레이 달리오, 비트코인 80% 손실 위험성 분석

새로운 디지털 통화 대체, 사이버 위협 및 정부 통제 등 이유

헤지펀드 업계 거물 레이 달리오(Ray Dalio)가 자체 분석에서 비트코인(Bitcoin) 투자시 원금 80% 손실을 지적했다.

브릿지워터 어소시에이츠(Bridgewater Associates) 공동 회장 겸 CIO 레이 달리오가 29일(현시시간) 링크드인(linkedin)을 통해 공개한 디지털 자산 관련 회사 내부 분석 결과에서다.

분석에 따르면 디지털 통화의 필요성은 있으나 기술적 진화에 따라 10여년 된 비트코인은 대체 가능한 기술이다. 또한 ‘콜드 스토리지’ 저장성을 감안해도 사이버 위협에 취약하며 정부의 프라이버시 무력화와 사용금지 조치 등을 잠재 위험으로 지적했다.

레이 달리오는 글을 통해 “비트코인은 공급이 제한되어 있지만, 디지털 통화는 공급이 제한되지 않는다. 새로운 통화가 등장하고 계속해서 경쟁…사실 더 나은 것들이 나와서 이것을 대체할 것이라고 생각한다. 왜냐하면 그것이 모든 것의 진화가 작동하는 방식이기 때문”이라고 밝혔다.

I am writing this to clarify what I think of Bitcoin. https://t.co/l1NHOlRgoM

— Ray Dalio (@RayDalio) January 29, 2021

레이 달리오는 또한 사이버 공격이 사이버 방어보다 훨씬 더 강력한 시기에 디지털 / 사이버 자산을 보유한 사람에게 사이버 위협은 무시할 수 없는 리스크라고 지적했다. 그는 “국방부가 해킹으로부터 시스템을 보호할 수 없는 상황에서 디지털 자산을 해킹할 수 없다는 것을 완전히 편안하게 생각하는 것은 순진할 것이다. 이는 금과 같은 자산의 장점 중 하나이며 모든 금융 자산의 위험 중 하나다. 언젠가는 대부분 숫자로 구성된 금융 시스템이 현재 인식되는 것보다 중단 또는 사이버 위협에 더 취약한 것으로 나타날 가능성이 높다고 생각한다”고 설명했다.

이어 레이 달리오는 “비트코인이 ‘콜드 스토리지’를 통해 오프라인으로 보관될 수 있다는 것을 알고 있지만, 그렇게하기가 어렵고 실제로 그렇게 하는 사람은 거의 없다는 것을 알고 있다. 그래서 대체로 비트코인이 디지털이고 연결되어 있기 때문에 사이버 위험으로부터 보호받지 못한다고 이해한다”고 덧붙였다.

마지막으로 레이 달리오는 “프라이버시와 관련하여 비트코인은 일부 사람들이 추측하는 것만큼 프라이빗하지 않을 것으로 보인다. 결국 그것은 공공 장부이며 물량은 비공개 방식으로 보유된다. 정부(그리고 아마도 해커)가 누가 무엇을 가지고 있는지 보고 싶다면 프라이버시가 보호될 수 있을 것 같지 않다. 또한 정부가 그 사용을 없애고자 한다면 사용하는 대부분의 사람들이 사용하지 못해 수요가 급감할 것 같다. 정부가 프라이버시를 침해 또는 비트코인(및 경쟁사)의 사용을 막는다는 것은 당황스럽기보다는 (비트코인이)성공할수록 이러한 가능성이 더 커질 것으로 보인다”고 말했다.

무엇보다 비트코인의 가장 큰 리스크는 성공이며, 이는 정부 통제를 현실화 할 것이라는 지적이다.

레이 달리오가 우려한대로 비트코인이 두번째 고점은 찍은 이후 정부 통제도 현실화했다. 30일(현지시각) 인도 정부는 비트코인과 같은 사설 가상화폐를 금지하고 국가 디지털 통화를 만드는 법안을 국가의 하원에 도입할 계획을 밝혔다. 이보다 앞서 국가 디지털 통화(CBDC)를 개발한 중국도 사설 가상화폐를 금지하는 입장이다.

한편, 레이 달리오는 글 서두에 맥락을 무시한 부분적 발언을 확대하는 내용 왜곡을 우려했다. 실제로 비트코인 투자 위험성을 분석한 이번 글도 많은 가상화폐 마케팅 사이트에서 투자 의견으로 왜곡 재생산됐다.

이하 링크드인 원문.

“Bitcoin looks like a long-duration option on a highly unknown future that I could put an amount of money in that I wouldn’t mind losing about 80% of.” -Ray Dalio-

What I Really Think of Bitcoin

Ray Dalio

I am writing this to clarify what I think of Bitcoin. Please pay attention to what I am saying here and not what those in the media are saying I said because this is reliable. I am finding that those who want to promote Bitcoin (which is most people) are characterizing it one way while those who are against it (which are a few scared souls cowering in a corner) are characterizing it another way. As with most things I comment on, the reality has pros and cons and I am trying to be as accurate as possible to communicate what I understand these to be.

To reiterate, as I am not a Bitcoin/cryptocurrency expert, I believe my views are not valuable enough to be relied on so I shouldn’t put them out. I know how much one needs to know in order to have a valuable opinion in the markets, so I wouldn’t bet on my own views. Still, people demand my non-expert assessment of Bitcoin and clarifications in my own words are better than distortions in the media so here it goes, presented with the warning not to rely on it. The only thing I ask of you is that you read what I wrote here rather than pay attention to the sound bites in the media.

I believe Bitcoin is one hell of an invention. To have invented a new type of money via a system that is programmed into a computer and that has worked for around 10 years and is rapidly gaining popularity as both a type of money and a storehold of wealth is an amazing accomplishment. That, like creating the existing credit-based monetary system, is of course a type of alchemy—i.e., making money out of little or nothing. It, like the making of credit that made bankers rich starting with the Medicis around 1350, is making its inventors and those who got in on it early very rich and has the potential to make many more people very rich and to disrupt the existing monetary system. Those who have built it and supported the dream of making this new kind of money a reality have done a fabulous job of sustaining that dream and moving Bitcoin (by which I mean it and its analogous competitors) into being an alternative gold-like asset.

There aren’t many alternative gold-like assets at this time of rising need for them (because of all the debt and money creations that are underway and will happen in the future). Because of what is going on in the world, besides there being a growing need for money or storehold of wealth assets that are limited in supply, there is also a growing need for assets that can be privately held. Because there aren’t many of these gold-like storehold of wealth assets that can be held in privacy and because the sizes of their markets are relatively small, there exists the possibility that Bitcoin and its competitors can fill that growing need. It seems to me that Bitcoin has succeeded in crossing the line from being a highly speculative idea that could well not be around in short order to probably being around and probably having some value in the future. The big questions to me are what can it realistically be used for and what amount of demand will it have. Since the supply is known, one has to estimate the demand to estimate its price.

I should clarify what I said about its supply. Although Bitcoin is limited in supply, digital currencies are not limited in supply because new ones have come along and will continue to come along to compete so the supply of Bitcoin-like assets should, and competition will, play a role in determining Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency prices. In fact I assume that better ones will come along and displace this one because that is the way the evolution of everything works—i.e., new ways of doing things and new things always have and always will replace old ways of doing things and old things. Since the way Bitcoin works is fixed, it won’t be able to evolve and I presume that a better alternative will be invented and pass it by. I see that as a risk. For those reasons the “limited supply” argument isn’t as true as it might appear—e.g., if Blackberries were in limited supply they still wouldn’t be worth much because they were replaced by competitors that were more advanced. I still don’t know the answer to why that isn’t a risk, but I would welcome my naïveté being corrected.

At the same time I greatly admire how Bitcoin has stood the test of 10 years of time, not only in this regard but also in how its technology has been working so well and has not been hacked. Still, to one holding digital/cyber assets at a time when cyber offense is much more powerful than cyber defense, the cyber risk is a risk that I can’t ignore. When the Department of Defense can’t protect its systems from being hacked it would be naïve to be totally comfortable that digital assets can’t be hacked, which is one of the advantages of gold-like assets and is one of the risks of all financial assets. In fact I think that there is a good chance that someday we will see the financial system, which consists mostly of digits, be shown to be more vulnerable to disruption and/or to cyber blackmail than is now recognized. By the way, these things are now happening at a growing rate and can threaten the value of traditional financial assets. I am pointing out to you this warning to take or leave as you like. While I recognize that Bitcoin can be held offline via “cold storage,” I understand it is difficult to do and that very few people actually do it. So, by and large, my understanding is that, by Bitcoin being digital and connected, it is not protected against cyber risks to my satisfaction. I look forward to being corrected.

As an extension of Bitcoin[1] being digital are the questions of how private it is and what the government will allow and not allow it to be. Regarding privacy, it appears that Bitcoin will unlikely be as private as some people surmise. It is, after all, a public ledger and a material amount of Bitcoin is held in a non-private manner. If the government (and perhaps hackers) want to see who has what, I doubt that privacy could be protected. Also, it appears to me that if the government wanted to get rid of its use, most of those who are using it wouldn’t be able to use it so the demand for it would plunge. Rather than it being far-fetched that the government would invade the privacy and/or prevent the use of Bitcoin (and its competitors) it seems to me that the more successful it is the more likely these possibilities would be. Starting with the formation of the first central bank (the Bank of England in 1694), for good logical reasons governments wanted control over money and they protected their abilities to have the only monies and credit within their borders. When I a) put myself in the shoes of government officials, b) see their actions, and c) hear what they say, it is hard for me to imagine that they would allow Bitcoin (or gold) to be an obviously better choice than the money and credit that they are producing. I suspect that Bitcoin’s biggest risk is being successful, because if it’s successful, the government will try to kill it and they have a lot of power to succeed.