How Do Tax and Anti-Money Laundering Policies Affect Bitcoin's Sustainable Value?

Let's put it this way: these two developments sound like they're "taming" Bitcoin, and many initially felt this was a bad thing, going against Bitcoin's spirit of freedom. However, from a long-term value perspective, this is actually a good thing, even a necessary condition. Let's discuss them separately:

I. Tax Policy: Transforming it from a "Virtual Toy" into a "Legitimate Asset"

You can understand it this way: the fact that governments are starting to figure out how to tax Bitcoin is, in itself, a form of official recognition.

1. Acknowledging its Status: When something becomes taxable, it signifies that it's no longer "outside the law" or an insignificant "game currency." It's treated as a legitimate asset, just like you pay taxes on profits from selling a house or stocks. This "legitimacy" is crucial; it gives traditional institutions with deep pockets (like funds and listed companies) a reason to enter the market. These big players fear policy uncertainty the most. Once clear tax rules are in place, they know how to compliantly incorporate Bitcoin into their balance sheets.

2. Reducing Risk: Previously, the biggest concern was, "Will the government ban it with a single decree someday?" Now, with taxes being collected, it indicates that governments are more inclined to regulate it rather than eliminate it. For long-term investors, the greatest risk—the risk of policy-induced zeroing—is significantly reduced. The environment becomes more predictable, allowing people to hold it confidently for the long term.

So, while paying taxes is a cost that might sting a bit during transactions, it grants Bitcoin legitimate status and a ticket to mainstream financial circles. This ticket is key to supporting its long-term value. Without the recognition and inflow of large capital, Bitcoin would forever remain a niche asset with a very low value ceiling.

II. Anti-Money Laundering Policy: Installing "Guardrails" and "Cameras" on the Highway

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) sound even more daunting. You have to upload your ID and undergo facial recognition on exchanges, making it feel like your privacy is gone. This indeed sacrifices the absolute anonymity Bitcoin pursued in its early days.

However, consider this:

1. Enhancing Security: A market without any regulation, where anyone can enter and exit anonymously, sounds free, but it's also bound to be a haven for scammers and illicit money. Would ordinary people dare to participate? If you put your money in and the exchange absconds, who do you turn to? AML regulations require exchanges to be formalized. This is like installing guardrails and cameras on the financial highway; while it restricts you from "driving recklessly," it also keeps many dangerous elements out, protecting the safety of ordinary participants.

2. Opening Fiat Currency Channels: Ultimately, when you buy and sell Bitcoin, you need to use fiat currency (like RMB or USD) for deposits and withdrawals. Whether banks are willing to cooperate with your exchange depends on how clean that exchange is. If an exchange constantly deals with funds of unknown origin, banks, to avoid implication, will immediately cut off cooperation with it. AML compliance is essentially an exchange presenting a "certificate of good conduct" to banks, ensuring that ordinary users can smoothly deposit and withdraw funds. If this channel were to be severed, Bitcoin would become an isolated island, and its value would be significantly impacted.

3. Also to Attract Large Capital: Similar to taxation, no legitimate Wall Street giant would dare invest in an asset perceived as a "money laundering haven." They have strict compliance requirements. AML policies clear the final moral and legal obstacles for these institutions.

In Summary:

Taxation and anti-money laundering act like two thresholds, sifting and transforming Bitcoin from a "Wild West" experiment into a "financial asset" acceptable to mainstream society.

This process indeed caused Bitcoin to lose some of the "absolute freedom" and "anonymity" sought by its fundamentalists, but in return, it gained legitimacy, security, and access to mainstream channels. These are precisely what enable large institutional capital to enter the market and encourage more ordinary people to understand and hold it, thereby providing a more solid and sustainable foundation for Bitcoin's value. In essence, it's about trading some "lack of freedom" for greater "value potential."