納斯卡車賽(Nascar)撞車事件,挑戰(zhàn)失敗視頻,加密貨幣市場(chǎng)崩盤。這三者有什么共同之處?有些人把自己的快樂建立在別人的痛苦之上。
但是這三者中只有加密貨幣市場(chǎng)崩盤引發(fā)了一連串落井下石的行為。每當(dāng)比特幣(Bitcoin)的價(jià)格下跌或加密貨幣項(xiàng)目崩盤時(shí),隨之而來的就是一波評(píng)論、報(bào)道和時(shí)事短評(píng)潮,他們?yōu)椤凹用茇泿判值堋痹俅蔚玫綉?yīng)得的報(bào)應(yīng)而欣喜若狂。
大眾的幸災(zāi)樂禍可能在短期內(nèi)讓人感覺良好,但從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來看卻對(duì)社會(huì)不利。對(duì)加密貨幣的條件反射式羞辱不僅淹沒了合理的批評(píng),還阻礙了我們認(rèn)識(shí)、擁抱和開發(fā)新技術(shù)。
媒體對(duì)加密貨幣的某些負(fù)面偏見應(yīng)該不會(huì)太令人驚訝。沒有人愿意閱讀有關(guān)飛機(jī)安全著陸的故事。然而,關(guān)于加密貨幣的負(fù)面評(píng)價(jià)已經(jīng)脫離了潛在主題內(nèi)在的是非曲直,而且這樣的評(píng)價(jià)遠(yuǎn)非客觀。
更奇怪的是,這種反加密貨幣偏見出現(xiàn)在整個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)陷入衰退和破壞的時(shí)候。主要股指已經(jīng)進(jìn)入熊市,通脹飆升至40年來的高點(diǎn),供應(yīng)鏈中斷繼續(xù)困擾消費(fèi)者。為了確保嬰兒配方奶粉供應(yīng)充足,能源負(fù)擔(dān)得起,我們正在面臨著一場(chǎng)持續(xù)的斗爭(zhēng)。慶祝加密貨幣市場(chǎng)的衰落真的是當(dāng)下應(yīng)有的經(jīng)濟(jì)故事嗎?
伊恩·博格斯特最近在《大西洋月刊》(The Atlantic)上發(fā)表的一篇文章就是一個(gè)很好的例子,他在文章中闡述了自己對(duì)某種加密貨幣崩盤的感受。博格斯特透露了他的意圖,并指出了他反感的根源:“我們到頭來對(duì)加密貨幣兄弟取得的成功感到惡心,[因?yàn)閉 [取得的成功]并不是他們應(yīng)得的,這讓我們感到惡心。”說得有道理,但這對(duì)實(shí)際技術(shù)的參數(shù)和潛力來說是完全無關(guān)緊要的。
或者正如《衛(wèi)報(bào)》(Guardian)的艾瑪·布羅克斯所說:“我對(duì)所有那些崩盤的NFT(非同質(zhì)化代幣)有著同樣的感受——純粹是幸災(zāi)樂禍,再加上對(duì)它一無所知的惱怒?!?/p>
這些評(píng)論和許多其他評(píng)論所共有的是一種普遍的幸災(zāi)樂禍和近乎驕傲的無知。我們的作者似乎提出但拒絕回答的問題是:“為什么其他人都能夠從加密貨幣的身上發(fā)現(xiàn)閃光點(diǎn),而我卻完全不懂?”
這就是為什么一些批評(píng)人士不遺余力地攻擊加密貨幣。不然為什么會(huì)有人對(duì)一些名人制作的加密貨幣主題超級(jí)碗(Super Bowl)廣告感到如此憤怒呢?為什么某些參議員會(huì)因?yàn)楦贿_(dá)投資集團(tuán)(Fidelity)決定為其客戶提供完全自愿的選擇,客戶可以將比特幣添加到他們的退休賬戶中而要求舉行國(guó)會(huì)聽證會(huì)呢?
這里的一大問題是,這種令人沮喪的騷動(dòng)已經(jīng)壓倒了任何關(guān)于各種加密貨幣協(xié)議應(yīng)用的實(shí)質(zhì)性公開辯論,無論這種公開辯論在本質(zhì)上是批評(píng)還是支持加密貨幣協(xié)議應(yīng)用。對(duì)每日價(jià)格波動(dòng)和“郁金香狂熱”的關(guān)注掩蓋了任何關(guān)于加密貨幣系統(tǒng)優(yōu)劣的辯論。
加密貨幣生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中有很多東西需要謹(jǐn)慎而仔細(xì)的關(guān)注。最近的市場(chǎng)動(dòng)蕩表明,過度杠桿化、抵押品不足的押注可能會(huì)釀成大錯(cuò),就像傳統(tǒng)金融體系在過去的金融危機(jī)中出現(xiàn)的情況一樣。
加密貨幣生態(tài)系統(tǒng)需要媒體用批判的眼光來幫助區(qū)分真正的創(chuàng)新和那些只是虛張聲勢(shì)、吸引投機(jī)活動(dòng)的項(xiàng)目。但如果“都是郁金香”(都是真正的創(chuàng)新),那是不可能的。
同樣重要的是,我們要看看在這次經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退中還有什么沒有崩盤。所有主要的去中心化金融(DeFi)協(xié)議都完全按照設(shè)計(jì)運(yùn)行。比特幣的價(jià)格可能會(huì)下跌,但網(wǎng)絡(luò)依然存在,這只是加密貨幣基本“管道”在投機(jī)泡沫中運(yùn)行良好的眾多例子之一。
為了尋求信息的公眾的利益,為了更深入地討論加密貨幣的效用,讓我們停止幸災(zāi)樂禍,用批判的眼光來審視這個(gè)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
米勒·懷特豪斯-萊文(Miller Whitehouse-Levine)是去中心化金融教育基金(DeFi Education Fund)的政策主管。
Fortune.com上的評(píng)論文章中表達(dá)的觀點(diǎn)僅代表作者個(gè)人觀點(diǎn),并不代表《財(cái)富》雜志的觀點(diǎn)和立場(chǎng)。
譯者:中慧言-王芳
納斯卡車賽(Nascar)撞車事件,挑戰(zhàn)失敗視頻,加密貨幣市場(chǎng)崩盤。這三者有什么共同之處?有些人把自己的快樂建立在別人的痛苦之上。
但是這三者中只有加密貨幣市場(chǎng)崩盤引發(fā)了一連串落井下石的行為。每當(dāng)比特幣(Bitcoin)的價(jià)格下跌或加密貨幣項(xiàng)目崩盤時(shí),隨之而來的就是一波評(píng)論、報(bào)道和時(shí)事短評(píng)潮,他們?yōu)椤凹用茇泿判值堋痹俅蔚玫綉?yīng)得的報(bào)應(yīng)而欣喜若狂。
大眾的幸災(zāi)樂禍可能在短期內(nèi)讓人感覺良好,但從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來看卻對(duì)社會(huì)不利。對(duì)加密貨幣的條件反射式羞辱不僅淹沒了合理的批評(píng),還阻礙了我們認(rèn)識(shí)、擁抱和開發(fā)新技術(shù)。
媒體對(duì)加密貨幣的某些負(fù)面偏見應(yīng)該不會(huì)太令人驚訝。沒有人愿意閱讀有關(guān)飛機(jī)安全著陸的故事。然而,關(guān)于加密貨幣的負(fù)面評(píng)價(jià)已經(jīng)脫離了潛在主題內(nèi)在的是非曲直,而且這樣的評(píng)價(jià)遠(yuǎn)非客觀。
更奇怪的是,這種反加密貨幣偏見出現(xiàn)在整個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)陷入衰退和破壞的時(shí)候。主要股指已經(jīng)進(jìn)入熊市,通脹飆升至40年來的高點(diǎn),供應(yīng)鏈中斷繼續(xù)困擾消費(fèi)者。為了確保嬰兒配方奶粉供應(yīng)充足,能源負(fù)擔(dān)得起,我們正在面臨著一場(chǎng)持續(xù)的斗爭(zhēng)。慶祝加密貨幣市場(chǎng)的衰落真的是當(dāng)下應(yīng)有的經(jīng)濟(jì)故事嗎?
伊恩·博格斯特最近在《大西洋月刊》(The Atlantic)上發(fā)表的一篇文章就是一個(gè)很好的例子,他在文章中闡述了自己對(duì)某種加密貨幣崩盤的感受。博格斯特透露了他的意圖,并指出了他反感的根源:“我們到頭來對(duì)加密貨幣兄弟取得的成功感到惡心,[因?yàn)閉 [取得的成功]并不是他們應(yīng)得的,這讓我們感到惡心?!闭f得有道理,但這對(duì)實(shí)際技術(shù)的參數(shù)和潛力來說是完全無關(guān)緊要的。
或者正如《衛(wèi)報(bào)》(Guardian)的艾瑪·布羅克斯所說:“我對(duì)所有那些崩盤的NFT(非同質(zhì)化代幣)有著同樣的感受——純粹是幸災(zāi)樂禍,再加上對(duì)它一無所知的惱怒?!?/p>
這些評(píng)論和許多其他評(píng)論所共有的是一種普遍的幸災(zāi)樂禍和近乎驕傲的無知。我們的作者似乎提出但拒絕回答的問題是:“為什么其他人都能夠從加密貨幣的身上發(fā)現(xiàn)閃光點(diǎn),而我卻完全不懂?”
這就是為什么一些批評(píng)人士不遺余力地攻擊加密貨幣。不然為什么會(huì)有人對(duì)一些名人制作的加密貨幣主題超級(jí)碗(Super Bowl)廣告感到如此憤怒呢?為什么某些參議員會(huì)因?yàn)楦贿_(dá)投資集團(tuán)(Fidelity)決定為其客戶提供完全自愿的選擇,客戶可以將比特幣添加到他們的退休賬戶中而要求舉行國(guó)會(huì)聽證會(huì)呢?
這里的一大問題是,這種令人沮喪的騷動(dòng)已經(jīng)壓倒了任何關(guān)于各種加密貨幣協(xié)議應(yīng)用的實(shí)質(zhì)性公開辯論,無論這種公開辯論在本質(zhì)上是批評(píng)還是支持加密貨幣協(xié)議應(yīng)用。對(duì)每日價(jià)格波動(dòng)和“郁金香狂熱”的關(guān)注掩蓋了任何關(guān)于加密貨幣系統(tǒng)優(yōu)劣的辯論。
加密貨幣生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中有很多東西需要謹(jǐn)慎而仔細(xì)的關(guān)注。最近的市場(chǎng)動(dòng)蕩表明,過度杠桿化、抵押品不足的押注可能會(huì)釀成大錯(cuò),就像傳統(tǒng)金融體系在過去的金融危機(jī)中出現(xiàn)的情況一樣。
加密貨幣生態(tài)系統(tǒng)需要媒體用批判的眼光來幫助區(qū)分真正的創(chuàng)新和那些只是虛張聲勢(shì)、吸引投機(jī)活動(dòng)的項(xiàng)目。但如果“都是郁金香”(都是真正的創(chuàng)新),那是不可能的。
同樣重要的是,我們要看看在這次經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退中還有什么沒有崩盤。所有主要的去中心化金融(DeFi)協(xié)議都完全按照設(shè)計(jì)運(yùn)行。比特幣的價(jià)格可能會(huì)下跌,但網(wǎng)絡(luò)依然存在,這只是加密貨幣基本“管道”在投機(jī)泡沫中運(yùn)行良好的眾多例子之一。
為了尋求信息的公眾的利益,為了更深入地討論加密貨幣的效用,讓我們停止幸災(zāi)樂禍,用批判的眼光來審視這個(gè)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
米勒·懷特豪斯-萊文(Miller Whitehouse-Levine)是去中心化金融教育基金(DeFi Education Fund)的政策主管。
Fortune.com上的評(píng)論文章中表達(dá)的觀點(diǎn)僅代表作者個(gè)人觀點(diǎn),并不代表《財(cái)富》雜志的觀點(diǎn)和立場(chǎng)。
譯者:中慧言-王芳
Nascar crashes, fail videos, and cryptocurrency market crashes. What do all three have in common? The pleasure some take in watching other people experience pain.
But only one of these three supports a cottage industry of gravedancing, and that’s crypto. Whenever the price of Bitcoin drops, or a crypto project implodes, the aftermath is a tidal wave of commentary, reporting, and opinion think pieces rejoicing that, once again, the “crypto bros” got what they deserved.
Mass schadenfreude may feel good in the short term, but it’s bad for society in the long term. Reflexive dunking on cryptocurrencies not only drowns out legitimate criticism but also holds us back from recognizing, embracing, and developing new technologies.
Some sort of media negativity bias regarding crypto shouldn’t be too surprising. No one wants to read a story about a plane that landed safely. However, the negativity around crypto has become detached from the merits of the underlying subject matter and doesn’t come close to an objective evaluation.
What’s even stranger is that this anti-crypto bias comes at a time of economy-wide decline and disruption. The major stock indices have entered bear market territory, inflation has surged to a 40-year high, and supply chain disruptions continue to plague the consumer. We are facing an ongoing struggle to keep infant formula on the shelves and energy affordable. Is celebrating the decline of crypto markets really the economic story of this moment?
Ian Bogost’s recent article in?The Atlantic, in which he opines on his feelings about the crash of a particular cryptocurrency, is a perfect example. Bogost reveals his intentions as he notes the source of his aversion: “We end up feeling nauseated at the crypto bro’s success [because] [i]t’s so unearned, it makes us sick.” Fair enough–but completely immaterial to the parameters and potential of the actual technology.
Or as The Guardian’s Emma Brokes said, “I feel the same way about all those collapsing NFTs–pure schadenfreude, plus irritation at not understanding any of it.”
What these and many other write-ups share is a pervasive schadenfreude and almost proud ignorance. The question our writers seem to be asking but refusing to answer is: “Why does everyone else see something in crypto, when I don’t get it at all?”
This is why some critics are going out of their way to target crypto. Why else would anyone get so riled up about a few celebrities making crypto-themed Super Bowl ads? Why else would certain Senators essentially call for Congressional hearings because Fidelity decided to offer its clients the completely voluntary option of adding Bitcoin exposure to their retirement accounts?
The big problem here is that this frustrated seething has overwhelmed any substantive public debate on the applications of various crypto protocols, whether critical or supportive in nature. Fixation on daily price fluctuations and perceived “tulipmania” has obscured any debate on the merits and tradeoffs of cryptosystems.
There’s plenty in the crypto ecosystem that demands scrupulous, careful attention. The recent market turmoil has shown that overleveraged, under-collateralized bets can go horribly wrong, just as they have in past financial crises in the traditional financial system.
The ecosystem needs the media’s critical eye to help distinguish between real innovations and projects that simply blow smoke and entice speculative activity. But if “it’s all tulips,” that isn’t possible.
It’s just as important to look at what hasn’t broken in this downturn. All of the major DeFi protocols are chugging along exactly as designed. Bitcoin may be down, but the network persists and is just one among many examples of crypto’s basic “plumbing” working quite well amid the speculative froth.
To the benefit of the information-seeking public, for a more robust conversation on the utility of crypto, let’s quit the schadenfreude and critically examine this ecosystem.
Miller Whitehouse-Levine is the policy director at the DeFi Education Fund.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.