank of America recently said that banks are heading toward a multi-year, onchain future. A few years ago, that would have sounded radical. Today, it sounds inevitable. 20+ years ago, I began my career in media and saw firsthand what happens when an analog industry collides with a digital one. Business models that once felt permanent collapsed almost overnight. Distribution was unbundled. Gatekeepers lost power. New platforms emerged and rewrote the rules. While many feared digitization would destroy media, what it actually did was force its evolution. Tokenization will be just as disruptive to finance as digitization was to media; and likely faster. For years, this future felt theoretical. What makes it real now is institutional clarity. Legislative momentum, regulatory guidance, banking participation and accounting standards are finally converging. This is no longer hypothetical. BlackRock is offering tokenized funds. Franklin Templeton is running tokenized money market funds on public blockchains. Major global banks are piloting onchain settlement, tokenized deposits and real-time asset movement. Clarity creates stability and stability unlocks capital, innovation and scale. Predictably, there has been resistance. There always is. Incumbents resist structural change most fiercely when margins, control and relevance are at risk. Media lived this moment too. In 2008, Jeff Zucker famously warned that the media industry must avoid “trading analog dollars for digital pennies.” The fear was understandable but it missed the point. You cannot freeze progress to protect legacy economics. Innovation does not seek permission. It forces adaptation. And history proved that this resistance is futile. While the media industry did not disappear, nearly two decades later, it is drastically transformed. Distribution, monetization and power dynamics have all changed. The companies that survived were not the ones that fought the shift. They were the ones that embraced it early. Finance is next. Citi, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and their peers will still exist in 20 years but they will not look the same. Just as banks adapted when ATMs replaced tellers, or as telecom companies reinvented themselves when VoIP drove long-distance calling costs to near zero, financial institutions will evolve again. Settlement will compress from days to minutes. Capital will become programmable. Assets will be globally accessible by default, not exception. The trend line is unmistakable: the world is moving faster, becoming more efficient and getting cheaper to "operate." AI and crypto are not separate forces, rather they are complementary. As @johnjdagostino so eloquently stated: AI is scalable intelligence; crypto is scalable truth. One transforms how decisions are made. The other transforms how trust is established. To be clear: the financial industry is not going anywhere. But many of the intermediary roles it has historically dominated - reconciliation, settlement, clearing and custody - will increasingly be handled by software, protocols and code. Institutions that fail to adapt will not vanish overnight but they will slowly lose in their margins and strategic control. The winners will be the ones who build onchain, embrace tokenization and redefine their role in a programmable financial system. The onchain future is not coming. It is currently being built.Keith A. Grossman · 2025/12/22
这段视频是 Thinking Crypto 播客主持人 Tony Edward 对 MoonPay 总裁 Keith Grossman 的采访。Keith Grossman 分享了他对加密货币行业宏观趋势、MoonPay 的战略定位以及未来技术融合的深刻见解。以下是他在视频中表达的核心观点整理： 1. 加密货币是“水平平台”而非“垂直行业” 观点：大众误解了加密货币，把它当作一个垂直类别（像电视、广播、报纸那样非此即彼的分类）。类比：他认为加密货币更像是“数字化”本身，是一个水平平台。任何东西一旦被数字化，就可以被“代币化”（Tokenized）。结论：加密货币不应被孤立看待，它是一种可以渗透到所有行业的底层技术（Tokenization），就像互联网技术渗透到通信、媒体等各个领域一样。 2. 行业发展阶段：从“芯片”到“体验” 现状：目前加密行业正处于早期互联网的“芯片阶段”（类似于90年代大家讨论调制解调器速度、英特尔芯片型号）。未来：行业正在向“体验阶段”过渡（类似于乔布斯推出 iPod/iPhone，人们不再关心芯片，只关心“口袋里的一千首歌”）。预测：未来用户不会在乎底层用的是什么区块链（就像没人关心马桶的工作原理，只关心它能用），他们只关心更便宜、更全天候、更便捷的资金流动体验。 3. MoonPay 的定位：连接两个世界的“隔膜” 比喻： MoonPay 就像是传统金融世界与去中心化世界（DeFi）之间的一层高度合规的“隔膜”（Membrane）。模式：他将 MoonPay 比作加密领域的 PayPal。就像 PayPal 帮助人们在 eBay 上交易一样，MoonPay 并不想做最终的目的地，而是作为基础设施，帮助用户通过任何支付方式（信用卡、借记卡）安全、合规地进入去中心化生态。 4. AI 与区块链的关系：两面一体核心金句：引用 John D'Agostino 的观点，“AI 是可扩展的智能 (Scalable Intelligence)，区块链是可扩展的真理 (Scalable Truth)”。解释： AI 能够以极快的速度生成和处理信息（智能），但需要区块链来验证信息的来源和真实性（真理）。因为人类无法跟上 AI 的速度，所以必须依靠区块链技术作为验证层。 5. 机构采用与监管前景监管清晰度：行业正在进入“黄金时代”，因为监管正在变得清晰（如对资产定义的明确、会计准则的清晰）。他认为清晰的规则（即便是限制性的）比模糊不清要好得多，能促进创新。传统金融的未来： Visa、Mastercard、银行不会消失，它们会采用加密技术来消除后端效率低下的问题。去中心化 vs 中心化：去中心化不会完全取代中心化，因为总是需要有人为合规和监管负责（"Throat to choke"）。MoonPay 承担了这个中心化合规的角色，从而让用户能安全地访问去中心化服务。 6. AI Agent（智能体）与未来支付趋势：未来的 AI Agent 将会通过加密钱包进行交互。场景：就像孩子现在说的“电视”其实是指“视频屏幕”而非传统的有线电视，未来人们可能还是说“美元”，但背后其实是在用稳定币（Stablecoin）进行交易。未来的钱包可以编程，例如设定“当鸡蛋价格低于3美元时自动购买并配送”。 7. 关于“注意力经济”与 Meme Coin 看法：现在的社会是基于注意力的，区块链技术允许人们将“注意力”货币化。Meme Coin（如他戏称的 Fartcoin）虽然看起来荒谬，但本质上是人群注意力和网络行为的金融化体现。总结 Keith Grossman 对加密行业的看法非常务实且宏观。他认为不要纠结于币价波动或单一资产，而应看到区块链作为一种能够降低价值传输成本、提升效率的水平底层技术，正在不可逆转地改变世界，就像当初互联网改变通信成本一样。Keith A. Grossman · 2025/12/11
转我为花旗银行（@Citi）花了数百小时撰写有关 Tether 的研究。 @CryptoHayes 漏掉了几个关键点： 1）Tether 披露的资产 ≠ Tether 全部的公司资产当 Tether 产生利润时，他们会有一套独立的股权资产负债表，这部分并不会对外披露。他们公开的数字遵循一种“匹配（matching）”理念：也就是说，他们只告诉你他们的准备金是如何被资产覆盖的。这份股权资产负债表包含： * 股权投资（equity investments） * 挖矿业务（mining operations） * 公司储备（corporate reserves） * 以及可能持有的更多比特币（BTC） * 其余利润则作为股息分配给股东。 2）他们极度高利润，股权价值巨大。必要时可以出售股权来填补资产负债表中的任何缺口。 Tether 持有约 1200 亿美元的有息美国国债，自 2023 年以来收益率约为 4%。这意味着他们每年能产生约 100 亿美元的现金利润（PnL），成本极低（员工仅约 150 人），是世界上效率最高的现金机器之一。按此推算，他们的股权估值大概在 500 亿至 1000 亿美元之间。尽管他们曾透露希望以 200 亿美元融资换取 3% 股权——这对应5000 亿美元以上的估值。这种估值大概率不会落地，也可能偏高，但其股权依然极具价值。 3）银行的准备金比例远低得多。通常只有 5–15% 的银行存款以流动资产形式存在，其余 85%+ 都投向了更不流动的资产。 Tether 虽然不同于传统银行，但在这方面拥有类似特征，而且其抵押强度甚至远高于银行。核心差异在于： * 银行有最后贷款人（央行）兜底 * Tether没有这种背书结论（TL;DR） Tether 不仅不会破产，情况恰恰相反——他们拥有一台“印钞机”。 I spent 100’s of hours writing research on tether for @Citi. @CryptoHayes missed a few key points. 1) 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬 =/ 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬 When tether generates $ they have a separate equity balance sheet which they don’t report publicly. The numbers they disclose are under a ‘matching’ philosophy; they’re just showing you how their reserves are backed. The equity balance is sheet is made up of equity investments, mining operations, corporate reserves & possibly more BTC, with the rest distributed as dividends to shareholders. 2) 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐠𝐚𝐩𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐞𝐭. Tether has ~$120bn in interest yielding treasuries which have been yielding ~4% since 2023. That’s ~$10bn in liquid PnL with little cost (150 employees), making it one of the most efficient cash generating businesses in the world. I’m guessing this would make their equity worth somewhere in the $50-100bn range. Although they’ve reported they’re looking to raise $20bn for 3% which would put them at ~$500bn+ valuation. Probably won’t materialise, and likely overvalued, but still highly valuable equity. 3) 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬. 𝟓-𝟏𝟓% 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐝 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝟖𝟓%+ 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐝 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬. Tether is different but holds similar qualities to a Bank in this regard, and is significantly better collateralised. A key difference is banks are backed by Lender of last resort (Central Bank) but Tether is not. TLDR: Tether isn’t going insolvent, quite the opposite; they own a money printing machine.Keith A. Grossman · 2025/12/01
这是一个令人惊叹、也令人恐惧的时代。我们正生活在多重、重叠的技术革命之间：AI、区块链、数字所有权；同时还处于一场社会学革命之中——代际更替：旧思维方式逐渐退出，新一代自带对未来技术的熟悉度进入世界。我第一次意识到这一点，是在我做媒体工作的时候，人们问我：‘纸媒是不是死了？’ 我的回答是：‘我不知道它是不是已经死了，但它肯定正在走向死亡。’ 每天，都有人出生，对纸媒毫无感觉；每天，也有人离世，他们曾伴随纸媒成长。 It is an amazing and scary time to be alive. We are living through multiple, overlapping technological revolutions - AI, blockchain, digital ownership - and a sociological one: generational replacement, where older attitudes age out and new ones enter the world already fluent in what is coming. I first realized this when I was in media and people would ask me, “Is print dead?” My answer: “I don’t know if it’s dead, but it’s definitely dying.” Every day, someone is born indifferent to print while someone dies who had grown up with it. As this natural evolution takes place, the ratio of new print readers to old print readers is never 1:1. And, this is what a declining trajectory looks like. Digital assets follow the opposite curve. Every day, skeptics are replaced by digital natives who intuitively understands ownership online. You cannot manufacture that tailwind. Yes, it sounds stark but history has experienced this exact combination before: multiple technological revolutions occurring simultaneously with generational replacement. Between 1879 and 1903, the light bulb, automobile, airplane and telephone were all invented. Thus, someone who died in 1878 and someone born in 1904 experienced different worlds. We are essentially in a similar moment again. Right now, we are a society in "1910" saying, “I don’t need an automobile, my horse works fine,” or “Why would I need a telephone when I can just walk over and talk?” What is currently missing for many is imagination. The ability to see what these technologies will become and enable. As @HHorsley and @hosseeb reminded me with their posts below, the only sustainable posture is optimism. And as @kevin2kelly said (and, I often quote), “The future is created by optimists.” So when you see headlines like “AI might end humanity” or hear AI compared to the atom bomb, pause and ask yourself: Did your mind picture a nuclear explosion? Or did you picture clean, safe nuclear energy? Crypto: a scam? Or, is the Internet is absorbing the movement of value the same way it absorbed telephony with VoIP years back. Your answer reveals the future you think we are building; and perhaps the one you are also willing to help shape. 随着这种自然演化发生，新读者与旧读者的比率永远不可能是 1:1。而这，就是一个衰落曲线的样子。但数字资产走的正是相反的一条曲线。每天，怀疑者被懂数字世界的“原生一代”所取代；他们天然理解“在线所有权”。这种顺风，不可能被人为制造。是的，这听起来很极端，但历史上，我们确实经历过同样的组合：多场技术革命，与代际更替，同时发生。 1879 到 1903 年期间，电灯泡、汽车、飞机、电话——全部被发明。因此，一个 1878 年去世的人，和一个 1904 年出生的人，生活在完全不同的世界里。我们现在，正处在一个类似的节点。现在的社会，大概相当于“1910 年”的人们在说： ‘我不需要汽车，我的马很好用。’或 ‘我为什么要电话？我走过去跟人当面说就行。’ 今天，许多人缺少的，是想象力。是看到这些技术未来将成长成什么、又将开启什么可能性的能力。正如 @HHorsley 和 @hosseeb 在他们的贴文中提醒我的那样，唯一可持续的姿态，就是乐观。而正如 @kevin2kelly 所说（我也常引用）：“未来是由乐观主义者创造的。” 所以，当你看到类似“AI 可能终结人类”的标题，或当你听到 AI 被比作原子弹时，停下来问自己一件事：你脑海里浮现的，是核爆？还是干净、安全的核能？你看到的 Crypto，是骗局？还是互联网正在吸收“价值的传输方式”，正如当年用 VoIP 吞掉传统电话一样？你的回答，反映出你认为我们正在构建怎样的未来；也反映出你愿意参与塑造怎样的未来。Keith A. Grossman · 2025/11/29