Whether it’s Bitcoin, gold, or real estate in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, or Shenzhen, what’s their essence? They’re all part of the process of wealth redistribution. If I bought something for $1 and you buy it for $1 million, then your ten years of labor has effectively transferred to me through this medium of wealth. You might say, “I won’t buy it.” That’s fine. You might also refuse to buy property in major cities or anything else. But here’s the question: what form will your assets take as a storage medium? Cash?

Over the past 20 years, if you held cash while others bought property, did your labor remain intact? In reality, quite the opposite. Once the wheels of fate start turning, whether you actively participate or not, you’ll inevitably be drawn in. The world’s resources are limited, and they’ll always be distributed to people through various carriers and rules.

For example, we work to create value for society, and this is how we participate in the distribution of resources. Those who create greater value claim bigger portions of the pie, while those who create little or no value—just lying at home—watch their wealth get carved away. Even if you don’t spend, the nominal amount of cash in your hands might stay the same, but its purchasing power diminishes.

What is money? It’s merely a calculation tool for the proportion of social resources. Suppose the total wealth is $10,000, and you hold $1, meaning you own 1/10,000 of society’s resources. Now, if the state decides it can’t extract your wealth directly, it might simply create more money (open a “new game”). If the total expands to $100,000 or $1,000,000, your $1 will naturally lose value—not because it’s taken from you, but because under the unchanged resource pool, your share shrinks to 1/100,000 or even less.

Thus, the absolute value of money doesn’t matter; what truly determines your access to resources is the proportion you control.

In the agricultural era, one person with one hoe could create their own social value, earning a proportional distribution of resources. In the industrial age, a single person with advanced tools could do the work of 1,000 people, thus claiming the share of 1,000. Is it unfair? Not at all—this is merely the result of improved efficiency.

Bitcoin’s wealth logic differs from traditional “value creation.” It’s based on financial logic, predictive logic, consensus logic, and risk logic. The key lies in this:

1. If there’s something everyone wants (even if it’s merely decorative), its value will rise.

2. Those who foresee this trend and take risks—such as betting on its potential demand—earn legitimate profits.

As more people desire Bitcoin, they channel their hard-earned wealth (like fiat currency) into this redistribution pool, draining other pools (like the stock market) in the process. Consequently, stock prices drop as funds flow out. Those who choose the wrong pool see their wealth redistributed to others. And those who choose to hold cash are also playing this game passively—because as the total pool expands, your share shrinks, meaning you lose.

Some people claim Bitcoin is a “zero-sum game” where participants only profit off each other’s losses. This is a misunderstanding. Bitcoin’s foundational value lies in being the world’s first decentralized, trustless, peer-to-peer value transmission system. Imagine if you were an early shareholder in the internet or SWIFT. How much would your shares have multiplied over decades? Perhaps enough to make you the richest person in the world.

Bitcoin acts as a benchmark. The proportion of Bitcoin you hold determines how much fiat wealth entering the system you can claim. While Bitcoin may not directly create tangible value, it carries immense worth due to its consensus, decentralization, and technological attributes.

You might choose not to buy Bitcoin, or anything else for that matter. But remember, cash is also an asset. Its essence is the proportion of social wealth it represents. Whether you hold cash or other assets, you’re participating in the distribution game.

In this game, some assets will gain broader consensus and attract more wealth, while others lose consensus, causing wealth to flow elsewhere. Like it or not, as long as you’re part of society, you’re forced to participate, and no one can escape it.

Conclusion: Bitcoin isn’t the end of wealth but a redefinition of its distribution rules. It represents a social experiment centered on consensus. In this game, everyone must find their place and play their role.

Whether it’s Bitcoin, gold, or real estate in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, or Shenzhen, what’s their essence? They’re all part of the process of wealth redistribution. If I bought something for $1 and you buy it for $1 million, then your ten years of labor has effectively transferred to me through this medium of wealth. You might say, “I won’t buy it.” That’s fine. You might also refuse to buy property in major cities or anything else. But here’s the question: what form will your assets take as a storage medium? Cash?

Over the past 20 years, if you held cash while others bought property, did your labor remain intact? In reality, quite the opposite. Once the wheels of fate start turning, whether you actively participate or not, you’ll inevitably be drawn in. The world’s resources are limited, and they’ll always be distributed to people through various carriers and rules.

For example, we work to create value for society, and this is how we participate in the distribution of resources. Those who create greater value claim bigger portions of the pie, while those who create little or no value—just lying at home—watch their wealth get carved away. Even if you don’t spend, the nominal amount of cash in your hands might stay the same, but its purchasing power diminishes.

What is money? It’s merely a calculation tool for the proportion of social resources. Suppose the total wealth is $10,000, and you hold $1, meaning you own 1/10,000 of society’s resources. Now, if the state decides it can’t extract your wealth directly, it might simply create more money (open a “new game”). If the total expands to $100,000 or $1,000,000, your $1 will naturally lose value—not because it’s taken from you, but because under the unchanged resource pool, your share shrinks to 1/100,000 or even less.

Thus, the absolute value of money doesn’t matter; what truly determines your access to resources is the proportion you control.

In the agricultural era, one person with one hoe could create their own social value, earning a proportional distribution of resources. In the industrial age, a single person with advanced tools could do the work of 1,000 people, thus claiming the share of 1,000. Is it unfair? Not at all—this is merely the result of improved efficiency.

Bitcoin’s wealth logic differs from traditional “value creation.” It’s based on financial logic, predictive logic, consensus logic, and risk logic. The key lies in this:

1. If there’s something everyone wants (even if it’s merely decorative), its value will rise.

2. Those who foresee this trend and take risks—such as betting on its potential demand—earn legitimate profits.

As more people desire Bitcoin, they channel their hard-earned wealth (like fiat currency) into this redistribution pool, draining other pools (like the stock market) in the process. Consequently, stock prices drop as funds flow out. Those who choose the wrong pool see their wealth redistributed to others. And those who choose to hold cash are also playing this game passively—because as the total pool expands, your share shrinks, meaning you lose.

Some people claim Bitcoin is a “zero-sum game” where participants only profit off each other’s losses. This is a misunderstanding. Bitcoin’s foundational value lies in being the world’s first decentralized, trustless, peer-to-peer value transmission system. Imagine if you were an early shareholder in the internet or SWIFT. How much would your shares have multiplied over decades? Perhaps enough to make you the richest person in the world.

Bitcoin acts as a benchmark. The proportion of Bitcoin you hold determines how much fiat wealth entering the system you can claim. While Bitcoin may not directly create tangible value, it carries immense worth due to its consensus, decentralization, and technological attributes.

You might choose not to buy Bitcoin, or anything else for that matter. But remember, cash is also an asset. Its essence is the proportion of social wealth it represents. Whether you hold cash or other assets, you’re participating in the distribution game.

In this game, some assets will gain broader consensus and attract more wealth, while others lose consensus, causing wealth to flow elsewhere. Like it or not, as long as you’re part of society, you’re forced to participate, and no one can escape it.

Conclusion: Bitcoin isn’t the end of wealth but a redefinition of its distribution rules. It represents a social experiment centered on consensus. In this game, everyone must find their place and play their role.