Late at night, I read Yang Haipo's recent very popular long article. The article is written very seriously. After reading, I want to share my thoughts.

1. Three points of agreement
1. The high-position accumulated ETF chips will be the main selling pressure in a bear market.
This batch of ETF funds are not believers, but asset allocation holdings. When they suffer a certain level of loss, they will inevitably cut losses. The reflexivity of ETF redemptions will be significantly amplified during phases of thinning liquidity.
2. Exchanges are the biggest bleeding points in the BTC ecosystem.
The personal wealth accumulated by exchange owners is mostly not recycled. Luxury goods, mansions, private jets, family offices—these funds have truly and permanently left. This is the main structural bloodletting in this industry.
3. Continuous selling pressure from miners’ mining output and new market funds are key variables in BTC bull and bear cycles.
The ongoing selling pressure from miners’ output and the influx of new market funds affect the marginal chips on both supply and demand sides, determining Bitcoin’s total market value. This is also the consistent view we hold.

2. Several points of disagreement
1. The article’s final conclusion is invalid.
To conclude that Bitcoin is about to fail completely, more multi-dimensional evidence is needed.
2. The analogy with gold is reversed.
He says gold has industrial demand, sovereign currency functions, and zero maintenance costs, so BTC cannot be compared. But the monetary premium of gold does not come from industrial consumption; the global gold bar storage demand far exceeds jewelry manufacturing. After 1971, gold also lost its sovereign currency anchor, yet its valuation not only didn’t collapse but increased by 60 times. The premise of this analogy is wrong.
3. Zero cash flow = negative sum is a misunderstanding of the essence of money.
According to this logic, all non-dividend-paying store-of-value assets—gold, collectibles, non-rent parts of land—are negative-sum systems. The core of monetary commodity theory is that a store-of-value tool doesn’t need to generate cash flow; it only needs the market to continuously accept it as a store of value. Acceptance may fluctuate, but lack of cash flow does not equal lack of value.
4. Confusing consumption and transfer.
Exchange fees, miner electricity costs, team wages are outflows for payers and income for recipients. Wages paid to employees can flow back through employees buying coins and encouraging friends and family to buy coins; Bitmain’s speculative trading (BCH) lost billions, and most of the previous VC investments were wiped out—these are nominal consumptions, but essentially internal redistribution within the ecosystem. The truly permanently leaving the ecosystem are mainly the profits taken by exchange owners. The historical losses are far from one trillion.
5. Margin/market value = 8x leverage is a conceptual misuse.
In any asset market, market value is far greater than circulating cash. The total market cap of US stocks exceeds 20 times the dollar cash, but no one says US stocks are 20x leveraged. Asset prices are determined by marginal funds; assets with stronger consensus naturally have higher ratios.
6. The idea that the buyer list is exhausted is an old bear market argument.
Same as the “eternal bull market” or “this time is different” at the top of a bull market.
7. 51% attack.
It’s better to discuss the possibility of a US-China war; logically, it’s not zero probability, but as an analytical argument, it’s unreasonable.

The problem with this article is that its scope is too grand. It’s better to extract some arguments individually, which might trigger more in-depth thinking.