In fact, if we set aside emotions and objectively analyze these two viewpoints purely from the perspective of the market and capital flow. First, regarding "Bitcoin becoming a dollar asset, losing its independence." What this big shot said is true; Bitcoin has indeed changed. It has transformed from an alternative asset that "fights against" the dollar into a "dollar asset" that is highly correlated with the U.S. stock market. However, from an objective standpoint, this change in attribute actually supports the price more than it suppresses it. In the past, Bitcoin relied on retail investors' faith, and could drop 80% with the slightest disturbance. Now, the interests tied to it include ETFs, publicly traded companies (like MicroStrategy), and even national strategies. This "institutionalization" may have made it lose some of its allure in the eyes of geeks, but it has solidly raised its price floor. To drop back to $20,000 means that giants like BlackRock would have to take losses, MicroStrategy would face liquidation, and even the tech sector of the U.S. stock market would have to crash. In a world still dominated by the dollar, becoming a "core dollar asset" actually adds a layer of safety net against price drops for Bitcoin. Second, regarding "computing power shifting to AI leading to a drop in coin prices." There is a technical detail here: Bitcoin is currently mined primarily using specialized mining machines (ASICs), which can only mine and cannot be repurposed for AI computing power. The only things that can be transformed are the facilities and power supply. Therefore, the decline in computing power is more about the survival of the fittest within the industry—inefficient miners are shutting down. Historically, a decrease in computing power often indicates that the market is "popping bubbles," reducing future selling pressure rather than being a trigger for a crash. As long as the Bitcoin network can still produce blocks normally, fluctuations in computing power are simply market adjustment behaviors, making it difficult to directly pull the price down to $20,000. Objective analysis: Although the vision has become blurred, the moat (capital volume and compliance) has actually deepened.