Is Bitcoin an accomplice in the dollar's harvest of the world?

1. Some say that after the Bitcoin ETF is approved, it will officially be incorporated by the Federal Reserve, and Bitcoin will become an accomplice in the dollar's global dominance.

The idea that "Bitcoin is being incorporated by the Federal Reserve" sounds quite conspiratorial. It seems that the Federal Reserve or the U.S. government's series of actions regarding Bitcoin are all premeditated.

I generally take a cautious stance on such viewpoints.

I prefer to view this series of actions as a consistent policy of the U.S. government during the development of new phenomena: let the bullets fly first, observe as we go, but once it falls within my jurisdiction and range, I will definitely impose my rules to constrain and regulate you.

In this process, the actions of many other interest groups are similar.

A typical example is traditional capital from Wall Street.

They initially looked down on Bitcoin, but later quickly turned around, embraced Bitcoin, and desperately lobbied regulatory bodies and relevant legislators. This was not a premeditated scheme; rather, they quickly sensed the "blood scent" in the process and, in order to maximize their benefits and dominate this emerging asset, immediately changed their attitude and actively promoted subsequent actions.

We can see that in this process, the power of the U.S. government is not unilaterally dominant, but rather a result of the intertwining, entanglement, and compromise of various interests.

The final result achieved through this compromise and balance objectively made the dollar and the U.S. the dominant force in crypto assets.

As for the viewpoint that "Bitcoin is an accomplice in the dollar's global dominance," and that "there are forces manipulating Bitcoin's price behind the scenes, letting the whole world take the fall," I do not agree with this perspective.

Because this statement seems to elevate those large capitals and institutions to a pedestal, suggesting they are omnipotent and can influence the entire world.

Readers who have followed my articles know my consistent stance: in my view, most large capitals and institutions are merely wealthy retail investors.

During the 2008 financial crisis, were the big winners Goldman Sachs, Morgan, and Citigroup? No, it was the relatively unknown Paulson.

Let alone large capital, even the U.S. government has made numerous blunders and exposed failures throughout history.

What triggered the collapse of the Bretton Woods system? It was de Gaulle who saw that the U.S. government could not redeem gold and forced it to comply.

Returning to the crypto market, one might recall the so-called operations of large capital during the last bull-to-bear transition—many were worse off than retail investors.

In these examples, why did those large institutions encounter problems? Why did the U.S. government expose its flaws? Why was the performance of those large capitals so poor?

It is not because their opponents are extraordinary, but because their opponents dare to look beyond the superficial glamour and examine things with the simplest, most straightforward rules.

Thus, in the financial market, who harvests whom and who can laugh last often depends on the most basic principles and the simplest truths, rather than superficial appearances.

In the face of market rules, no one, no institution, holds all the power.

By adhering to the most fundamental principles, formulating our strategies, controlling our human nature, and strictly following our operations, whether the U.S. can harvest others is uncertain, but it certainly cannot harvest us.

2. Regarding the Re-staking Track

Readers often ask about the re-staking track.

In fact, there are only a few popular projects in this track: EtherFi, Swell, Renzo, Kelp, Puffer, and the most core one, EigenLayer.

Among these projects, the only one that has issued tokens so far is EtherFi, and the response to the token issuance has been quite positive. Consequently, more and more funds are continuously flowing into other projects that have not yet issued tokens.

I remember writing an article a few months ago, specifically analyzing EigenLayer from a technical perspective, as well as the potential risks it may face.

These risks still exist today, and recently I came across a concerning piece of data:

Currently, the utilization rate of Ethereum staked in EigenLayer is only about 10%, which means only 10% of Ethereum is being utilized to provide "security."

From the perspective of returns, we can say that only 10% of the Ethereum in EigenLayer is generating staking rewards, while the other 90% is idle.

Clearly, this situation cannot sustainably provide returns for the entire EigenLayer ecosystem in the long term. Yet, even so, there continues to be a steady influx of funds.

Why?

Because everyone is coming for the token issuance.

So my advice for this track is simple: only stake funds that you can afford to lose, and choose one or a few well-known major projects to participate in. There is no need to delve too deeply into the others.