On Value, Velocity and Monetary Theory
A New Approach to Cryptoasset Valuations
论价值，流通速度和货币理论 -- 加密资产估值的新思路
1-ZlscpoNsJ3I3ULb_H3XFxw.png
Valuation methodologies have historically lagged behind the development of the assets they represent. While the Dutch East India Company became the first entity to sell stocks on a public exchange in the early 1600s, it was not until the 1930s that a comprehensive framework for deriving the fundamental value of equity securities was developed. What Graham and Dodd benefited from in 1934 that their predecessors perhaps lacked was a broadly-accepted philosophy of disclosure (eventually codified in the Securities Act of 1933) and, more importantly, a reliable accounting system with unified measurement standards and practices— a common language for discussing value. Without rules of disclosure and requisite accounting conventions, current attempts at studying cryptoasset fundamentals will descend into the Confusion of Confusions that described seventeenth century stock market investment advice.
估值方法在历史上一直落后于它们所代表的资产的发展。虽然在17世纪初，荷兰东印度公司是第一个在公共交易所出售股票的实体，但直到20世纪30年代，才形成了一个全面的框架，以推断股票证券的基本价值。格雷厄姆和多德在1934年获得的好处是，他们的前辈可能缺乏一种广泛接受的信息披露理念(最终在1933年的《证券法案》中被编纂成册)，更重要的是，一个具有统一衡量标准和实践的可靠会计体系——一种讨论价值的共同语言。没有披露规则和必要的会计惯例, 当前对于加密货币资产基本面的研究尝试，将陷入乱中之乱 所描述的17世纪股票市场投资的情况。
In this piece, I propose an extension to the prevailing methodology for valuing cryptoassets — one that I hope will alleviate confusion by clarifying the vocabulary used in discussions of value. In the first part of the post, I survey current debates on cryptoasset fundamentals and investigate their core monetary assumptions. I find current valuation models to insufficiently capture the complexities of these conversations, motivating a new approach, which I outline in the second part of this post. The proposed method intends to disjoin demand for commodities and demand for money by placing each asset in a broader economy of return expectations and friction constraints. It is important to note, before continuing, that valuation theorists generally caution against valuation of non-cash-flow-generating assets. As such, the methodologies outlined below remain largely exploratory and imprecise. Nonetheless, I believe these discussions to be valuable in developing directional insights on cryptoasset value, which can be a key lever for projects in optimizing their incentive structures (I write in more detail about this process of ‘mechanism design’ here).
在这篇文章中，我提出了一种适用于评估加密资产的流行方法的扩展——我希望通过澄清关于价值讨论中使用的术语来减少困惑。在文章的第一部分，我调查了当前关于加密资产基础的争论，并调查了他们的核心货币假设。我发现目前的估值模型不足以充分反映这些对话的复杂性，这启发了一种新的方法，我在本文的第二部分中概述了这一方法。该方法旨在通过将每一项资产置于更广泛的回报预期和摩擦约束条件下，来消除对大宗商品的需求和对货币的需求。在继续之前,重要的是要注意,估值理论家通常警告non-cash-flow-generating资产的估值。因此，下面概述的方法在很大程度上仍然是探索性的和不精确的。尽管如此,我相信这些讨论对于发展出对于加密资产价值的洞见是有价值的，它可以是项目的一个核心利器，用以优化他们的激励结构(对于"机制设计"的过程，我在这篇文章)有更多的细节。
A Review of Prevailing Cryptoasset Valuation Frameworks
对现行的加密资产估值框架的评估
The prevailing approach to cryptoasset valuations is undoubtedly that most clearly articulated by Chris Burniske, which can be found in his book, as well as this bandwidth token model (for brevity, I refer to this as the “INET model” from here on out). Brett Winton’s social media token model is largely similar in its approach. The type of asset being modeled in the above takes on different names depending on who you ask — appcoin, medium-of-exchange token, cryptocommodity, proprietary-payment token, utility token. Though each of these terms captures some subtlety, you may consider them interchangeable for our purposes below. The overarching idea is that such an asset serves as the exclusive form of payment that the network will accept in exchange for an underlying scarce resource that it provides (bandwidth, storage, computation, and so forth).
cryptoasset估值的方法无疑是最清晰的克里斯•Burniske可以发现在他的(书)(https://www.amazon.com/Cryptoassets-Innovative-Investors-Bitcoin-Beyond/dp/1260026671),以及这个令牌(带宽模型)(https://medium.com/@cburniske / cryptoasset-valuations-ac83479ffca7)(为简便起见,我称之为“INET模式”从现在开始)。(布雷特温顿)(https://twitter.com/wintonark?lang=en)的(社交媒体令牌模型)(https://medium.com/@wintonARK / how-to-value-a-crypto-asset-a-model-e0548e9b6e4e)方法在很大程度上是相似的。在上面建模的资产类型根据您所请求的对象(appcoin、中交换令牌、加密商品、所有者支付令牌、实用令牌)而不同。虽然这些术语都有一些微妙之处，但您可能会认为它们是可互换的。最重要的想法是，这样的资产作为支付的唯一形式，网络将接受它提供的潜在的稀缺资源(带宽、存储、计算等等)。
The core thesis of current valuation frameworks is that utility value can be derived by (a) forecasting demand for the underlying resource that a network provisions (the network’s ‘GDP’) and (b) dividing this figure by the monetary base available for its fulfillment to obtain per-unit utility value. Present values can be derived from future expected utility values using conventional discounting. The theoretical framework that nearly all these valuation models employ is the equation of exchange, MV=PQ. While you will see this formula appear in nearly all discussions of cryptoasset value, it is often given little explanation and even less theoretical treatment. I attempt to offer some clarity on this in below, but for now let’s review the basic terms of the equation. M refers to tokens in circulation and V refers to their ‘velocity’ or the number of times each token changes hands in a given period (though we will expand this definition later on). On the right side, P refers to price and Q to quantity (or transaction value in real terms if we are using the so-called Fisher formulation, MV=PT). The right-hand side is the “real economy,” or ‘GDP,’ while the left is the “monetary economy.” The two operate in parallel to each other.
当前估值框架的核心论点是，可以通过(a)预测对网络规定(网络的“GDP”)和(b)的基础资源的需求，从而得出效用值，并将这个数字除以可用的货币基础，以获得单位效用值。现值可以用传统的折现法从未来的期望效用值中得到。几乎所有这些估值模型采用的理论框架是交换方程(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_exchange),MV = PQ。虽然你会看到这个公式几乎在所有关于密码资产价值的讨论中出现，但它经常被给予很少的解释和更少的理论处理。我试图在下面给出一些清晰的解释，但是现在让我们回顾一下这个等式的基本术语。M指的是流通中的令牌，V指的是它们的“速度”，或者在给定的时间段内每个令牌都能改变的次数(虽然我们稍后会扩展这个定义)。在右边，P是指价格和Q到数量(如果我们使用所谓的费雪公式，MV=PT)，则是实际交易价值。右边是“实体经济”，即“GDP”，而左边是“货币经济”。这两者是平行的。
Returning to the models linked to above, both hard-code a constant velocity, project a money supply schedule, a price/quantity schedule, and use the aforementioned equality to derive value per coin. Of course, the output of the model is extremely sensitive to variations in the hard-coded values for both the discount rate and velocity, neither of which is explored in detail. This is not problematic per se as these models are intended to provide nothing more than directional insight. The problem has arisen as the discussion on value in the investment community has honed in on the “velocity” component, in what I will call the “velocity thesis.” The consequent lack of theoretical clarity in these discussions is a key motivator of this piece.
回到与上面连接的模型，两个硬编码一个恒定的速度，项目一个货币供应计划，一个价格/数量计划，并使用前面提到的平等来获得每枚硬币的价值。当然，模型的输出对贴现率和速度的硬编码值的变化都非常敏感，这两种情况都没有详细的讨论。这不是问题本身，因为这些模型的目的只是提供方向性的洞察力。这个问题出现在投资界对价值的讨论已经在“速度”组成部分，我称之为“速度论文”。因此，在这些讨论中缺乏理论的清晰性是这篇文章的主要动力。
The Velocity Thesis
货币流通速度论点
To understand the current debates on velocity and value, I suggest reading the following if you have not already: Crypto Valuation and 95 Crypto Theses for 2018 by Ryan Selkis; The Blockchain Token Velocity Problem by Kyle Samani; An (Institutional) Investor’s Take on Cryptoassets by John Pfeffer; On Medium-of-Exchange Token Valuations by Vitalik Buterin. I especially recommend the latter two as they form the inspiration for the approach detailed hereinafter.
想要理解当前对于加密货币流通速度与价值的争论，如果你还没有读过以下文章的话，我建议你读一下。
Crypto Valuation and 95 Crypto Theses for 2018 by Ryan Selkis; The Blockchain Token Velocity Problem by Kyle Samani; An (Institutional) Investor’s Take on Cryptoassets by John Pfeffer; On Medium-of-Exchange Token Valuations by Vitalik Buterin. 我尤其推荐阅读后两篇，因为他们启发了我下文中所阐述的思路。
(Note: I refer to these and other pieces under the “velocity thesis” for short-hand convenience. This is not to suggest that the people listed above do not have significant points of disagreement with each other with respect to the concept of value (they do). To the extent possible, I attempt to highlight these differences.)
(注:我在“流通速度”这一主题下引用这些文章是为了方便起见。这并不是说上面列出的人在货币价值这一概念上没有明显的分歧(他们确实有分歧)。在可能的情况下，我会试图强调这些差异。)
The uniting argument in the above articles is that tokens that are not store-of-value assets will generally suffer from high velocity at scale as users avoid holding the asset for meaningful periods of time, suppressing ultimate value. My claim here is that this thesis is directionally correct, but hard to operationalize. Much of the difficulty, in my view, derives from an inability to precisely define, measure, and project velocity over time. The first step to ameliorating this is to better understand the theoretical framework it derives from. Correspondingly, I find it instructive to take a step back and explain velocity more clearly before more formally restating the thesis.
上述文章中的共同论点是，不属于价值存储资产的代币，其规模会受到流通速度高这一特点的影响，因为用户会避免持有资产超过一定时间，从而抑制了最终的价值。我看法是，这一论题在方向上是正确的，但很难具有操作性。在我看来，很多困难都来自于无法精确地定义、度量和预估流通速度随时间的变化。改善这一状况的第一步是更好地理解它的理论框架。相应地，在重新开始讨这一主题前，我觉得退一步，更清楚地解释速度是很有意义的。
Most of the above articles define velocity as “the number of times money changes hands”, or formulaically as V=PQ/M, by reference to the equation of exchange. This, of course, leaves us none the wiser as to how to model velocity, as the equation of exchange is nothing more than an identity. MV=PQ just says that the money flow of expenditures is equal to the market value of what those expenditures buy, which is true by definition. The left and right sides are two ways of saying the same thing; it’s a form of double-entry accounting where each transaction is simultaneously recorded on both sides of the equation. Whether an effect should be recorded in M, V, P, or Q is, ultimately, arbitrary. To transform the identity into a tool with predictive potency, we need to make a series of assumptions about each of the variables. For example, monetarists assume M is determined exogenously, V is constant, and Q is independent of M and use the equation to demonstrate how increases in the money supply increase P (i.e. cause inflation). Initial M, Q, and P levels are usually separately estimated from different data sources, often leading to significant discrepancies. Meanwhile V is extremely hard to observe directly. As such, by convention, “[velocities] have generally been calculated as the numbers having the property that they render the equation correct. These calculated numbers therefore embody the whole of the counterpart to the statistical discrepancy.” (See Friedman).
上面的大多数文章都将速度定义为“金钱易手的次数”，或以V=PQ/M为公式表达，引用了交换方程式。当然，这让我们对如何为速度建模依然一无所知，因为交换的等式不过是一个恒等式(identity)。MV=PQ只是说，支出的资金流等于这些支出购买的市场价值，根据定义这是正确的。等式的左右两边是同一东西的两种说法;这是一种复式记账法的方式，每笔交易都同时记录在等式的两边。是否应该在M、V、P或Q中记录结果，最终是任意的。为了将恒等式转换成具有预测效力的工具，我们需要对每个变量进行一系列假设。例如，货币主义者假设M是由外源决定的，V是常数，Q是独立于M的，用这个方程来证明货币供应量增加会引起P的增长(即引起通货膨胀)。初始的M、Q和P的水平，通常根据不同的数据源分别估计，常常会导致显著的差异。与此同时，V非常难以直接观察。因此，按照惯例，“[流通速度]通常被计算为具能够使得方程式正确的数字。因此，这些计算出的数字对应于统计的整体差异。“(见弗里德曼)。
Based on this understanding, we can now make three observations about the velocity thesis:
基于上述理解，现在我们能够得出对于货币流通速度主题的三个观察：
1.) The first practical problem with velocity is that it’s frequently employed as a catch-all to make the two sides of the equation of exchange balance. It often simply captures the error in our estimation of the other variables in the model. Without further specification, saying that projects should minimize velocity is about as useful as saying that a business should attempt to maximize goodwill on its balance sheet. As velocity in its pure form is difficult to directly observe (the best attempt I am aware of is outlined in section 3.4 of the BlockSci paper), current (tautological) definitions of velocity as PQ/M need to be reformulated to allow us to estimate velocity separately from the other variables and project its fluctuations over time. Returning to our historical analogy, we need to develop better accounting definitions before we can truly operationalize velocity and related concepts (e.g. PE, RoA, PB would all be meaningless if we could not agree on how to define and measure them across businesses and over time).
1.) 流通速度的第一个实际问题是，它经常被用作一种万能工具，以使交换方程式的两边平衡。它通常只是捕获了模型中我们对其他变量的估计错误。如果没有进一步的规范，比如说项目应该将流通降到最低，它的用处，就像说企业应该试图在其资产负债表上最大化其商誉一样。因为流通速度的纯粹形式很难直接观察(我知道的最好的尝试是BlockSci 论文3.4节中概述的那样),当前(同义反复(taotological))将速度定义为PQ / M需要重新修改， 以允许我们能够独立于其他的变量评估流通速度，以及预估流通速度随时间的波动。回到我们的历史类比，我们需要建立更好的会计定义，然后才能真正让流通速度和相关概念具有可操作性(如果我们不能就如何定义以及如何跨商业领域跨时间衡量达成一致，那么如PE、RoA、PB这些概念将毫无意义)。
2.) If token value is equal to PQ/VM, we can agree that the problem is not “high” vs “low” velocity, as some writing the topic seems to suggest (though that certainly matters, all things being equal). The real question is how changes in velocity correlate with changes in PQ. Strong positive correlations approaching 1 effectively decouple token value from network transaction growth (note that while this is a drag on the upside, it is protective of value on the downside). If the two are uncorrelated, then token utility value grows (and declines) linearly with demand for the underlying utility (this is what happens in the INET model). Negative correlations act as a lever, generating outsized price swings relative to growth or decline in PQ. Therefore, we need to compare the growth rates of velocity and PQ to formalize the velocity thesis: The thesis states that if velocity grows faster than PQ, token utility value declines. Vitalik and Pfeffer argue that this will likely happen given sufficiently low transaction friction and superior return/store-of-value alternatives. The validity (or invalidity) of this prediction is not something we can explore thoroughly in current models.
2.) 如果代币价值等于PQ/VM，我们可以认为这个问题不是流通速度高低的问题，就像某些该主题的写作者似乎暗示的那样(尽管这确实很重要，所有的东西都相等)。真正的问题是速度变化如何与PQ的变化相关联。接近于1的强相关系数，有效地将代币价值与网络中交易的增长分离开来(注意，虽然这是上行的阻力，但它在下行时，对价值有保护作用)。如果两者是不相关的，那么代币的效用值随对底层效用的需求而线性增长(和下降)(这是在INET模型中发生的情况)。负相关效应是一种杠杆，它产生的价格波动与PQ的增长或下降有关。因此，我们需要对流通速度和PQ的增长率进行比较，以形成对流通速度的论题的形式化表述: 论文称，如果流通速度比PQ快，代币的效用值将下降。Vitalik和Pfeffer认为，这很可能会发生，如果交易摩擦足够低，而且有更好的回报/价值存储的替代选择的话。这一预测的有效性(或无效性)我们在当前模型中不做深入探讨。
3.) Before continuing, I would note, as a practical matter, that I would caution against the suggestions of some proponents of the velocity thesis for projects to create artificial velocity suppression mechanisms. I view staking, mint-and-burn, and other “sinks” as useful only to the extent that they genuinely improve governance and user experience as opposed to acting as artificial price props. Furthermore, I believe velocity can only be practically useful if it is precisely defined and measurable. Let the finance folk argue about it for now, but until you can define and measure it, I would say you can safely ignore it and go back to building.
3.) 在继续之前，我要指出，实际上我将谨慎地反对一些人关于流通速度论题的一些提议，他们建议项目建立人工的流通速度抑制机制。我认为staking、mint-and-burn和其他“sinks”只有在真正改善治理和用户体验的范围内才有用，而不是充当人工控制价格的道具。此外，我认为，只有流通速度能精确定义和测量，它才会成为有实际用处的。现在让金融界人士去为之争论吧，但在你能定义和衡量它之前，我想说的是，你可以放心地忽略它，回到构建上去。
In sum, we can now concretely state that to support (or refute) the velocity thesis, we need to examine how velocity, PQ, and utility value relate to each other over time, requiring a way to operationalize velocity and project it over time. This, in turn, necessitates a slight departure from existing cryptoasset valuation methodology.
总之，我们现在可以具体地说明，为了支持(或否定)流通速度的命题，我们需要研究流通速度、PQ和效用值如何随着时间的推移相互关联，从而需要一种方法来使得流通速度具有可操作性(operationalize)，并预测它随时间的变化。这反过来又需要对现有的密码资产评估方法论稍微偏离。
A Monetary Critique of the INET Model
对INET模型的货币理论批判
Now that we’ve examined the velocity thesis in some detail, we can articulate six challenges that it presents to the INET model from the standpoint of monetary theory:
现在我们已经详细地研究了流通速度的论题，我们可以从货币理论的角度来阐述它给INET模型带来的6个挑战:
1.) Demand for money and demand for commodities are conceptually distinct and should be accordingly decoupled in monetary valuation models. In the INET model, demand for INET and demand for bandwidth are practically one and the same. We need to model demand for money separately from demand for commodities.
对货币的需求和对大宗商品的需求在概念上是截然不同的，因此在货币估值模型中应该是脱钩的。在INET模型中，对INET的需求和对带宽的需求实际上是相同的。我们需要把对货币的需求与对商品的需求分开。
2.) Cryptoassets are embedded in a broader asset universe. One way of looking at the INET model is as a single-good, single-asset economy. Utility tokens should instead be seen to compete with other assets for holders. As a corollary, expected returns of other assets should affect demand for the asset being modeled.
加密资产处于更广的资产体系中。一种看待INET模式的方法是单一货物，单一资产经济。相反，效用代币应该被看作是与持有者的其它资产相竞争的。因此，其他资产的预期收益应该会影响被建模的资产的需求。
3.) Related to (2), transactional demand and speculative demand are conceptually distinct and have different drivers. In the INET model, speculative demand is captured in a supply reduction (HODLed coins are removed from circulation). If the asset is not a store of value, as per the velocity thesis, it may be more realistic to direct speculative demand to another asset and capture this store-of-value demand within the money demand curve.
3.)与(2)相关，交易需求和投机需求在概念上有所差别，并且有不同的驱动因素。在INET模型中，投机需求在供应减少中被捕获(被持有的货币，不再继续流通)。如果资产不是一种价值存储，根据流通速度的论点，直接对另一资产进行投机性需求，并在货币需求曲线中捕捉这种价值存储需求，可能会更加现实。
4.) Blockchain economies are (currently) highly frictional. These frictions could be in the form of transaction costs/fees, cognitive costs, illiquidity, inconvenience, and others. We need to model these frictions, project their behavior over time, and trace their effects on demand for different assets.
4). 区块链经济体(目前)处于高度摩擦状态。这些摩擦可能是以多种形式存在，交易成本/费用、认知成本、非流动性、不便性等。我们需要对这些摩擦进行建模，并衡量随时间推移它们的行为，并跟踪它们对不同资产需求的影响。
5.) Velocity (a) varies over time and (b) should be measurable in a way that is (at least somewhat) distinct from the other variables. I.e. In the INET model, velocity and PQ have no correlation, while price and PQ have a perfect 1.0 correlation coefficient. We instead need to model endogenous velocity as time-varying and distinct from the money supply term to better study the effects of PQ movements on value accretion.
5). 流通速度(a)随着时间的变化而变化，(b)应该以一种(至少在某种程度上)与其他变量不同的方式来衡量。在INET模型中，velocity和PQ没有相关性，而price和PQ有一个完美的1.0相关系数。相反，我们需要将内生流通速度建模为时变性的，且与货币供应的术语区分，以便更好地研究PQ的变化对价值增值的影响。
6.) Expanding on (5) payment patterns matter. In INET, patterns of payments don’t matter as long as they all sum to the same transactional volume. If users purchase one large token balance each year and spend it gradually over the year, the effects on value are different than if users made many small purchases to finance consumption as needed. We need a way of modeling different payment patterns and their effects on velocity and value.
6). 对(5)扩展一下，付款模式很重要。在INET中，支付模式并不重要，只要它们的总和是同样的交易规模就可以了。如果用户每年购买一次大额的代币数额，并在一年的时间内逐步消费， 这对于价值的影响，不同于用户在需要时购买大量的小额代币，来满足消费需求。我们需要方法来对建模不同的支付模式及其对流通速度和价值的影响。
More broadly, I believe the community’s understanding of cryptoasset value drivers has outgrown the simple articulation of value in the INET model. And Chris seems to agree.
更广泛地说，我相信社区对加密资产价值驱动因素的理解已经超过了在INET模型中对价值的简单阐释。克里斯似乎也同意这一点。
网友评论