This morning, Bitcoin suddenly plummeted by 8%, with the price sliding to the $84,000 level, causing many people to panic again. But do you remember what the founder of a certain exchange said a few days ago? "Sell when greed is at its peak, buy when fear is at its strongest"—although it sounds harsh, it is indeed the survival rule of the veterans.

Interestingly, while the market is in a state of lament, Musk talked about Bitcoin again on a podcast. This time, his perspective is quite unique: he defines Bitcoin as "energy-based currency." What does that mean?

His logic is as follows – traditional currency relies on government backing and legal enforcement, but Bitcoin is different; its value comes from the real computational power and energy consumption behind the proof-of-work mechanism. In other words, each Bitcoin embodies real energy costs, and this physical scarcity is its fundamental value. To quote Musk: "Energy is the real currency, this thing can't just be conjured up by a law."

What's even more ruthless is that he predicts that after the widespread adoption of AI and robots in the future, traditional currencies may no longer be necessary. Although this idea seems quite sci-fi at the moment, after all, the real world still relies on fiat currency to function.

But this raises an interesting question: is the "energy attribute" of Bitcoin its moat or a development burden? Supporters would say it guarantees decentralization and security, while critics question whether the high energy consumption is sustainable.

On one side, there are drastic price fluctuations, and on the other, deep reflections from industry giants. Do you think Musk's "energy currency theory" holds water? How far can the proof of work model go?