The eternal debate over pricing logic—Cash Flow School vs. Consensus School

When it comes to asset valuation, the investment world is never short of controversy. Some insist that assets like gold are just "empty promises"—lacking cash flow and entirely driven by market sentiment, a complete remake of "The Emperor's New Clothes." This logic repeatedly appears in traditional investing circles.

But the situation in 2026 is interesting: even if certain assets have risen 7% over the past year, skeptics still believe that this craze lacking intrinsic support will eventually cool down. The question is—how exactly should we calculate their "intrinsic value"?

The emergence of cryptocurrencies like $ETH, $DASH, and #数字资产市场动态 has made this debate even sharper. Because they fundamentally lack traditional cash flows and balance sheets, yet they thrive in the market. This forces everyone to rethink: is the essence of pricing the discounting of cash flows, or the power of consensus itself?

Old-school investors say it's the former—without real gold and silver returns, even high prices are bubbles. On the other hand, on-chain communities argue it's the latter—if enough people believe, value truly exists.

Both sides can cite examples and present data. The most interesting part isn't who is right or wrong, but that this discussion is reshaping our understanding of the word "value."