#美联储重启降息步伐 The two top minds in the tech world have, coincidentally, been saying the same thing lately—but from such a sharp angle it sends chills down your spine.

Musk dropped this line first: "In the future, generating power will be equivalent to currency." Before the words faded, Jensen Huang followed up: "$BTC is essentially portable energy currency." One builds rockets, the other makes chips, yet both are fixated on Bitcoin—though this time, they're not talking about that old "digital gold" narrative.

Why the sudden change in perspective?

Think about it: AI training consumes power, data centers consume power, and the global computing power race ultimately comes down to who controls more electricity. How can energy generated by a Norwegian hydroelectric plant be sold to a mining farm in Texas? Traditional power grids can't cross borders. But if you convert electricity into $BTC , it can circulate instantly on-chain—the watts from Saudi solar panels instantly become a globally accepted unit of settlement.

This isn't some mystical theory. It's about bringing currency back to its most fundamental anchor: energy itself.

When the "store of value" label is peeled off and replaced with "underlying energy protocol," the positioning of $BTC might really need to be rewritten.

Do you think this logic holds up?