If the future world is determined by computing power, then behind computing power is electricity, behind electricity is nuclear power, and behind nuclear power? There must be an anchor point, right? Gold? Bitcoin, which is resistant to quantum computing decryption? Ethereum, where Code is Law?

Gold represents the anchoring of physical scarcity. Its value is built on the absolute limitation of 'there is only so much in nature.' You don’t need to believe anyone; you just need to believe in the laws of physics. This is the oldest consensus mechanism.

But the problem is that as economic activities become increasingly detached from the physical world, the relevance of a physical entity as an anchor point is diminishing. In a world driven by computing power, how much value creation still requires the action of 'moving physical goods'?

Bitcoin translates the logic of gold into the digital world, using PoW to simulate mining difficulty and create algorithmic scarcity. Its narrative is 'digital gold'.

But there's a subtle loop here: Bitcoin's value depends on computing power investment, and computing power investment depends on its value expectations. This positive feedback is powerful, but it also means it is essentially still a 'consensus game'.

The more fundamental question is, can a system that only stores value but does not create value become an anchor for a growth-oriented economy?

Ethereum has taken a completely different path of functional anchoring. It not only stores value but also carries functionality, smart contracts, DeFi, and the entire application ecosystem, attempting to become the infrastructure layer of the digital world.

Code is Law! This narrative is strong, but the DAO incident exposed a core paradox: when the outcome of code execution conflicts with community value judgments, which do you choose? If you choose the latter, 'Code is Law' becomes 'Community Consensus is Law', which brings us back to the old issues of traditional governance.

But wait, maybe I asked the wrong question.

Why must there be an anchor point?

Traditional economics needs an anchor point because fiat currency requires a 'final redeemable asset' to prevent infinite overissuance.

But in a world driven by computing power, if AI can exponentially enhance productivity, does the premise of 'scarcity' still hold?

If value creation shifts from material production to attention or experience, should the anchoring logic shift from 'stock' to 'flow'?

If decentralized technology truly matures, does the centralized metaphor of 'anchor point' itself become outdated?

A true paradigm shift may not be about 'finding a better anchor point', but rather shifting from anchoring thinking to network thinking, where value is no longer anchored in a single asset but distributed across a dynamic multi-layer network. The robustness of this network comes from diversity and redundancy, rather than a single 'ultimate stable asset'.

Back to the original intuitive chain: from nuclear energy to electricity to computing power. Here lies a key question: energy conversion efficiency is becoming a new scarce resource.

If computing power is the new oil, then the efficiency of converting energy to computing power is the new extraction technology. From this perspective, what is truly worth betting on may not be a specific asset, but those technologies, protocols, or organizational paradigms that can enhance conversion efficiency.

But if I had to choose an investment target, aside from gold and copper, the layout should be

Recent (5-20 years):
Bitcoin's narrative inertia and network effects + computing power + electricity + nuclear energy
Ethereum-like programmable platforms (if scalability is solved) + resistance to quantum computing

Long-term (20 years+):
Some kind of new species we haven't seen yet, integrating physical resources + digital scarcity + functionality

But speaking of which, in an era of accelerating change, why do we so eagerly desire to find 'unchanging cornerstones'?

Isn't this itself a psychological defense mechanism?

Perhaps a more resilient strategy is not to go all in on a specific anchor point, but to maintain cognitive flexibility in the investment portfolio, ready to update the basic assumptions about 'what is value'.

Because when the paradigm really shifts, the anchor points of the old world may just be footnotes of the new world.