本集简介
双语字幕
仅展示文本字幕，不包含中文音频；想边听边看，请使用 Bayt 播客 App。
这将为第三方银行、第二梯队银行以及其他非传统银行的支付提供商（如PayPal）带来巨大的优势，就像一个特洛伊木马。
This is going to give a tremendous advantage, a Trojan horse to third tier banks, second tier banks, other payment providers who are not quite banks like PayPal.
利用加密货币作为特洛伊木马，以一种此前无法实现的方式颠覆金融服务领域的竞争格局。
To use crypto as a Trojan horse to disrupt the competitive leaderboard in financial services in a way that they couldn't do before.
大家好。
Hey, folks.
昨天，美国货币监理署（OCC）在一份公开信中宣布，美国所有国家特许银行均可提供加密货币托管服务。
Yesterday, in a public letter, the US office of the Comptroller of the Currency, also known as the OCC, announced that all nationally chartered banks in The United States may provide custody services for cryptocurrencies.
CoinDesk的尼克·戴昨天在该公告发布后撰文指出，这封信标志着加密行业的一项重大进展。
CoinDesk's Nick Day wrote yesterday following the announcement that the letter marks a major development for crypto industry.
此前，托管服务一直是Coinbase等专业公司的专属领域，它们通常需要获得州级许可才能为大型投资者提供服务。
Previously, custody was the province of specialist firms such as Coinbase, which typically needed a state license to offer services to large investors.
现在，那些已经提供股票凭证等类似保管服务的大型受监管金融机构也可以进入这一领域。
Now, large regulated financial companies that already provide similar safekeeping services for stock certificates and the like could enter the fray.
听起来可能很枯燥，但这是一件大事，也是我们今天节目的主要话题。
It sounds dry, but it's a big deal and it's our main topic on the show today.
我叫亚当·B。
My name is Adam B.
莱文。
Levine.
和往常一样，我由节目的另一位主持人斯蒂芬妮·墨菲陪同。
I'm joined as always by the other host of the show, Stephanie Murphy.
大家好。
Hey there, everybody.
乔纳森·莫汉。
Jonathan Mohan.
嗨。
Hey.
嗨。
Hey.
还有安德烈亚斯·M。
And Andreas M.
安东诺普洛斯。
Antonopoulos.
你好。
Hello.
谢谢。
Thanks
感谢所有主持人加入我们，也感谢各位听众收听今天的节目。
to all the hosts for joining us and you, the listener, for sitting in on today's session.
消息公布后，反应十分激烈。
When the news hit, reactions were dramatic.
总部位于怀俄明州的Avanti银行首席执行官、本节目的往期嘉宾凯特琳·朗在推特上写道：游戏开始了。
CEO of Wyoming based Avanti Bank and past guest on the show, Caitlin Long tweeted, game on.
美国货币监理署宣布，将效仿怀俄明州，允许全国性银行托管数字资产，这对加密货币来说是个好消息。
The US OCC's announcement that it's following Wyoming by allowing national banks to custody digital assets assets is great news for crypto.
姗姗来迟，但希望这能帮助美国夺回因长期拖延而失去的、相对于其他发达国家的领先地位。
Long overdue and hopefully will help The US regain ground it lost to other developed world countries by dilly dallying for so long.
赢家是客户和加密风险投资者。
Winners equal customers and crypto venture capitalists.
这将推动并购热潮，美国银行将收购数字资产托管机构。
This will spur M and A boom as US banks acquire digital asset custodians.
而这仅仅是她关于该主题的24条推文风暴中的前两条，详情见节目说明中的链接，错过的人可以查看。
And that was only the first two of her 24 part tweet storm on the topic, linked in the show notes for those who missed it.
在其他部分，法律专家、Marmot Coinhoarder以及节目前嘉宾Preston Byrne发推称：我从未像今天这样对比特币如此看涨。
In other parts, Legal Mind, Marmot Coinhoarder, and past guest on the show, Preston Byrne tweeted, I've never been more bullish on crypto than today.
加密借贷和储蓄可能让利息支付再次成为现实。
Crypto lending and saving may be how the payment of interest becomes a thing again.
银行迫切需要收益。
Banks are desperate for yield.
他们行动越快，获得的市场份额就越多。
The faster they move, the more market share they'll obtain.
律师和银行家们显然非常兴奋。
Lawyers and bankers are definitely excited.
但为什么这很重要？这意味着什么？
But why does this matter and what does it mean?
乔纳森，今天先从你开始。
Jonathan, let's start with you today.
从我作为在这个领域尝试创业多年的人的角度来看，最大的门槛——决定你是有还是没有——并不是基于你的公司技术或商业能力或价值，而是能否获得并维持银行账户，以及能否在每个州拥有客户。
Well, looking at it from my perspective of someone who's tried to do startups in this space for some time, the largest filter that is a have versus have not versus based on the technical or business acumen or merit of your company is to do with getting a bank account and keeping a bank account and being able to even have customers in every state.
我的意思是，BitLicense的整个意义就在于，银行拒绝为运营加密初创公司的客户提供服务。
I mean, the whole point about the BitLicense was the fact that banks were refusing to service as customers people running crypto startups.
所以，如果最终的执行真的像声明所说的那样，这意味着我们将进入一个时代：加密初创公司真的可以在美国拥有银行账户，获得服务，而不仅仅局限于Kraken、Gemini或Coinbase这样的巨头，而是像三个人这样寻求银行服务的普通创业者。
So, you know, what this does if the execution ends up being like the statement says it is, is it means that we're gonna enter an age where a crypto startup can actually have a bank account in America and actually be serviced and not just be a Kraken or a Gemini or a Coinbase, but actually be three people, you know, asking for bank services.
政府通常先打断你的腿，然后在给你拐杖时让你感谢它。
So, you know, the government tends to break your legs and then ask you to thank it when it gives you a crutch.
我很高兴看到，至少现在他们开始给创业者提供拐杖了，因为我们的腿已经被打断很久了。
And it's really glad to see that at least now they're giving entrepreneurs a crutch because our legs been broken for a very long time.
等等。
Hang on.
我有点困惑，因为这项监管是关于放宽银行直接托管加密货币的能力。
I'm a bit confused here because this regulation is about freeing up the ability of banks to directly custody crypto.
但你所说的似乎更多是关于银行是否被允许向加密公司提供法币银行业务。
And at least what you're saying seems to be more about whether banks are allowed to extend fiat banking services to crypto companies.
你为什么认为这两者有关联？
Why do you think the two are related?
加密服务领域之所以如此重视货币传输许可证，原因之一是传输你的代币、你的价值工具本身就被视为一种货币或价值转移。
One of the purposes as to why money transmitted licenses became such a big deal for crypto services is that the act of transmitting your token, your valued instrument, is itself a currency or is considered a value transfer.
因此，银行会以美元为单位，允许人们获取加密货币。
And so banks would onboard in dollar terms the ability for people to get crypto.
但如果你真的想从事与加密货币相关的服务，你就必须自己承担，获得托管资格，并成为货币服务企业，因为当时没有任何金融服务提供商愿意为你提供这些服务。
But if you actually wanted to engage in crypto related services with crypto, you yourself had to take that on, get a custodial, and become a money services business because there weren't any financial service providers that would do that for you.
因此，我知道有不少项目已经上线并持续运营，但它们甚至无法将代币交付给用户，因为它们正在等待货币传输许可证——因为向客户交付代币会被视为货币传输。
And so there are a lot of projects that I know of that have launched that are in existence that can't even deliver the tokens to their system to people because they're waiting for money transmitter licenses because the act of giving it to their customers would be considered money transmission.
因此，我认为我们过于盲目地认为银行业务就意味着加密货币。
And so I think that we become so blinded to think that banking means crypto.
我的意思是，为加密货币提供银行服务，指的是肮脏的法币一侧，而不是酷炫的加密货币一侧。
I mean, banking for crypto means the dirty fiat side of it and not the awesome crypto side of it.
现在许多与加密货币相关的活动，银行本身就可以原生完成，这意味着作为一家初创公司，我不必去成为一家银行。
And a lot of the crypto related activities now can be done natively by a bank, which means that as a small startup, I don't have to become a bank.
我不必成为Kraken这样的公司，才能实现我想用比特币或彩色币做的简单事情。
I don't have to become a Kraken in order to be able to do the trivial thing I wanted to do with a Bitcoin or a colored coin.
所以我想附和一下这一点。
So I just wanna echo that.
一方面，我们在节目中尝试开设银行账户的经历是，我们实际上被终止服务了，因为我们的名字里含有‘比特币’这个词。
On the one side, our experience on the show with trying to have a bank account, well, we've actually been deplatformed because the word Bitcoin is in the name.
对吧？
Right?
这在一段时间内相当有争议。
And that was for a while fairly controversial.
另一方面，我在Tokenly的工作中，经常发现自己无法使用信用卡处理服务。
And then on the other side of things, the work that I did with Tokenly, we often found ourselves without the ability to have a credit card processor.
因为即使是那些非投机性质、没有价格升值空间的代币，接触它们仍然被视为我们所知范畴之外的事情，对吧？
Because even the idea of touching tokens that were non speculative in nature that did not have prices that could appreciate, Well, that was still something that was on the other side of we know what we're talking about, right?
所以当时银行对这种事都极度不适应。
And so you had banks that were just wildly uncomfortable with this.
即使是那些风险承受能力很高的银行，也就是专门处理一些相当可疑业务的银行，
And even the high risk tolerant ones, you know, the ones that specialize in dealing with really kind of sketchy applications.
也往往不愿意以任何方式处理非争议性的代币用途。
Even those oftentimes wouldn't deal with noncontroversial uses of tokens in sort of any way.
因此，只要一家公司遵守法律，银行就可以与之合作——我认为这是一个非常重要的声明，也标志着银行迄今为止的行为方式发生了重大转变。
So just the clarity that so long as a company is following the law, banks can interact with them, that I think is a pretty major statement and a major change from the way the banks have at least behaved to this point.
我们还得看看他们是否会真正据此采取不同的行动。
We'll see if they actually do anything differently with it.
但我认为，我们稍后还会谈到贝宝的公告，以及我们经历的这种转变：在加密货币的早期阶段，人们或公司采用它时，往往会获得一些正面的媒体报道。
But I think, again, we're gonna talk a little bit later about kind of the PayPal announcement and sort of this shift that we've gone through where crypto was on the one hand, kind of in the very early days, people would adopt it or companies would adopt it and get kind of an earned press boost.
但后来随着事情变得平淡，这种现象消失了，而现在我们则完全走到了曲线的另一端。
And then that went away for a while as things got boring, and now we're kind of on the entire other side of that curve.
但我们把这段对话留到节目稍后一点再谈。
But we're gonna save that conversation for just a little bit later in the show.
让我觉得有趣的一点是，我们在分析纽约金融服务部的监管规定时，其实已经预测到了这一点。
One of the things that's interesting to me is that we actually predicted this when we were analyzing the New York Department of Financial Services regulations.
对加密世界中的许多人来说，纽约DFS推出的许可制度是对加密行业的沉重打击。
For many in the crypto world, the New York DFS licensing scheme that they introduced was a blow to crypto.
但我们在这档节目中却看得完全不同，因为这一制度的一个影响是，纽约作为美国主要的金融服务中心之一，实际上让银行家们束手束脚——他们无法在组织内部以独立方式孵化加密初创公司，也无法轻易收购这些公司，除非承担极其繁重的许可负担。
We, I think, on the show saw it quite differently because one of the things that it did was with New York being one of the main centers of financial services in The US, it actually tied both hands behind the back for bankers, because they couldn't incubate crypto startups within their organizations at arm's length or easily acquire them without a very heavy burden of licensing.
而当时，他们自己也并没有去申请纽约金融服务部的加密牌照。
And there weren't at the stage at the time where they would go and pursue a crypto license themselves from the New York Department of Financial Services.
于是，所有人都离开了纽约。
So everybody else simply departed New York.
而华尔街无法离开纽约，因为华尔街就在纽约，是一条真实的街道，因此不得不受制于这些规定——这些规定不允许他们内部开展相关业务，也不允许他们轻松与外部从事加密业务的公司建立联系。
And Wall Street, that can't depart New York because it's in New York, and is an actual street, ended up having to basically be under these regulations that didn't allow them to do it in house, didn't allow them to easily relate to companies that were doing it outside.
这确实是个问题。
And that's a problem.
我不认为这项监管会突然让银行愿意成为托管人。
I don't think this regulation is going to suddenly make banks want to be custodians.
建立这种内部专业能力所需的努力和风险非常高。
The effort and risk that's involved in bootstrapping this type of in house expertise is very, very high.
这是一个非常难涉足的领域，对一些华尔街参与者来说，其中的价值不足以吸引他们。
It's a very difficult space to play in, and there isn't enough value in it to interest some of these Wall Street players.
然而，它将允许他们更轻松地与专注于加密货币并能为财富管理公司和客户、国际银行客户提供建托管服务的第三方托管机构互动。
What it is going to allow them to do, however, is much more comfortably interact with third party custodians who specialize in crypto and can provide this as a service for wealth management companies and clients, for international banking clients.
这将让银行能够逐步涉足这一领域，通过从提供托管服务的公司购买服务，或最终收购这一领域的初创公司，来获得一些专业知识和经验，一旦他们感到安心，就可以将这些能力内部化。
And that will allow the banks to start to dip a toe into this, gain some expertise and knowledge by either buying these services from companies that provide custodian services, or eventually acquiring the startups in this space in order to bring it in house once they feel comfortable.
是的。
Yeah.
值得一提的是，货币监理署现任负责人是布赖恩·布鲁克斯，他曾经在Coinbase工作。
And it's worth pointing out that the current head of the OCC is this person, Brian Brooks, who was formerly at Coinbase.
因此，你可以看到其中的联系，这项政策如何有利于Coinbase这样的公司，因为它们是最早作为加密货币交易所并提供加密货币托管服务的公司之一。
So you can see the connections there, how this would benefit a company like Coinbase because they were one of the first companies out there that was acting as a cryptocurrency exchange and, you know, doing custodial services for cryptocurrencies.
因此，许多并不真正了解自己在涉足什么的银行会选择说，与其自己尝试做这件事，不如直接与Coinbase这样的公司签约，要简单得多。
And so a lot of banks who don't really know what they're getting into are going to just say, oh, it's way easier to contract with someone like a Coinbase than to try to do this ourselves.
我很喜欢加密货币已经成熟到我们也能参与监管者与被监管者之间权力旋转门的程度。
I love how crypto has matured to the point where we too can participate in the revolving door of peddling influence between regulators and the regulated.
我认为，这已经是一个主流时刻了。
This is like a mainstream moment, I think.
因为我的意思是，你已经真正成功了。
Because I mean, this is like you've made it.
是的。
Yeah.
我的意思是，我们已经经历过加密公司因违规而受到警告的时刻。
I mean, we've already had the moments where crypto companies get the slap on the wrist treatment for violations.
几年前的2015年，我们就看到过SEC的起诉案例。
We saw that few years back in 2015 with SEC prosecutions.
而现在，我们看到监管者在监管者与被监管者角色之间来回自如地切换，形成了一种亲密无间的、彻底的监管俘获关系。
And now we're seeing regulators very, very comfortably moving between roles of regulating and being regulated and then regulating again in this nice cozy relationship of complete regulatory capture.
现在我们也能参与到这个领域中了。
And now we can play in that space too.
这意味着我们已经完全变得愤世嫉俗了吗？还是说，我们从最初外来的理想主义，到现在已经演变成：嘿，他们终于给我们递了根拐杖？
Does that mean that we're now fully jaded or kind of what's the progression here that we've gone through from, like, kind of idealistic on the outside to now we're like, hey, they're giving us a crutch.
这太棒了。
This is great.
这条断腿已经疼了太久。
The broken leg has been painful for so long.
我对这件事有点矛盾，你知道的。
I feel like of two minds on it, you know.
我几乎觉得这类似于某些地方的大麻非刑事化，我们已经看到一些州至少在州一级上将其非刑事化了。
I almost feel like this is analogous to cannabis decriminalization in some places where we've seen some places where they've decriminalized it at least on a state level.
但在联邦层面，大麻在美国仍然是非法的，这有点奇怪，但联邦缉毒局实际上并不会对特定州执行这项禁令。
It's still in The US as illegal on a federal level, which is kind of a weird situation, but it's not really enforced by the federal DEA against specific states.
但那些因持有大麻或意图分销，或其他与大麻相关的罪行而被监禁的人呢？这些罪行现在 retroactively（追溯性地）变得无效了，他们该怎么办？
But, you know, what do they do with the people who have been incarcerated for cannabis possession or intent to distribute or whatever cannabis related crimes that are now retroactively kind of like null and void?
在这些环境中，谁获得了许可证？
And who got the licenses in those environments?
是那些曾经因禁毒战争而遭受社区破坏的人吗？
Was it the people who had been previously had their communities destroyed by the war on drugs?
不是。
No.
并不是。
It wasn't.
绝对不是。
Absolutely not.
是大型企业和富裕投资者趁机涌入，突然从中获益于大麻合法化。
It was giant corporations and rich investors who swooped in and suddenly caught benefits of cannabis legalization.
加密货币也会发生同样的事情。
Same thing is gonna happen in crypto.
我的意思是，这会很糟糕，因为就像我们一开始在节目中谈到的那样，已经有太多加密公司、创业者，甚至个人因为与加密货币有关而被拒绝提供银行服务。
Well, I mean, that would be too bad because, you know, like we started out the show talking about, there have been so many crypto companies, entrepreneurs, even individuals that just have something to do with crypto that have been denied banking services.
这在美国社会就像是一块耻辱的标记。
And this is like a scarlet letter in American society.
我的意思是，我知道世界上有很多人甚至无法享受到我们这样的银行服务，这一点始终值得我们铭记。
I mean, I know there's lots of people around the world who don't even have access to the same kinds of banking services we do, and that that is always something to keep in mind.
但如果你是个美国创业者，想经营一家企业，一旦你的银行账户被毫无理由地关闭，确实会感觉被排斥或列入黑名单。
But, I mean, if you're trying to run a business, you're an American entrepreneur, like, it definitely feels like you're being kind of blackballed or blacklisted or something if you get your bank account taken away with like kind of no explanation.
我觉得这个比喻应该是，就像你正被扼住喉咙，实施‘扼喉行动’。
I think metaphor should be, it's like you're being choked like operation choke point.
是的，没错。
Oh, yes.
确实如此。
Yep.
这个名字非常贴切。
Is a very appropriate name.
这是一项长达十五年、由多个政府部门共同执行的政府政策，明确利用联邦政府的超立法权力，实质上使参与道德争议的活动变得非法。
Which is literally a government policy that is multi administrative for the past fifteen years that is explicitly using federal extra legislative powers to functionally make it illegal to engage in moral forays.
所以，如果你看看色情内容、大麻，或者任何在行政上可能因审美原因而不喜欢的合法事物
So if you look at pornography or marijuana or anything that's legal that an administrative might not like from an aesthetic purpose
枪支、汇款、赌博、性工作、大麻。
Guns, remittances, gambling, sex work, cannabis.
用过的内衣。
Used underwear.
让我们把话题拉回到很久以前我们与Open Bazaar团队做的那一期节目。
Let's draw it all the way back to the episode that we did with the folks from Open Bazaar a long time ago.
对吧？
Right?
这并不违法，但有点恶心。
Like, it's not illegal, but it's kinda gross.
因此，那些本可以支持这些业务的公司，通常会说：我们宁愿完全不收你的钱，也不愿做可能对我们声誉造成负面影响的事。
And so the companies that could enable it, you know, and that, like, typically would are like, well, we'd rather not take your money at all than do something that might have kind of a negative reflection on us.
是的。
Yeah.
基于政策的道德观在任何社会中都是非常危险的，因为它可能因政府的任意决定而改变。
Policy based morality is a very, very dangerous thing to have in any society because it can change at the whim of an administration.
而且它没有法律依据，这意味着你没有任何救济途径。
And it has no basis in law, which means you have no recourse.
是的。
Yeah.
这是最需要指出的关键点。
That's the most important thing to point out.
这完全是一种寒蝉效应。
This is all just like a chilling effect.
并没有明文规定银行不得为加密货币相关公司提供银行账户，甚至我们听说过一个例子，比如一位制作关于大麻影片的视频创作者，或者像我们这样，只是聊聊。
It's not specifically written that banks are not allowed to give bank accounts to crypto related companies or even like, you know, we heard an example of like a video producer that was making films about cannabis or us, like, let's talk.
不是说交易比特币或出售比特币。
Not like let's trade Bitcoin or sell Bitcoin.
是的。
Yeah.
他们真正反对的不是加密货币，而是这种言论。
It's the talk that they really object to, not the crypto.
是的。
Yeah.
但你知道，银行只是对这件事感到不安。
But like, you know, banks just get uncomfortable with it.
他们几乎是凭直觉在想：怎样才能选择最安全的路线，避免惹麻烦？
And it's like, they're almost going on intuition of like, what is the safest route we can take to not rock the boat?
这就是那些没有明确写出来的政策所带来的结果。
And that's the result of those policies that aren't, like, specifically coded.
这些政策只是很模糊，你知道，如果政府认定你错误地接纳了某个后来被认定为可疑或高风险的客户，你就可能受到惩罚，而这种认定也会随着时代和政治的变化而变化。
It's just, like, kind of vague, you know, that you could be punished if the government decides that you wrongly, you know, accepted a customer that was turned out to be sketchy or deemed high risk, which also changes with the changing times and politics.
那我们回到这个OCC的问题上。
So let's go back to this OCC thing.
有趣的是，直到昨天，加密货币领域的人以及任何其他人，都从未听说过OCC，除非他们从事相关行业
Now the funny thing about this is that until yesterday, no one in crypto and no one anywhere else had ever heard of OCC unless they were in the business of
是的。
Yeah.
我还以为OCC是Nasty by Nature在九十年代的那首歌呢。
I thought OCC was like the song from the nineties by Naughty by Nature.
对吧？
Right?
我以为是辣椒喷雾。
I thought it was pepper spray.
不是。
So no.
那是OC。
That's OC.
是的。
Yeah.
没人听说过它。
No one had heard of it.
如果你不在银行的合规部门工作，你从来都没听说过这个组织。
If you're not in the compliance department of a bank, you've never heard of this organization.
但关键是，这种类型的监管并不是第一次出现。
But the bottom line is that this isn't the first regulation of this kind.
我认为值得指出的是，怀俄明州此前曾率先立法，为银行提供一个舒适的法律框架，特别是针对那些非跨州、仅在怀俄明州注册的银行，因此它们无需担心怀俄明州以外的监管。
I think it's worth pointing out that this is an area in which the state of Wyoming had previously pioneered legislation in order to provide a comfortable legal framework, especially for banks that are not interstate banks, but Wyoming based and only Wyoming based banks that therefore didn't need to worry about regulations outside of Wyoming.
而这种法律框架是在 OCC 之前大约两年就建立了吗？
And were given a legal framework to do this, what, two years before the OCC?
是的。
Yes.
要感谢凯特琳在推特上指出了这一点。
And credit to Caitlin for pointing that out on Twitter.
我的意思是，这
I mean, that was
而且也要感谢凯特琳帮助促成了怀俄明州的这项举措。
Well, and credit to Caitlin for helping make that happen in Wyoming.
没错。
Exactly.
我认为，这本质上是将怀俄明州的模式推广到全国。
And essentially, what this is is the Wyoming model being taken nationwide, I think.
在我看来，它似乎不如怀俄明州的模式好，因此我认为我们可能需要再次邀请凯特琳来做节目，说明其中的差异。
It seems to me to be, but not as good as the Wyoming model, which is why I think we might want to have Caitlin on the show, again, to describe the differences.
有一些非常细微的差别，涉及这些账户的处理方式。
There are some really small nuances that have to do with how these accounts are treated.
其中最大的一个细微差别是，我还没在法规中看到任何对此的说明，即账户本身是否构成寄托关系。
One of the biggest nuances, and I haven't seen anything in the regulation that addresses this, is whether the account itself is a bailment or not.
什么是寄托关系？
What's a bailment?
是的。
Yeah.
那这意味着什么？
So what does that mean?
这意味着，在某些类型的监管下，当第三方托管人保管某项资产时，他们只是保管，而你拥有所有权，即你对该账户拥有明确的法定财产权。
That means that under some types of regulations, when a third party custodian has custody of something, they have custody, but you have ownership, meaning that you have a explicit statutory property right in that account.
该账户中的资产虽然由他们代为保管，但属于你。
That account is yours being held by them.
但这不适用于银行账户。
That doesn't apply to bank accounts.
令人惊讶的是，银行账户并不被视为你的财产。
Surprisingly enough, bank accounts are not considered your property.
因此，你对银行账户内的资金不享有法定财产权。
And so you do not have a statutory property right in the contents of the bank account.
而在怀俄明州，对于加密货币，他们明确制定了规定，使你对托管人持有的加密货币拥有法定财产权。
And in Wyoming, with crypto, they explicitly made it so that you had a statutory property right in the crypto that is being held by a custodian.
根据法律，这些加密货币属于你的财产，这意味着，如果银行破产，你无需作为债权人排队等候，也不必寄希望于获得偿付。
It is your property under law, which means that if, let's say, the bank goes bankrupt, you don't have to wait in line as some tier of creditor and hope you get bailed out.
你可以直接取回你的财产，至于其他人能分到多少，那是他们自己的问题。
You take your property back, and then if there's anything less for anybody else, that's their problem.
但这并不是它的运作方式。
Well, that's not how it works.
资金应该先支付给债权人，然后是股东，最后客户才可能获得一些按比例的补偿。
It's supposed to go to the debt holders and then the shareholders, and then maybe the customers get some kind of recompense that cents on the dollar.
对。
Right.
这就是托管与财产之间的区别。
And that's the difference between bailment and property.
有意思。
Interesting.
那么存款保险呢？
So and what about FDIC insurance?
如果任何银行真的选择这样托管加密货币，它们是否必须将这些资产存入受FDIC保险的账户中？
If any banks are actually choosing to do this to custody crypto, are they going to be required to have it in FDIC insured accounts or something?
这又是如何运作的呢？毕竟加密货币的价值是波动的。
And how does that even work because the value can fluctuate?
嗯，FDIC中的'F'代表联邦，这会让你以为它是一个像美联储那样的联邦机构，但美联储其实也不是真正的联邦机构。
Well, the f in FDIC stands for federal, which will make you believe it's a federal entity just like Federal Reserve, which is also not a federal entity.
FDIC是一个银行联盟。
FDIC is a banking consortium.
它是一个风险池，能够偶尔应对一两家银行的小规模倒闭，但无法应对系统性风险。
It's a risk pool, and it can manage small failures of one or two banks every now and then, not systemic risk.
它受到监管，至少理论上，联邦政府会介入。
It is regulated, and theoretically, at least, the federal government would step in.
但它属于一类半政府性质的组织，比如房利美、房地美、美联储和FDIC。
But it's one of those quasi non governmental organizations like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, and FDIC.
那么它会覆盖加密货币吗？
So will it cover crypto?
我严重怀疑它不会。
I seriously doubt it.
是的。
Yeah.
我真的看不出他们怎么能这么做。
I just don't see any way they could do that.
那我们来谈谈风险吧，因为我认为这是我们还没涉及的另一个大问题。
So let's talk about the risks, because I think that's the other big issue we haven't addressed yet.
银行真的能在不因处理加密货币风险不当而遭受重创的情况下做到这一点吗？
Can banks actually do this without getting very badly burned by mishandling the risk of cryptocurrency?
这不仅仅是一种你可以掌控的数字资产。
This is not simply a digital asset that you can control.
这是一个建立在不可审查且具有不可变特性的区块链之上的系统。
This is a system that its underpinnings are uncensorable blockchains with immutable characteristics.
这意味着如果被盗，钱就没了。
And that means that if it's stolen, it's gone.
而且是彻底没了。
And it's gone.
这与传统银行业的运作方式形成了鲜明对比。
And that's in contrast to the banking system in terms of the way that it traditionally works.
所以，是的，我认为这确实是个大问题。
So, yeah, I think it is a big question.
我们在节目开始前聊到的一件事，可能值得提一下：和往常一样，我们用Coinbase作为典型的反面例子来讨论。
One thing we were talking about before the show that's probably worth mentioning is, as always, we use Coinbase as sort of the straw man of which to kind of use as an example.
但对于那些希望把加密货币存放在某个安全地方、至少在他们看来是安全的、并且不需要自己当银行的人来说，这会更好吗？
But is it gonna be better for people who are looking to have their crypto in some place where it can be safe, at least as far as they're concerned, and they don't have to be their own bank?
真正的银行在这方面会比Coinbase更好还是更差？
Will a real bank be better at this than Coinbase or worse?
或者，真正的银行会不会把这项业务外包给Coinbase这样的公司？我觉得我们目前还不清楚这些。
Or will real banks outsource this to companies like Coinbase or kind of I don't think we know any of that.
但你们觉得呢？
But what do you guys think?
我觉得他们肯定会外包出去。
I think they'll outsource it for sure.
他们不会打算亲自介入这个领域。
They're not gonna try to get into this.
他们根本不知道自己在做什么。
They don't know what they're doing.
是的。
Yeah.
他们会外包出去。
They'll outsource it.
他们不得不外包出去。
They'll have to outsource it.
如果他们不这么做，情况会更糟。
And if they don't, it will be worse.
糟糕得多。
By far worse.
你可以把这看作是我罕见地赞扬Coinbase的时刻之一。
You can mark this as one of the rare occasions where I'm going to praise Coinbase.
但你知道，他们在这种完全新颖的环境中已经积累了大量的风险管理专业知识。
But, you know, they've developed an enormous amount of expertise on how to do risk management in this completely novel environment.
加密货币的风险模型与银行的风险模型完全不同。
The risk model for cryptocurrencies is completely different for the risk model of banks.
我在信息安全和银行领域工作了二十年，我可以告诉你，他们无法应对这种风险。
I worked for twenty years in information security and banks, I can tell you, they cannot handle this risk.
他们的系统并不是为应对这种风险而设计的，因为它们基于一些根本性的假设。
Their systems are not designed to handle this risk because they're based on some fundamental assumptions.
这些根本性假设包括与所有相关方的合作与控制，以及所有交易的完全可逆性。
And these fundamental assumptions are cooperation and control with all of the entities involved and full reversibility of everything.
因此，他们无法应对这种风险。
And so they can't handle this risk.
这需要他们学习全新的方法，而他们不太可能尝试这样做。
It would require them to learn whole new tricks, and they're unlikely to try to do that.
即使他们尝试了，也很难做得比一家公司更好——任何公司都比不上，尤其是那些已经成功做到这一点的公司，比如已经运营了多久的？
And if they do, they're not gonna do as well as a company, any company, but certainly a company that has managed to do it successfully for what is it?
Coinbase 已经存在六七年了？
Six, seven years now that Coinbase has been around?
是的。
Yeah.
说实话，你可以对Coinbase说三道四，但考虑到它是如此巨大的目标，他们的安全措施一直相当不错。
Honestly, I mean, you can say what you want about Coinbase, but their security has been pretty good for what a big target they are.
是的。
Yeah.
只有寥寥几家。
There are a handful.
大概只有三到四家大型交易所成功避免了严重被黑，它们遭遇的攻击大多只是轻微的拒绝服务攻击，没有造成客户资金损失，也没有给这些公司或整个行业带来运营风险或系统性风险。
Three or four probably big exchanges that have managed not to get badly hacked, where the breaches they've had been minimal, denial of service related, without losses to customers, without operational risk or systemic risk for those companies or the space.
你知道，我大概能说出三到四家。
You know, I could name maybe three or four.
Coinbase、Bitstamp、Kraken，就这些了。
Coinbase, Bitstamp, Kraken, and that's it.
那是三家。
That was three.
你还能想到其他的吗？
Can you mention anymore?
也许我 unfairly 忘掉了一些。
Maybe I'm forgetting a few unfairly.
我的意思是，Bitfinex 是一个大平台，但我不确定我们是否应该太依赖他们的安全性。
I mean, Bitfinex is a big one, but I don't know if we necessarily wanna lean on their security much.
Bitfinex 在三年前通过 BitGo 黑客事件至少损失了六千万美元。
Bitfinex did get at least a $60,000,000 loss through the BitGo hack three years ago.
这正是我没提他们的唯一原因，但即使那次损失他们也挺过来了。
That's the only reason I didn't mention them, and even that was survivable.
但再说一遍，这已经是四家公司了。
But again, that's four companies.
我会信任美国银行、花旗银行、富国银行来做这件事吗？
Would I trust Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo to do that?
绝对不行。
Oh, hell no.
绝对不。
Absolutely not.
所以，是的。
So, yes.
回答你的问题，亚当，我可能更信任Coinbase，而不是花旗银行。
To answer your question, Adam, I'd probably trust Coinbase more than I would trust Bank of America.
直到花旗银行收购Coinbase。
Until Bank of America buys Coinbase.
或者Coinbase收购花旗银行。
Or Coinbase buys Bank of America.
我们可能会再次经历AOL时代华纳的时刻。
We may have the AOL Time Warner moment again.
对。
Right.
我认为这确实很好地概括了这一点：我们知道，一直存在一类比特币银行，以及传统的老牌银行。
I think that really does kind of encapsulate it is that, you know, like, we are at this point where we've always known that there was, this class of Bitcoin banks, and then there were there sort of the traditional legacy banks.
我们现在不知道的是，比特币银行会成为传统银行，还是传统银行会吞并比特币银行？
What we don't know right now is, are the Bitcoin banks going to become the traditional banks, or will the traditional banks now eat the Bitcoin banks?
其中一件事似乎必然会发生。
One of those things seems like it has to happen.
或者比特币银行会吞并传统银行吗？
Or will the Bitcoin banks eat the traditional banks?
对。
Right.
从某种角度来看，如果你仔细想想，我认为加密银行在经济基础上比极其脆弱的法币银行更稳定、更坚实。
And in some ways, if you think about it, I think the crypto banks are much more stable and on much better foundation economically than the very fragile fiat banks.
是的。
Yeah.
因为它们在起步阶段不得不付出双倍努力才能取得一半的进展，尤其是如果它们很早就进入这个领域的话。
Because they've had to work twice as hard to get half as far in the beginning, especially if they were in the space early.
所以它们经历了许多挑战，这使它们变得更强韧，我认为。
So they've had faced a lot of challenges and which have made them tough, I think.
而且他们从未受到保护。
And they haven't been protected.
没错。
Exactly.
与那些受到保护而变得软弱的传统银行不同。
Unlike the traditional banks which have been softened by protection.
简直像 sewer rat（下水道老鼠）。
Almost like a sewer rat.
没错。
Exactly.
不过，我认为从这一公告来看，我最期待看到其反应的公司是富达，看看这会如何改变他们的业务。
I would say though that from this announcement, the company that I'm most excited to see what a response would look like in terms of how it changes what they're doing is Fidelity.
因为他们一直在从事机构托管业务，并参与挖矿。
Because they've been doing institutional custody, they're engaged in mining.
他们与加密货币和比特币的互动具有极高的专业水平和洞察力。
Like, they have an extremely high level of sophistication and acumen in their engagement with crypto and Bitcoin.
阻止他们开展非机构托管的唯一障碍，就是像这样的明确性。
And the only thing stopping them from pulling that trigger on non institutional custody was clarity like this sort.
所以我会说，你知道，我会把我的比特币交给摩根大通、花旗或美国银行吗？
So I would say that, you know, would I trust JPMorgan or, you know, Chase or BofA with my Bitcoin?
不会。
No.
但我不会感到惊讶，如果富达正在后台悄然迅速地推出面向零售客户的加密货币服务。
But I wouldn't be shocked if very quietly in the background, Fidelity is very rapidly putting together a retail offering for crypto.
大家好。
Hey, folks.
展会这里的情况正在发生变化。
Things are changing here at the show.
如果你仍然通过 LTBN 订阅者频道或 RSS 订阅收听，并希望在进入这个令人兴奋的新阶段后继续收听新节目，请前往 ltbshow.com，今天免费订阅新频道，使用你最喜欢的设备。
If you still listen through the LTBN subscriber feed or RSS feed and wanna keep hearing new episodes as you move into an exciting new chapter, head over to ltbshow.com and subscribe for free to the new feed today with your favorite device.
那就是 ltbshow.com，如果你想收听我们八月份即将推出的关于津巴布韦再次恶性通胀、移动支付、开源融资新纪元等话题的节目。
That's ltbshow.com if you wanna hear our upcoming episodes on Zimbabwe in hyperinflation once again and mobile money, a new era of open source funding, and more over the course of August.
这条信息如此重要，以至于我们今天这期节目完全不插播任何广告。
This message is so important that we're not running any sponsors on today's episode at all.
所以请记住，现在就访问 ltbshow.com，订阅新的订阅者频道或 RSS 频道。
So remember, surf over to ltbshow.com and subscribe to the new subscriber feed or RSS feed today.
感谢收听。
Thanks for listening.
接下来，回到节目本身。
And now, back to the show.
然后你还有 PayPal。
And then you've got PayPal.
PayPal、Square 以及其他类似的服务。
PayPal, Square, and others like that.
它们一直以来都是传统银行业的眼中钉。
Now, they've always been a thorn in the side of traditional banking.
它们一直试图引领创新。
They've tried to pioneer things.
如果你读过PayPal创始人的早期著作，就会发现他们当初想用PayPal打造的其实就是比特币。
If you read the early writings of the PayPal founders, what they wanted to build with PayPal is Bitcoin.
因此，他们现在正进入这个领域，而这一OCC公告可能会真正解放他们，让他们能够全力竞争。
And so they're now entering this space, and this OCC announcement may actually unshackle them and allow them to really compete hard.
对他们而言，风险模型实际上更接近比特币。
For them, the risk model is actually much closer to Bitcoin.
他们的专长也更贴近比特币。
Their expertise is much closer to Bitcoin.
我们可能看到的是，这将解放像这样的公司，让它们去挑战传统银行。
And what we might see is that this will liberate companies like that to go after the banks.
PayPal收购的Venmo（现在是同一家公司）是否提前知道这件事即将发生？
Did PayPal slash Venmo, which is now the same company, know that this was coming in advance?
还是说他们一直在为此做计划或期待着它？
Or were they planning for it or hoping for it?
因为你知道，几周前，或者可能一个月前，有泄露的消息称，PayPal和Venmo正计划以某种方式将加密货币整合到他们的平台中，让所有用户都能买卖加密货币。
Because, you know, there was this leak that came out, oh, a couple weeks ago, right, or a month ago maybe, that PayPal and Venmo were planning to somehow integrate cryptocurrency into their platforms for all of their users to be able to buy and sell.
这个话题一直在我关注的范围内。
This is a topic that's been on my radar.
我想我之前发过一封相关的邮件，但我们应该在7月9日讨论一下这个话题。
I think I sent an email around it, but we should talk about this on July 9.
由于我们最近忙于其他事情，已经有一段时间没谈这个了。
So it's been a while as we've had kinda some other things come up.
但是的，CoinDesk在七月初从三个消息源报道了这个故事，我知道他们从我们刚开始听到相关传闻时——大概是在圣诞节前后——就开始着手调查，花了很长时间联系多个信源，以核实这些信息的真实性。
But, yeah, CoinDesk reported early July from three sources and a story that I know that they worked on since I believe we started hearing rumors about it in Christmas, and then spent a long time getting a bunch of different sources to kind of be able to put some reality to this.
而事实就是，PayPal一直在筹备，并计划在年底前后推出这项服务。
And yeah, that was kind of it, is that PayPal has been working on and is looking to launch towards the end of the year.
目前这还只是传闻，尚未得到证实，但有一些线索可以佐证：他们将在PayPal或Venmo内推出加密货币的购买、出售和持有服务，并计划向几乎所有用户推广。
This is a rumor only at this point, unconfirmed, but there's some stuff to back it up, that they'll be launching effectively crypto buy, sell, and hold services within PayPal or Venmo, but with the idea that this will be rolled out to basically all of their customers.
在20日，更多消息源证实了PayPal选择了总部位于纽约的Paxos，那么Paxos到底是一家什么样的公司呢？
And that was backed up on the twentieth when more sources said that PayPal picked Paxos, which is a New York based what does Paxos actually do?
它是一家交易所吗？
Is it an exchange?
Paxos 就是 Itbit。
Paxos is Itbit.
它是一个交易所。
It's an exchange.
它也是芝加哥商品交易所参考费率的组成部分。
It's a constituent of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange reference rate as well.
Itbit 是由一群非常棒的黄金爱好者创立的对冲基金，早在2009年或2010年初，他们觉得花50美元买这个奇怪的东西，每枚5美分，是个好主意，于是就一直持有。
So Itbit was this hedge fund of these really cool nice guys who are gold bugs, who back in, I think, 2009, early two thousand ten, thought that throwing $50 at this weird thing at 5¢ was a good idea and just held.
然后就不再关注了，因为谁会在乎呢？
And then didn't bother looking at it because who cares?
才50美元而已。
It's only $50.
后来他们意识到，自己已经有钱到足以创办一个交易所，哪怕只是为了让自己持仓有流动性。
And then realized that they had enough money to start an exchange if only to have liquidity on their own position.
因此，他们是最早为比特币设立商业信托的公司之一，之后将其发展为 Itbit，再重新命名为 Paxos，因为没有什么比一个跟密码学毫无关系的名字更能体现 Paxos 的风格了。
And so they were one of the first commercial trust for for Bitcoin and then turned that into Itbit and then rebranded to Paxos because nothing says Paxos style cryptography like something that has nothing to do with cryptography.
好的。
Okay.
谢谢你的背景介绍。
Thank you for that context.
是的。
Yeah.
上周，CoinDesk 报道称，PayPal 将使用 Paxos 来处理其加密货币交易。
So last week, basically, CoinDesk reported that PayPal is gonna be using Paxos to handle its crypto trading.
随后，我们在 7 月 14 日获得了确认：PayPal 在向欧盟提交的文件中表示，已采取单方面且切实的举措进军加密领域。
And then we also got confirmation, this was on July 14, that in a filing to the EU, PayPal had told the EU financial regulator that it had taken, quote, unilateral and tangible steps in the crypto space.
还有另一块拼图，是一条推文串，深入探讨了这些传闻。
And then there was another piece of this puzzle, which was a tweet thread, again, going deeply into the rumors here.
一条来自 American HODL 的推文串现已删除，其中称：‘这是我的一位极端主义兄弟在 PayPal 内部获取的情报，通过私信发给我。’
A tweet thread that has now been deleted from American HODL that says that, quote, here's the scoop from one of our maximalist brothers inside PayPal is sent to me via direct message.
添加比特币的主要动机是实现 Venmo 的货币化。
The main driver for adding Bitcoin is monetizing Venmo.
增长迅猛，却毫无收入。
So much growth, no revenue.
接着Cash App出现，增长更快，还赚钱了。
Then Cash App comes along, grows faster, and makes money.
PayPal甚至做过一份研究报告，评估了以太坊、瑞波币和比特币，觉得这事儿简直尴尬到家，但他们专业地判断出比特币才是正道。
PayPal even did a review paper considering Ethereum and Ripple and BTC, and thought it would be uber cringe, but they knew their stuff and decided BTC was the way to go.
不过，也不能确定他们不会放弃，毕竟山寨币里也有钱可赚。
Can't be sure they won't fold given there is money in shitcoins, though.
他们正在为钱包添加买入、卖出和存储功能，仅限比特币，目标是在今年年底推出。
They are building buy, sell, and store functionality into their wallets, Bitcoin only, target releases the end of the year.
于是我问，这会不会只是Robinhood那种IOU比特币骗局。
Then I asked if it would just be Robinhood, IOU, Bitcoin bullshit.
对方回复说：我读过的那份报告既早期又模糊，但听起来就像Robinhood那种‘在我们的钱包里买入、卖出和存储比特币’的套路。
And the response was, quote, the paper I read was both early and nebulous, but it sounds like Robinhood BS buy, sell, and store Bitcoin in our wallet type thing.
他们可能不想失去跨境交易中靠外汇赚的钱，但这才刚刚开始。
They probably don't wanna lose the money they make on foreign exchange for cross border trades, but this is just the beginning.
我确信他们别无选择，只能扩展到汇款业务。
I'm sure they won't have a choice that will escalate into remittances.
所以我在2015年通过一个名为《基础设施倒置》的视频探讨了这个话题。
So I examined this topic in 2015 with a video I did called infrastructure inversion.
其核心观点是，当你引入一项新技术时，你必须在为旧技术设计和构建的世界中运行它。
And the idea being that when you start with a new technology, you have to operate it in a world created by and for the old technology that you're trying to replace.
如果你驾驶一辆全新的汽车，你却是在为四蹄马车设计的泥泞坎坷道路上行驶。
If you're driving your brand new automobile, you're driving it in a muddy rutted road that's designed for four hoof drive horses.
路上还到处散落着马粪。
With horse poop still scattered along the way.
是的。
Yeah.
没错。
Exactly.
因此，你的新技术在这种环境中看起来会显得很落后。
And so your new technology kind of looks pathetic in that environment.
展开剩余字幕（还有 269 条）
但接下来发生的就是基础设施的倒置。
But what happens then is an infrastructure inversion.
你会为新技术构建基础设施，而旧技术则依然舒适，并突然释放出各种新的能力。
You build infrastructure for the new technology, and the old technology is very comfortable, and it suddenly opens up all kinds of new capabilities.
我当时预测，这种现象将在金融领域出现。
I made a prediction back then that we're going to see that in finance.
银行最初会抵制，然后会采纳，接着会越来越多地将金融服务迁移到这些新平台上，最终整个体系都将运行在分布式账本、区块链、比特币之上——你怎么叫它都行，这取决于我们如何发展。
That what's going to happen is the banks will at first resist, then they will adopt, then they will start migrating more and more of the financial services onto these new platforms until eventually the entire thing is running on top of distributed ledger, blockchain, Bitcoin, call it whatever you want, depends on how we go.
互联网就经历了这样的过程。
This happened with the Internet.
电信公司最初抵制了。
The phone companies resisted.
电信公司勉强采纳了。
The phone companies reluctantly adopted.
随后，它们变成了互联网服务提供商。
They then became ISPs.
随后，他们开始将基础设施运行在数字连接之上。
They then started running their infrastructure on top of digital connections.
连接。
Connections.
最终，世界上所有的电话通话及其他服务现在都基于互联网主干网络进行模拟。
And eventually, all of the world's phone calls and everything else is now simulated on top of effectively the Internet backbones.
起初，我们试图通过电话线运行互联网。
So first, we tried to run the Internet over phone lines.
现在我们通过互联网运行电话线路。
Now we run phone lines over the Internet.
顺便说一下，我刚刚重新发布了那个关于基础设施倒置的视频。
I just re released that video infrastructure inversion, by the way.
我们会在节目笔记中附上链接。
We'll link it in the show notes.
是的。
Yeah.
这种基础设施的倒置预示着金融服务交付方式的彻底变革。
And so this infrastructure inversion presages a complete change in how financial services are delivered.
我认为你会看到这些非常缓慢而谨慎的举措。
And I think you're gonna see these very, very slow and cautious moves.
但另一个在以往每一次基础设施倒置中都发生过的有趣现象是：
But here's another interesting thing that's happened in every previous infrastructure inversion.
当市场上只有少数参与者、形成寡头垄断或卡特尔，且市场极为稳定时，改变领导格局的唯一方式，就是出现一场足以颠覆整个行业的巨大颠覆。
When you have markets where there are only a few players, oligopolies, cartels, and the markets are very static, The only way you change the leadership board, if you like, is when there is such a massive disruption that it upends the industry.
柯达、富士和尼康原本不可能改变它们在市场中的相对排名，但一个全新的竞争者却可以彻底颠覆整个市场。
Now Kodak, Fuji, and Nikon were not going to change their relative rankings in the market, but a complete newcomer could come in and flip the market on its head.
在数码摄影领域，这个颠覆者就是苹果。
That one was Apple in digital photography.
银行业也发生了同样的事情。
The same thing happens with banking.
互联网服务和ISP领域也同样如此。
The same thing happens with Internet services and ISPs.
那些无法与大公司竞争的较小的第二、第三梯队竞争者，将颠覆性技术作为特洛伊木马。
The smaller second and third tier competitors who couldn't compete with the big players use the disruptive technology as a Trojan horse.
较小的电信公司更快地转型为互联网服务提供商，随后被收购、合并，或迅速成长。
Smaller phone companies became ISPs faster and then got acquired or merged or grew very, very rapidly.
我认为我们在这里也会看到同样的情况。
And I think we're gonna see the same thing here.
这将为第三梯队银行、第二梯队银行以及其他非银行类支付提供商（如PayPal）带来巨大优势，使他们能够将加密货币作为特洛伊木马，以前所未有的方式颠覆金融服务的竞争格局。
This is going to give a tremendous advantage, a Trojan horse to third tier banks, second tier banks, other payment providers who are not quite banks like PayPal, to use crypto as a Trojan horse to disrupt the competitive leaderboard in financial services in a way that they couldn't do before.
更加灵活、更大胆、承担更大风险，并利用一项大型机构难以快速吸收的技术，因为他们已经变得僵化。
To be more nimble, to be more daring, to take bigger risks, and to use a technology that the big players really can't absorb as fast because they've become sclerotic.
我认为这将非常值得观察。
I think that's going to be very interesting to watch.
大型机构，比如摩根大通，像那样的公司，他们的系统如此多层、如此沉重。
The big players, JPMorgan Chase, you know, companies like that, Their systems are so multi layered, so heavy.
他们整个监管体系、系统、流程、运营和政策，都是为了一件事而设计的——那就是几十年来一直在做的事情。
Their entire edifice of regulations, systems, processes, operations, and policies are designed to do one thing that they've been doing for decades.
他们无法轻易改变这一切。
And they can't easily change all of that.
因此，背负的包袱越少，优势就越大。
So having less of that baggage is a big advantage.
他们不会转向加密货币。
They're not gonna pivot into crypto.
他们也做不到。
They're not gonna be able to.
如果这种基础设施倒置正在发生，那么率先受益的将是那些更小、更灵活的参与者。
So if this infrastructure inversion is happening, it's gonna be the smaller, more nimble players who are gonna take advantage of it first.
这有点像看第一部《洛奇》，他总是以失败告终，一次又一次。
It's sort of like watching the first Rocky where he always loses at the end over and over and over again.
但信用合作社的故事
But the story of credit unions
是的。
Yep.
这就像是从来都不看《洛奇2》。
Is sort of just like never watching Rocky two.
总是不断地反复看第一部。
It's just always always watching the first one over and over again.
但也许还有希望，一些专门的、小众的信用合作社，能够成为我们所需要的冠军，因为之前受制于运营瓶颈，它们永远无法做到这一点。
But, you know, maybe there's hope that, you know, some niche specialized credit unions could really be the champions that we need in a way that because of operation choke point, they never could be.
怀俄明州正是在做这样的押注。
That's the bet Wyoming is making precisely.
对吧？
Right?
是的。
Yeah.
但他们正通过一个真正的州级特许状绕开限制。
But they're doing an end run with an actual state charter.
他们解决信用合作社问题的方式，是把特许状从信用合作社中剥离出来，让信用合作社直接成为自己持牌的银行，这太棒了。
Like, the way that they're fixing credit unions is by removing the dependency of a charter from the credit union and basically letting credit unions become their own chartered bank, which is amazing.
但我只是想说，即使是现有的信用合作社，或者互联网档案馆之类的地方重新启动他们的信用合作社，这也许能以以前无法实现的方式帮助它们。
But I just mean, even for existing credit unions or if the Internet archive or whatever re spool back up their credit union, maybe this could help them in a way that they couldn't be helped before.
因为那家信用合作社正是在 choke point 下被功能性地摧毁的——它们为 Tradehill 提供银行服务，而 Tradehill 是第一家美国加密货币交易所，但仅运营了一周，联邦政府就毫无法律依据地命令为该交易所提供服务的银行：如果不停止与该信用合作社的合作，就要撤销其特许状。
Because that was a credit union that explicitly got killed functionally under choke point because they banked Tradehill, which was the first American exchange that lasted for a week before the federal government, using no rule and no law shut it down by telling the bank that banked the credit union that serviced the exchange that their charter would be pulled if they didn't drop the credit union.
这听起来简直像黑手党。
It almost sounds like a mafia.
是的。
Yeah.
但他喜欢竞争。
But he likes competition.
你那张特许状真不错。
That's a really nice charter you have there.
要是它出了什么事，那就太可惜了。
It's a pity of something would happen to it.
是的。
Yeah.
政府颁发执照只有两个原因：一是为了能随时收回别人的执照，二是为了让持有执照的人去打压那些没有执照的人，毕竟，他们没执照，这公平吗？
Well, there are only two reasons to create government backed licenses, And that's so you can pull it away from somebody and so that you get the slave mentality of the people with the licenses beating up the people who don't have the license because how fair is it that they don't have the license.
这是一套非常有效的敲诈手段。
And it's a very useful racket.
看看BitLicense做了些什么，它刚满五周年。
Looking at kind of what the BitLicense did, BitLicense just turned five.
自从BitLicense推出以来，已经过去了五年。
So it's been five years since the BitLicense came out.
在这整个期间，只有24个实体获得了BitLicense。
And there are 24 entities that have been granted BitLicense over the course of that entire period of time.
BitLicense确实成功实现了本杰明·拉斯基当初说它会实现的目标。
Well, the BitLicense did very successfully did what Benjamin Lasky said it was going to do.
直到今天，我仍然惊讶于居然没人对此做适当的报道。
And to this day, I'm still shocked people haven't done appropriate write ups of this.
我想那是他关于BitLicense的第一次或第二次公开听证会。
And I think it was his first or second public hearing about the BitLicense.
他说，我现在是凭记忆回想，但他把创新和初创企业比作花朵绽放。
He said, and I'm going off top of my head, but he said that he equated innovation and startups to flowers blossoming.
然后他说，他宁愿看到纽约有一千朵创新之花不绽放，也不愿看到一起毒品恐怖主义贩运事件发生。
And then said that he would rather see a thousand flowers of innovation not bloom in New York than a single instance of narco terrorist trafficking.
对于不了解的人，这确实是马尔的原话。
And for those who are unaware, that's literally a quote from Mal.
是的。
Yep.
哇。
Wow.
因此，在描述他制定纽约区块链初创企业监管政策时所秉持的理念时，他实际上是在转述毛泽东的思想。
So when describing the philosophy that went into the approach of how he was going to rule and regulate blockchain startups in New York, he was literally paraphrasing the sentiment of Mao.
毛泽东。
Mao.
你知道吗？
And you know what?
他做到了。
He did it.
因为在过去九年里，纽约每一家拥有比特牌照的初创公司或企业，我都能说出二十多家离开纽约的公司。
Because for every startup or every company in the past nine years that exists in New York that has a bit license, I could name two dozen that have left New York.
纽约可能是这个行业中30%创新的发源地，但其中95%的企业不得不离开纽约，才能生存、成功或实现人生目标。
New York is probably the birth of, I'd say, 30% of the innovation of everything that's going on in this industry, and 95% of them had to leave New York in order to have a living or to succeed or to do anything with their life.
是的。
Yeah.
为了避开拉斯基那台可怕的毛主义草坪修剪机。
To avoid the dreaded Maoist lawn mower of Lasky.
草坪修剪机。
The lawn mower.
但关键是，他们并没有让这个花园消失。
But here's the thing, they didn't stop the garden.
他们只是改变了它生长的地方。
They just changed where it's growing.
是的。
Yeah.
所有这些公司都没有停止。
All of these companies didn't stop.
它们只是离开了。
They just left.
所以所有的创新仍然在继续。
So all of the innovation still happens.
只是发生在瑞士的祖格谷。
It just happens in Zug Valley in Switzerland.
它发生在马耳他。
It happened in Malta.
它发生在新加坡。
It happened in Singapore.
它发生在根西岛。
It happens in the Guernsey Islands.
这件事发生在其他所有地方，唯独没有发生在金融中心纽约。
It happened everywhere else except for the center of finance in New York.
听我说。
Listen.
我爱怀俄明州的人们。
I love the people of Wyoming.
我认为他们是最大胆、最热爱自由的人，他们赢得了我的心和灵魂。
I think they are the most, like, rambunctious and freedom loving people, and they have my heart and soul.
但我是个地道的老派纽约客。
But I'm a good old fashioned arrogant New Yorker.
在任何怀俄明州引领金融创新的场景中，这都证明了纽约的失败。
And I just gotta say that in any scenario where Wyoming is leading the charge in financial innovation, it's a testament to New York's failures.
纽约一定在某个地方犯了严重的错误，才会让这种情况发生。
Like, New York done messed up really bad somewhere in order for that to happen.
就像当你最小的弟弟竟然是篮球打得最好的那个，你就真的搞砸了。
Like, the time your third youngest brother's the one who's the best at basketball, you really done goofed.
是的。
Yeah.
这简直就像曼哈顿突然变成了世界马术中心一样。
It's almost as if Manhattan suddenly became the rodeo center of the world.
所以，实际上，所有这些关于BitLicense的讨论让我很好奇，显然，这会涉及某种许可流程。
So actually, all this talk about the BitLicense makes me curious, like, obviously, there's gonna be some kind of permission process for this.
对吧？
Right?
如果一家银行确实想为加密货币提供托管服务，它们需要向某人申请许可吗？
If a bank does want to provide custody services for cryptocurrency or no, do they need to ask permission from someone?
它们该向谁申请？
And who do they ask?
我认为这就是这个问题的关键。
I think that's the main thing of this.
它们不需要申请。
They don't need to ask.
这基本上意味着他们现在获得了全面的许可。
This is basically now they just got the permission, blanket permission.
这是对你现有银行执照的延伸。
It's an extension of your existing banking license.
我认为你不需要额外的许可。
You don't need additional permission, I don't think.
这封信是公开的，但很可能它是发给某个人的。
And this letter was made public, but it was probably sent to somebody.
这很可能是一家对此有疑问的银行，或者某家属于此范围的公司，寻求明确的指导。
This was probably a bank that asked about this or some type of company that would be covered under this asking for clarity.
而货币监理署似乎选择不仅将其发送给对方，还公开发布，意思是：这就是规则，顺便说一下，其他人，这就是我们在做的事。
And the OCC, it looks like, chose to release this publicly in addition to sending it to them, saying that effectively, here's the rule and by the way, everybody else, here's this thing that we're doing.
所以，again，你知道，在加密货币众多有趣的事情中，监管从来都不是有趣的话题。
So again, like, you know, in the panoply of things that are interesting in crypto, regulation is never interesting in crypto.
但就这个领域的发展以及我们这些生活在政府管辖范围内的人如何与之互动而言，这是一件相当重要的事件。
But as far as what's important to the development of the space and how we're allowed to interact with it as people who have to live within, you know, government jurisdictions, this is a fairly significant event.
好的。
Okay.
所以在结束今天的对话之前，我想简单聊一下关于PayPal的这件事。
So before we wrap today's conversation, I wanna turn to just one quick thing on that PayPal story.
但这其实并不是一个关于PayPal的故事。
And it's not really a PayPal story.
这是一个关于我们过去七八年所经历的历史轨迹的故事——在节目早期，我还记得Bees兄弟开始接受比特币的时候。
It's a story that's about the kind of arc of history that we've been on over the course of the last seven or eight years, which is that in the very early days of the show, I remember when, the Bees brothers started accepting Bitcoin.
那可是件大事。
And it was like a big deal.
明白吗？
Alright?
那时候他们大概只有十二岁左右吧。
This was a couple of I think they were 12 years old, something like that.
他们非常年轻。
They were very young.
是的
Yeah.
那就像父子合伙做生意一样。
It was like a father and son kind of business.
是的
Yeah.
那是一个家族企业。
It was a family business.
他们养了蜜蜂，采蜂蜜，然后开始用比特币卖蜂蜜。
And basically, they had bees, and so they harvested honey, and they started selling this honey for Bitcoin.
这对他们的生意很有帮助，因为大家都说：‘哇，我有比特币，我想试试用它消费。’
And it was great for their business because everybody was like, oh, wow, I have Bitcoin and I'd like the novelty of spending it.
所以人们会向他们买蜂蜜，因为他们选择接受比特币，生意反而更成功了。
And so people would buy honey from them and they were more successful because they chose to accept Bitcoin.
因为那时候，比特币的接受度只有百分之三十到五十左右
Because at that point, there were thirty:fifty way
拥有比特币的人比真正能用它消费的地方要多得多，除了像——
more people who had Bitcoin than there were ways that you could really spend it on something besides like-
丝绸之路上的毒品？
Drugs on the Silk Road?
特雷，嗯，我想是的。
Trey Well, mean, yeah, I guess.
但有羊驼袜子，还有几样东西，但真的没有多少公司参与其中。
But Alpaca socks, there were a couple of things, but it wasn't really like companies were involved.
随着时间推移，我们看到越来越多的公司开始这样做，因为这带来了一种所谓的媒体曝光机会。
And as time went on, we saw more and more companies doing this because there was what we call an earned press opportunity.
对吧？
Right?
你作为一家公司，虽然在众多企业中非常不起眼，可能根本引不起注意。
You were doing something as a company where even though as a company, just amongst all the other companies, you were very insignificant and probably not standing out a lot.
但因为你做了这件事——接受比特币，你就脱颖而出。
But because you did this thing, accepting Bitcoin, you differentiated yourself.
这样做让你吸引了那些早期拥有比特币的人群的注意，这对你的业务来说是好事。
And in doing so, you attracted the attention of this crowd, people who had Bitcoin early on, it was a good thing for your business.
所以我们一度看到了这种现象，但后来这种趋势逐渐消退，因为新鲜感过去了，想花比特币的人有了很多其他选择。
And so we saw that for a while, and then that kind of drifted off because the novelty passed, people who wanted to spend Bitcoin had lots of options where they could spend it.
因此，新公司出现并宣称‘我们现在接受比特币’这种新鲜感就逐渐消失了。
And so the novelty of a new company coming along and saying, hey, and now we accept Bitcoin kind of dropped off.
然后我们经历了一段漫长的沉寂期，人们开始思考：接受比特币到底值不值得？
And then we saw kind of like a long lull where people were like, well, is it worth accepting Bitcoin?
不接受比特币又值不值得？
Is it not worth accepting Bitcoin?
但在过去几年里，我们看到越来越多金融领域的公司，比如Robinhood和Cash App，开始意识到：这实际上是我们这些大型公司区别于其他金融服务或投资公司的机会，可以以更便捷的方式为有需求的人提供比特币服务。
And then over the last couple of years, we've seen increasingly, you know, companies that are on the financial side of things, Robinhood, Cash App, start to, you know, say, hey, this is actually an opportunity for us as larger companies to differentiate from other financial services companies or investing companies, and offer this in an easy fashion for somebody who wants to.
所以现在你不必再去Bitstamp开账户了。
So now you don't have to, you know, get an account at Bitstamp.
你现在可以在Robinhood开账户，那里你已经可以交易股票，也可以在那里轻松操作比特币。
Now you can get an account at Robinhood where you're already trading stocks, and you can interact with it there.
让我感到有趣的是，最初这对小公司来说是一种竞争优势。
And what's been interesting to me is that in the beginning, it was a competitive advantage for smaller companies to do this.
但现在，大公司如果不这么做，反而会处于竞争劣势。
But now it's a competitive disadvantage for larger companies not to do this.
对吧？
Right?
现在PayPal进入这个领域，并不是因为他们想吸引比特币用户群体。
Now the reason why PayPal's moving into this isn't because they want to appeal to the Bitcoin crowd.
而是因为他们认为，基于Robinhood和Cash App在这一服务上取得的成功，他们现有的用户群体也会对此感兴趣。
It's because they think that the audience that they have based on the success that Robinhood has seen and Cash App has seen with this exact type of service would also be interested in that.
而且他们迫切需要找到像竞争对手那样的收入来源。
And they're desperate for ways to generate revenue in the ways that their competitors are.
所以，当PayPal的这个消息一出来，最让我震惊的就是这一点。
So that was the thing that really jumped out at me about the PayPal story as soon as it hit.
并不是PayPal要开始销售加密货币，而是我们看到的初期与现在的激励结构已经彻底颠倒了。
Was not that PayPal is gonna be selling crypto, but that the incentive structure that we saw at the beginning versus now has fundamentally flipped.
现在参与进来的公司，并不是出于任何意识形态的原因，而是因为他们害怕如果不参与会带来的后果。
And the types of companies that are getting involved now aren't doing so because of anything ideological, but because they're afraid of the results that could happen if they don't.
错失恐惧症。
FOMO.
没错。
Exactly.
我认为贝斯兄弟应该感谢贝斯兄弟。
I think PayPal should be thanking the Bees brothers.
给他们打个电话，寄张卡片什么的。
Give them a call, send them a card, something.
是的。
Yeah.
他们是顶尖的。
They're the bee's knees.
另一件让我非常期待的事情是，在抵押贷款领域还有一些根本性的问题尚未解决，而在我个人作为客户参与之前，这些问题必须得到解决。
The other thing I'm really excited for is there are some really fundamental things in collateralized lending that hasn't been solved yet before I personally would be involved with it as a customer.
其中一个问题是，你知道的，要确认抵押品确实存在。
And one of them is, you know, knowing that the collateral is actually there.
所以Celsius似乎做得不错。
And so Celsius seems to be doing a good job.
市场上有很多提供方。
There are a number of providers out there.
但现在真正的银行可以参与了，我认为抵押贷款领域将迅速增长和成熟，并接触到更庞大的客户群体。
But now that, you know, actual banks can get involved, I think that we're gonna very rapidly see a lot of the collateralized lending space grow and mature and have access to a lot larger customer base.
那什么是银行业呢？
Because what is banking?
如果不是，把你的钱借给我，我拿去放贷，然后付你利息。
If not, lend me your money, I'll lend it out and then pay you interest.
是的。
Yeah.
我的意思是，如今想找一个能产生利息的账户真的太难了。
I mean, it is really desperate with the trying to find any kind of interest bearing account these days.
这简直太可悲了。
It's like really pathetic.
追逐收益的竞赛，已经开始。
The chase for yield, it's on.
我认为这就是这一切的潜流，因为随着事态发展，由于货币政策的原因，这场对收益的追逐会变得越来越严重。
And I think that's the undercurrent of all of this because that chase for yield is gonna get worse and worse and worse as things progress because of monetary policy.
所以，如今收益几乎成了每个资产类别中唯一的问题，除了可能的加密货币。
So yield is now almost exclusively what will the Fed do next in every asset except perhaps crypto.
但就连加密货币也不确定，你知道，加密货币也在强烈回应这些信号。
And even that's not sure, you know, even crypto is strongly responding to those signals.
但即使在这里，一点点的差异化也很重要。
But even a tiny bit of differentiation is important here.
即使你选择参与这些抵押借贷的加密项目，拿走其中90%的收益，用来确保生息账户只提供1%或2%的回报，这仍然是一个非常有吸引力的方案。
Even if you end up taking some of these collateralized lending crypto projects, and you eat 90% of their return and use it to ensure the interest bearing account, so it's only yielding one or 2%, that's still a very attractive proposition.
现在，我们某种程度上又重新引入了那个我们曾试图消灭的恶魔，但你知道，旧世界总有办法持续存在。
Now, we're sort of reintroducing the devil we tried to kill, but, you know, the old world has a way of persisting.
乔纳森，这恰恰说明了这种货币道德风险：在缺乏收益的情况下，由于货币在这里便宜甚至免费，导致人们以极其荒谬的方式错配资本，这使得即使是很小的收益也变得极具吸引力，即便风险已经极其巨大。
What that demonstrates, Jonathan, is precisely this monetary moral hazard, which is that in the absence of yield, because money is cheap or free in this case, that causes people to misallocate capital in monstrous ways, which then makes even small amounts of yield incredibly attractive even when the risk is quite extravagant.
所以在我们结束之前，我想提最后一个完全超出我们专业领域的问题，但这个想法在我思考整个变化时浮现了出来。
So I think one last question before we go, totally outside our area of expertise, but it's another thing that kind of occurred to me with this whole change.
哪些行业或加密领域中的哪些部分受到了这种变化的负面影响？
What industries or what parts of the industry within crypto is negatively affected by this?
这会伤害到任何人吗？还是说这是一场全面的积极事件？
Does this hurt anybody or is this just like a positive event across the board?
比如去中心化金融（DeFi）就让我想到这一点。
Like DeFi comes to mind.
你知道，去中心化金融旨在复制银行过去提供的许多服务。
You know, decentralized finance is looking to replicate a lot of services that kind of banks used to provide.
而且其中也有很多创新。
You know, and there's a lot of innovation in there too.
但乔纳森，正如我们之前讨论的，很多去中心化金融其实是在重新发明这个新时代之前银行业所做的事情。
But, Jonathan, as we discussed before, know, a lot of DeFi is about kind of reinventing what banking used to do before this current era.
嗯，我认为在很多方面，这都是坏事。
Well, I think I mean, in a number of ways, it's bad.
但这只是成熟过程的一部分，一旦你有了被认可的途径，你就不得不遵守规则。
But that's just sort of the process of maturing, which is once you have a road to being recognized, then you will comply.
因此，我们可能会看到更多项目减少隐私保护，更多地选择屈服，因为现在我们有了被主流接纳、成为旧秩序一部分的途径。
And so we're probably going to see more projects that do less privacy, more, you know, just capitulating because now we have a road to being recognized and being a part of the old guard.
但积极的一面是，我认为最疯狂的是，他们允许银行接触加密货币。
But, you know, on the positives, I think the craziest thing here is that they're allowing banks to touch crypto.
我们一直谈论政府，而政府对我们的一贯态度是：我们不知道他们在天上那片魔法领域里到底在搞什么，但终归，飞机得落地。
And so we keep talking about the government and the government's approach to us has always been, we don't know what the hell they're doing in their magic up in the air land, but at some point, the plane has to land.
终归，他们得降落加油，而那就是我们抓住他们的时候。
At some point, they have to touch down to refuel, and that's where we'll get them.
那就是我们让我们的规则适用于他们的时候。
That's where we'll make our rules apply to them.
但就连‘也许飞机永远不会落地’这种想法，对他们来说都是陌生的。
But even the concept that, well, maybe the plane will never land is foreign to them.
他们在这里所做的，本质上是向旧世界的基石喊话：嘿，这是一条上行通道，也是一种继续停留在空中的方式。
And what they've done here is basically said to the bedrock of the old world, hey, here's an on ramp, and here's a way to stay up in the air.
这可能会成为银行进入加密领域的开端，而不是某种毫无意义的CME合成产品——那种根本接触不到任何UTXO的虚拟资产，而是真正拥有公钥和私钥、承载真实资产的加密货币，让银行停留在空中，或许能让金融界的很大一部分永远不落地。
And what this could be is the beginning of banks getting into crypto and not some nonsensical CME product that's a synthetic that doesn't even touch a UTXO anywhere, but an honest to goodness public key and a private key with real assets on it, get the banks up in the air, and maybe keep large swaths of finance up in the air without ever touching back down.
我觉得这个比喻非常贴切。
Well, I think that's a great analogy.
它对去中心化金融（DeFi）必然产生的一项影响是，会加剧竞争。
And one of the things it's going to do for sure with DeFi is it's going to increase competition.
因为如果去中心化金融只是在复制现有体系，那就不够了，因为这种模式只在现有体系不接触这些事物时才有效。
Because if all the DeFi is doing is replicating the existing system, that's not going to be enough anymore because that only worked when the existing system wasn't touching these things.
如果这一点发生变化，就会迫使去中心化金融寻求差异化。
If that changes, it's going to push DeFi to differentiate.
我认为存在一些非常有趣的差异化路径。
And I think there are some very interesting avenues for differentiation.
其中最大的一个是：隐私、监管套利、无国界运营、抗审查——这一整套与隐私和抗审查相关的特性，将推动更深层次的去中心化。
And the biggest one is privacy, regulatory arbitrage, borderless operations, censorship resistance, that whole bundle of privacy related and censorship resistance related aspects, which pushes towards more decentralization.
是的
Yeah.
这就是现在的利基，因为只有DeFi能做到这一点。
That's the niche now because that's what only DeFi can do.
对。
Right.
它必须强调d，而不是phi。
It has to emphasize the d, not the phi.
认真的。
Seriously.
他们本来可以只靠做更多或更少的旧phi而不用太多d来蒙混过关。
And that's great because they could skate on just doing more or less the old phi without much of the d.
所以这会很好。
So that's gonna be good.
当然，正如乔纳森所说，这将给银行提供一种接触加密货币的方式。
And then, of course, you know, to Jonathan's expression that this is going to give banks a way to touch crypto.
我觉得我们还会看到另一件事，几年后我们会说：嘿，小加密货币。
I think one of the other things we're going to see is in a few years, we're going to be going, hey, little crypto.
你能在这个玩偶上给我们指指，银行是在哪儿碰了你吗？
Can you show us on this doll where the bank touched you?
我
I
我觉得这只是一个主流化的问题，就像我们之前讨论的那样。
think this is just a mainstreaming problem like we've been discussing.
但你知道，如果你把钱藏在床垫下，或者囤积实物黄金之类的，想要亲自掌控自己的财富，别人就会觉得你是个疯子。
But, you know, you are considered a crazy nutcase if you stash your money under your mattress or something or geocash gold or something like that where you want to have physical possession of your own wealth.
每个人都说：你为什么不直接存在银行里呢？
And everybody says, well, why don't you just keep it in a bank?
那样简单多了。
It's so much easier.
如果你说：银行也有风险。
And if you say, banks have risks too.
正如你之前指出的，安德烈亚斯，从法律上讲，如果你把钱存在银行，那钱在技术上并不属于你。
As you pointed out, Andreas, before, legally, it's like technically not your property if you put your money in a bank.
没人愿意去想这个问题，但你知道，尤其是在全球范围内，这确实是一个现实。
And nobody wants to think about that, but, you know, especially around the world, this is a reality.
你知道，银行可能会拒绝你提取自己的钱。
You know, you can be denied access to your own money by a bank.
美国人并不认为这是个大风险，但这种情况仍然可能发生，也确实存在风险。
And it's not something that Americans think of as a big risk, but it is still possible and it is still a risk.
我认为，人们对加密货币的看法也可能朝这个方向发展。
And I think that maybe the perception of crypto is gonna go in that direction too.
会有更多人说：‘那你为什么不把加密货币存在银行里呢？’
Like, even more people are going to say, oh, well, why don't you just keep your crypto in a bank?
除了那些非常边缘的极端人士，自己保管加密货币会变得过时，因为现在把它交给别人更方便。
Like, it's gonna go out of style except for the really fringe extreme people to self custody crypto because now it's more convenient.
为什么不让别人替你保管呢？
Like, why not just give it to someone else?
除非你真正具备这些原则，并且真正重视你的隐私和主权——也就是持有自己资金并完全掌控它的能力，仅由软件来管理，否则你不会理解自托管加密货币的价值。
And unless you really have the principles in place and you really value your privacy and also your sovereignty, I guess, your ability to hold your own money and have complete and utter control over it, only governed by software, you know, you're not gonna see the value in self custodying crypto.
所以，可能真正这么做的人会更少了。
So maybe it's gonna be even fewer people that do that.
作为一名早期采用者，这让我有点失望，但我想，这就是主流化过程中我们必须接受的现实。
And that's a little disappointing to me as an early adopter, but I guess that's just what we have to accept as far as the mainstreaming goes.
直到你遭遇系统性损失。
Until you have systemic losses.
直到有受监管的银行发生大规模盗窃事件。
Until you have the massive theft by licensed banks.
问题是，在发展中国家，把钱藏在床垫下还是存在银行里，根本不存在疑问。
The thing is, in the developing world, there's no question about whether it's safer to put it under your mattress or put it in the bank.
无论是法币还是加密货币，都是如此。
Not for fiat, not for crypto.
这正是关键所在。
That's the whole point.
因此，那些需要自托管的人之所以需要它，是因为他们非常清楚，如果把托管权交给他人，他们会面临怎样的风险。
And so the people who need self custody need it because they very much understand the risks that they would take if they give up custody to someone else.
我很高兴，发达国家的大多数人并不需要自托管，也不了解这种风险。
I'm glad that most people in the developed world don't need it or know about that risk.
但他们终将学会。
But they'll learn.
他们会学会的，因为不可避免地，一些银行最终会倒闭，导致人们失去加密货币。
They'll learn because inevitably, some of these banks are gonna go belly up, and they're gonna lose the crypto.
嗯，斯蒂芬妮，对此我的回应是，我认为我们正在迅速取得进展。
Well, you know, my response to that, Stephanie, would be, I think we're succeeding rapidly.
但当我们谈论整个物种层面的结构性变革时，它们在人类的时间尺度上发生得相对缓慢。
It's just when we talk about species wide structural changes, they happen in human time scales somewhat slowly.
但如果你仔细观察，就会发现这种变化既隐蔽又惊人。
But if you look at it, it's rather insidious and rather spectacular.
因此，我更愿意思考这个问题：我们是要彻底解决文盲问题，还是只是发明出一些新的文盲方式来与软件互动？
So I like to think of it as, are we gonna end the illiteracy problem or are we just gonna invent illiterate ways to engage with the software?
对吧？
Right?
如果我们还没解决识字问题，那我们怎么可能解决银行业中的财务责任问题呢？
And so if we haven't solved for literacy, how the hell are we gonna solve for financial responsibility in banking?
所以你是说这才是真正的问题？
So you're saying that's the real problem?
没错。
Right.
是的。
Yeah.
这是一个滞后性问题。
It's a laggard problem.
因此，你看待这个问题的方式是，人类只需要一个看似不变的界面，但后端可以结构上不同。
And so the way that you think about it is humans just need an interface that seems unchanging, but the back end can be structurally different.
所以作为物种，我们基本上经历了三个时代。
So as a species, we've basically had three ages.
我们经历了公元前、公元后，以及刚刚开始的第三个时代。
We had BC, AD, and a third age that just began.
第三个时代的奇怪之处在于，我们并不需要一个复活的犹太人来标记它。
The crazy thing about the third age is we didn't need, you know, a Jewish guy that came back to life in order to marcate it.
这是宦官的时代。
It was eunuch's time.
巧合的是，没有一个人会用Unix时间来思考或标记时间，但每一个时钟和每一个表示时间的系统，最终都源自Unix时间戳1或Unix时间戳0，也就是1970年。
It just so happens that not a single human thinks or denotes time in Unix time, but every single clock and every single thing that denotes time is ultimately sourced from Unix one or Unix zero, which is, you know, 1970.
因此，我们实际上正处在计时的第三个时代，但没有人意识到这一点，因为用户界面没有改变，而所有功能性的后端都体现为我们正处于一个全新的、第三个时代。
And so we're literally in the third age of timekeeping, and yet not a single human even thinks that way because the user interface was unchanging whereas all of the functional back end is represented by the fact that we're in an entirely new and third age.
我认为，谈到银行，我们只需要一只青蛙和一盆水。
And I think that when it comes to banks, we just need a frog and water them.
这样做能让他们接入区块链，而随着时间推移，普通人根本不会意识到他们的银行其实什么都没做。
Like, what this does is it's gonna allow them to get on chain and slowly over time, a normal human's not gonna realize their bank isn't doing anything.
这只是一个华丽的前端。
It's just a fancy front end.
但就像把Unix时间用在货币上一样，我们将进入这个第三个时代，越来越多的东西会逐步上链，而人们从前端来看，仍然以为我们处于公元纪年。
But, like, Unix time for money, we're just gonna enter this third age and slowly more and more and more is just gonna be on chain and people will just from the front end still think, you know, we're operating under AD.
这就是基础设施倒置的基本原则，即你已经不知道所有的电话呼叫实际上都是互联网数据包了。
That's the basic principle of the infrastructure inversion, which is that you don't know that all of your phone calls are actually Internet packets anymore.
你仍然觉得你在使用它们，因为界面看起来熟悉且一致。
You still think you're using them because the interface seems familiar and consistent.
如果你想笑一笑，有一个叫作‘舒适噪音生成’的概念，它被用于数字电话线路中，通过引入轻微的嘶嘶声，让习惯于有噪音线路的人不会以为自己已经挂断了电话。
And if you wanna laugh a bit, there's a concept called comfort noise generation, which is used on digital phone lines to introduce a subtle hissing sound so that people who are accustomed to noisy lines don't think they've already hung up.
‘舒适银行生成’也会发生同样的情况，模拟的用户界面会把你的比特币处理成三到五个工作日的到账时间，只是为了让你感到安心，不必担心这种超快、超安全的新体验。
That is going to happen with comfort banking generation, where the simulated user interface will take your Bitcoin and clear it into three to five business days just so that you can be comfortable and not worry about this ultra fast, ultra secure, new experience.
好吧，安德烈亚斯，我没想到你会像刚才那样直接对哈希时间锁合约来这么一击。
Well, Andreas, I didn't know you were gonna put the SmackDown on hash time lock contracts the way you just did.
好的。
Alright.
谢谢收听。
Thanks for listening.
本期节目嘉宾包括安德烈亚斯·安东诺普洛斯、乔纳森·莫汉、斯蒂芬妮·默菲和我自己，亚当·B。
Today's episode featured Andreas, Am Antonopoulos, Jonathan Mohan, Stephanie Murphy, and myself, Adam B.
莱文。
Levine.
节目音乐由贾里德·鲁宾斯和Gertie Beats提供，曲目为《Straight From The Street》，剪辑由乔纳斯完成。
Music for the show comes courtesy of Jared Rubins and Gertie Beats, Straight From The Street, with editing by Jonas.
如果你有任何问题、意见、投诉或建议，请发送邮件至 adam@ltbshow.com。
If you have any questions, comments, complaints, or tips, send me an email at adam@ltbshow.com.
我们下次再见。
We'll see you next time.
关于 Bayt 播客
Bayt 提供中文+原文双语音频和字幕，帮助你打破语言障碍，轻松听懂全球优质播客。