这正是“比特币进入资产负债表”问题的核心所在，也是它为何如此具有争议性的原因。 如果你想在“为什么要持有股票”这件事上获得认知上的清晰性（epistemic clarity），那就必须回到一个最基本的定义： 股权，本应代表一种在压力之下依然存在的、对“价值”的剩余索取权（residual claim）。我说的不是叙事，而是价值本身。 现代股票的问题在于：其账面价值中，商誉（goodwill）所占比例越来越高，正如 Jeff 在这里指出的那样。而当越来越多的价值来自商誉时，这在字面意义上意味着：这些价值只在叙事未被挑战的前提下才存在。 你之所以看到比特币圈的人更容易理解这一点，而传统金融圈（TradFi）却不太能，是因为：我们已经习惯于从“资本索取权”的角度看问题， 而不是把传统股票视为对某个故事能够持续下去的索取权。 这也正是为什么 市盈率（P/E）会变得没有上限：因为分母——盈利——本身就是被叙事塑造的，估值可以在 1 倍、5 倍、100 倍之间随意漂浮，却没有任何锚点。 根本不存在一个不变量的参考坐标。风险本身在真正发生之前，几乎是不可知的。 当讨论比特币财库公司以及 mNAV（市值/净资产值）争论时，情况则完全不同：分母是真实的、流动的、可被观察的。比特币的底层价值，独立于任何管理层讲故事、会计假设或未来预测而存在。 如果比特币是 7×24×365 实时计价的，那就意味着：比特币财库公司是在“本地化”它们的风险。 你不再争论某个“故事”是否配得上一个估值倍数，而是转而讨论： * 资本结构 * 杠杆水平 * 运营效率 * 执行能力 不确定性是显性的，而不是被隐藏起来的。 这并不意味着与比特币相关的股票不会波动，或不会经历回撤；但我的观点是：它们至少是“可读的”（legible）。 在一个越来越由商誉和信心构成的市场中，我宁愿持有一份对真实、可流动价值的剩余索取权，也不愿持有一份对叙事蒸汽的索取权——这种蒸汽，一旦环境变化，就会瞬间消散。 This is the CRUX of the issue when it comes to Bitcoin on the balance sheet, and why it's such a polarizing issue. Want some EPISTEMIC CLARITY when it comes to why you would hold an equity in the first place? An equity is supposed to represent a RESIDUAL CLAIM on VALUE... that survives stress. I'm not talking about narratives, I am talking VALUE. The problem with modern equities is that a growing share of book value is goodwill, which Jeff points out here. So if a growing share of the value is goodwill, that literally means it only exists as long as the narrative remains unchallenged. The reason why you are seeing Bitcoiners get this rather than TradFi is because we are primed to view claims on capital, rather than traditional equities being a claim on simple narrative continuation. And this is why P/E ratios become unbounded, because the denominator is earnings shaped by narrative, and valuation can float from 1x to 5x to 100x without any anchor. There is no invariant reference point at all. Risk itself is totally unknowable until it materializes. When it comes to Bitcoin treasury companies and the mNAV debate, the denominator is real, liquid, and observable. The underlying value of the Bitcoin exists independently of any management storytelling, accounting assumptions, or future projections. So if Bitcoin is marked in real time, 24/7/365, that means that Bitcoin treasury companies LOCALIZE their risk. Instead of arguing about whether a STORY deserves a multiple, you argue about capital structure, leverage, efficiency, execution, etc... the uncertainty is explicit rather than hidden. This doesn't mean Bitcoin-related equities aren't volatile or immune to drawdowns, but my claim is that they are actually legible. In a market increasingly composed of goodwill and confidence, I would rather own a residual claim on tangible, liquid value than on narrative vapor that disappears the moment conditions change.
观点原文
这正是“比特币进入资产负债表”问题的核心所在，也是它为何如此具有争议性的原因。
如果你想在“为什么要持有股票”这件事上获得认知上的清晰性（epistemic clarity），那就必须回到一个最基本的定义：
股权，本应代表一种在压力之下依然存在的、对“价值”的剩余索取权（residual claim）。我说的不是叙事，而是价值本身。
现代股票的问题在于：其账面价值中，商誉（goodwill）所占比例越来越高，正如 Jeff 在这里指出的那样。而当越来越多的价值来自商誉时，这在字面意义上意味着：这些价值只在叙事未被挑战的前提下才存在。
你之所以看到比特币圈的人更容易理解这一点，而传统金融圈（TradFi）却不太能，是因为：我们已经习惯于从“资本索取权”的角度看问题，
而不是把传统股票视为对某个故事能够持续下去的索取权。
这也正是为什么 市盈率（P/E）会变得没有上限：因为分母——盈利——本身就是被叙事塑造的，估值可以在 1 倍、5 倍、100 倍之间随意漂浮，却没有任何锚点。
根本不存在一个不变量的参考坐标。风险本身在真正发生之前，几乎是不可知的。
当讨论比特币财库公司以及 mNAV（市值/净资产值）争论时，情况则完全不同：分母是真实的、流动的、可被观察的。比特币的底层价值，独立于任何管理层讲故事、会计假设或未来预测而存在。
如果比特币是 7×24×365 实时计价的，那就意味着：比特币财库公司是在“本地化”它们的风险。
你不再争论某个“故事”是否配得上一个估值倍数，而是转而讨论：
- 资本结构
- 杠杆水平
- 运营效率
- 执行能力
不确定性是显性的，而不是被隐藏起来的。
这并不意味着与比特币相关的股票不会波动，或不会经历回撤；但我的观点是：它们至少是“可读的”（legible）。
在一个越来越由商誉和信心构成的市场中，我宁愿持有一份对真实、可流动价值的剩余索取权，也不愿持有一份对叙事蒸汽的索取权——这种蒸汽，一旦环境变化，就会瞬间消散。
This is the CRUX of the issue when it comes to Bitcoin on the balance sheet, and why it's such a polarizing issue.
Want some EPISTEMIC CLARITY when it comes to why you would hold an equity in the first place?
An equity is supposed to represent a RESIDUAL CLAIM on VALUE... that survives stress. I'm not talking about narratives, I am talking VALUE.
The problem with modern equities is that a growing share of book value is goodwill, which Jeff points out here. So if a growing share of the value is goodwill, that literally means it only exists as long as the narrative remains unchallenged.
The reason why you are seeing Bitcoiners get this rather than TradFi is because we are primed to view claims on capital, rather than traditional equities being a claim on simple narrative continuation.
And this is why P/E ratios become unbounded, because the denominator is earnings shaped by narrative, and valuation can float from 1x to 5x to 100x without any anchor.
There is no invariant reference point at all. Risk itself is totally unknowable until it materializes.
When it comes to Bitcoin treasury companies and the mNAV debate, the denominator is real, liquid, and observable. The underlying value of the Bitcoin exists independently of any management storytelling, accounting assumptions, or future projections.
So if Bitcoin is marked in real time, 24/7/365, that means that Bitcoin treasury companies LOCALIZE their risk.
Instead of arguing about whether a STORY deserves a multiple, you argue about capital structure, leverage, efficiency, execution, etc... the uncertainty is explicit rather than hidden.
This doesn't mean Bitcoin-related equities aren't volatile or immune to drawdowns, but my claim is that they are actually legible.
In a market increasingly composed of goodwill and confidence, I would rather own a residual claim on tangible, liquid value than on narrative vapor that disappears the moment conditions change.
ABAB AI 解读
1️⃣ 作者在重新定义“股票到底是什么”
股票本质不是故事
而是：在极端情况下，仍然成立的“剩余索取权”
关键不在增长，而在：压力下还能不能剩下“价值”
2️⃣ 对现代股票的核心批评：商誉太多
- 商誉 ≠ 现金
- 商誉 ≠ 可清算资产
商誉 = 收购溢价，品牌叙事，市场信心
叙事一旦被挑战 → 价值直接蒸发
3️⃣ 为什么 P/E 会“失去锚点”
- 盈利本身被叙事塑造
- 估值倍数不再受约束
- 可以从 5 倍跳到 100 倍
因为：没有不可动摇的参照物
4️⃣ 传统金融与比特币思维的根本差异
TradFi 更习惯：相信叙事能延续
比特币思维更关注：对“资本本身”的索取权
一个是故事驱动
一个是资产驱动
5️⃣ 比特币财库公司的关键优势：分母是比特币
比特币是：
- 实时定价
- 高流动性
- 与管理层无关
- 不靠会计技巧
- 不靠未来预测
6️⃣ “风险被本地化”是什么意思
风险不藏在：
- 商誉
- 预测
- 模糊叙事
而是直接体现在：
- 价格
- 杠杆
- 资本结构
- 看得见
- 算得清
7️⃣ 作者不是说“比特币相关股票更安全”
- 波动依然存在
- 回撤依然会发生
但问题是：你知道自己在承担什么风险
8️⃣ 核心价值判断
在一个由信心与商誉主导的市场里，“可被清算、可被定价、独立于叙事存在的价值”，正在变得稀缺。
9️⃣ 一句话总结
作者宁愿持有“看得见价格的真实资产风险”，也不愿持有“只在故事成立时才存在的价值”。
相关观点
- 2007 年，诺基亚占据了 50% 的手机市场。 2010 年，百视达拒绝了奈飞。 2015 年，出租车司机嘲笑 Uber。 2023 年，人们说 AI 永远不可能取代工作。 2026 年，人们又说塞勒不可能利用数字资本去重塑固定收益市场。 要么进化，要么成为案例。 In 2007, Nokia had 50% of the phone market. In 2010, Blockbuster rejected Netflix. In 2015, taxis laughed at Uber. In 2023, they said AI would never replace jobs. In 2026, they said Saylor wouldn't use digital capital to revolutionize the fixed income market. Adapt or become a case study.Adam Livingston · 2026/01/19
- Strategy 与罗斯柴尔德家族——第一个建立在比特币之上的帝国 历史不会简单重复，但货币架构会。 我在跨越 三个世纪的金融权力史 中，追踪到同一个模式： * 英格兰银行的主权债务机器 * Rothschild family 的黄金清算网络 * Strategy 的比特币金库飞轮 每一个时代，都遵循同一套底层逻辑： * 掌控最核心的抵押品 * 以低于其长期升值速度的成本进行融资 * 将规模转化为更强的资本获取能力 * 不断复利，直到竞争者在结构上被彻底挤出 18 世纪，英国通过“永久国债”这一金融武器，构建了全球帝国。 19 世纪，罗斯柴尔德家族控制了黄金结算体系，主导了整个欧洲的流动性。 今天，Strategy 正在公共资本市场中复制同样的架构——以比特币作为储备资产，以股票市场作为放大器。 🔥STRATEGY AND THE ROTHSCHILDS - THE FIRST EMPIRE BUILT ON BITCOIN🔥 History doesn’t repeat itself, but monetary architecture does! I trace a single pattern across three centuries of financial power: The Bank of England’s sovereign debt machine The Rothschild bullion network Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury flywheel Each era follows the same logic: Secure the dominant collateral. Finance it below its long-term appreciation rate. Recycle scale into greater access to capital. Compound until competitors are structurally boxed out. In the 18th century, Britain weaponized perpetual bonds and built a global empire. In the 19th century, the Rothschilds controlled gold settlement and dictated liquidity across Europe. Today, Strategy applies that same architecture inside public markets using Bitcoin as the reserve asset and equity markets as the amplifierAdam Livingston · 2026/01/11
- 2015 年告诉你比特币一文不值的那些理财顾问，如今大多在各家公司里任职于所谓的“区块链部门”，还会在 LinkedIn 上给你发关于“数字资产整合”的帖子。 这些人，正是当年一边用邮寄方式报税，一边说互联网只是昙花一现的人。 这场革命，不会被分散配置在一个 60/40 的投资组合里。 Every financial advisor who told you Bitcoin was worthless in 2015 now works at a company with a "blockchain division" and sends you LinkedIn posts about "digital asset integration." These are the same people who said the internet was a fad while filing their taxes by mail. The revolution will not be diversified across a 60/40 portfolio.Adam Livingston · 2026/01/05
- 很多普通人觉得比特币很危险。 与此同时，他们却把一生的积蓄存进一家依法可以把其中 90% 拿去放贷的银行，用来资助别人买第四套投资房；他们的信用评分由算法决定，而这些算法甚至会因为你太快还清债务而惩罚你；他们在工作中，雇主周四凌晨 2 点就能看到工资入账，却仍然让他们等到周五才能动用自己的钱，理由是“处理中”；他们每月花 840 美元买医保，却还有 7,000 美元的自付额，等于花钱只是为了继续自掏腰包付一切费用的资格；他们看着在 1987 年花 4.3 万美元买房的婴儿潮一代父母对自己说“多存点钱就好了”，而现在一套入门级住房的价格却是中位年薪的 47 倍；他们还把钱放在一个系统里，在这个系统中，12 个人坐在一个房间里就能凭空创造 4 万亿美元，并在 18 个月内抹掉你 30% 的购买力，理由是商业地产“具有系统性重要性”。 但当然啦，那个去中心化、持有即所有、拥有完美可审计轨迹、且完全无法被增发的资产，才是所谓的“投机赌博”。 而不是美元——它背靠的是一个负债 38 万亿美元的政府所承诺的“完全信用与担保”，这个政府刚刚还在巴尔的摩，在一座被船撞坏的桥上花了 1,500 亿美元。 退出这场彻底的疯狂吧。 Normies think Bitcoin is risky. Meanwhile they’re depositing their entire life savings into a bank that’s legally allowed to lend out 90% of it to fund someone’s fourth investment property, getting a credit score determined by algorithms that penalize you for PAYING OFF debt too fast, working jobs where their employer can see their direct deposit hit at 2am Thursday but still makes them wait until Friday to access their own money “for processing,” spending $840/month on health insurance that has a $7,000 deductible so they’re essentially paying for the privilege of still paying for everything, watching their boomer parents who bought a house for $43,000 in 1987 tell them to “just save more” while a starter home costs 47x the median salary, and literally keeping their money in a system where 12 guys in a room can decide to create $4 trillion out of thin air and delete 30% of your purchasing power in 18 months because the commercial real estate market is “systemically important.” But sure, the decentralized bearer asset with a perfect audit trail and absolutely zero way to inflate the supply is the speculative gamble. Not the dollar, which is backed by the “full faith and credit” of a government that’s $38 trillion in debt and just spent $150 billion on a bridge in Baltimore that a boat crashed into. Opt out of this absolute madness.Adam Livingston · 2025/12/30