在匿名性常常佔據主導地位的加密世界中，有一個名字既是一個謎，又是一股革命力量－中本聰(Satoshi Nakamoto)。 難以捉摸的比特幣創造者中本聰於 2008 年透過發布比特幣白皮書引入了去中心化數位貨幣的概念，引發了一場金融革命，這場革命將顛覆傳統銀行系統並挑戰貨幣控制的基礎。
然而，儘管中本聰有著巧妙的設計和遠見，比特幣結構中的一個潛在缺陷卻在不知不覺中為他的致命錯誤鋪平了道路——易受監管接管。
中本聰和比特幣遺產
比特幣的誕生是在2007年至2009年席捲全球的經濟大衰退的痛苦中。比特幣被稱為點對點電子現金系統，旨在將人們從中心化金融機構的束縛中解放出來。
中本聰的理念是透過消除中介機構並建立透明、抗審查的金融生態系統，為消費者提供金融自由。
英國文學當然有利於創意階層，並且認為金融投資者和技術專家不需要語法熟練程度的假設是錯誤的。 例如，a(B)和a(b)造成了BTC生態系的混亂。 以下是中本聰 (Satoshi Nakamoto) 語法錯誤的情況。
據市場分析師稱，中本聰只犯了一個錯誤，有些人認為這是支持垃圾郵件的比特幣愛好者們感到困惑的根源。
比特幣中的垃圾交易是指用低價值或不必要的交易淹沒網路的交易，導致擁塞和潛在的中斷。 這種做法通常是惡意或無意中進行的，目的是測試網路容量或破壞正常運作。
中本聰使用同一個名字「比特幣」來描述兩個不同的概念：資產和網路。 這裡有一個理解：它們是相互依賴的，但具有完全不同的屬性。
網絡，而不是資產，是 去中心化的、無需許可的、抗審查的。
資產，而不是網絡， 是可分割的、可移植的、稀缺的和持久的 。
至關重要的是，為了從資產的屬性中受益，需要訪問網絡，反之亦然。
現在很明顯，為了從資產的功能中受益，需要訪問網絡，反之亦然。 分析師認為，那些聲稱「比特幣是敵人的」來為垃圾郵件辯護的人未能理解資產與網路之間的關鍵對比。
原則很簡單 ：比特幣=網絡，比特幣=資產。
What are the reasons regulators have to come after BTC?
While Satoshi Nakamoto had good intentions, that definition and distinction left regulators a loophole to come after the digital asset. Government arms such as the United States CFTC and the SEC worry about bitcoin’s stability, and without the network and asset understanding, they have come for the Bitcoin network.
This has been done indirectly by censoring crypto exchanges such as Binance, Kraken, FTX, Huobi, and Coinbase. Bitcoin’s decentralized nature and lack of backing by any government raise concerns about its stability and potential impact on traditional financial systems.
Regulators worry about the potential for financial instability and contagion, especially if cryptocurrencies are not properly regulated. Stronger financial regulation and global standards are seen as measures to address these concerns.
Gary Gensler’s take on crypto regulation
The head of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Gary Gensler, has consistently stated that all digital tokens, with the exception of Bitcoin, are subject to SEC jurisdiction.
Bitcoin, he claims, is a commodity. In an interview with New York Magazine in February, Gensler stated, “at the core, these tokens are securities because there’s a group in the middle, and the public is anticipating profits based on that group.”
Gensler is alluding to the Howey Test, which is based on a 1946 Supreme Court decision in the SEC v. W.J. Howey Company case. Howey sold citrus groves to Florida customers, who leased them back to the corporation, which subsequently cultivated the plants and sold the oranges on their behalf, splitting the profits.
Howey later declined to register with the SEC, claiming that its transactions were not investment contracts. Howey lost the case when the court determined that the leaseback arrangements were indeed investment contracts, hence establishing the Howey test.
The crypto market is at a standstill awaiting the approval of the BTC ETFs, as many analysts had called for a January 10th deadline. In the wait, Gary Gensler has something to say:
The SEC commissioner emphasized that crypto investors “should understand they may be deprived of key info” and “other important protections” as a result of their investment. The SEC chairman emphasized:
Investments in crypto assets also can be exceptionally risky & are often volatile. A number of major platforms & crypto assets have become insolvent and/or lost value. Investments in crypto assets continue to be subject to significant risk.
Gary Gensler
In the near future, if BTC ETFs are approved, crypto investors will be able to draw a line between regulators and Satoshi Nakamoto’s financial freedom plan. Who really has their best interests at heart: Financial protection through Gary Gensler or financial freedom through the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto?
