Lanli-daoren

It is too easy for Indians to establish a country; this nation has not experienced blood and fire, the pain of national destruction, or the shame of lost territory, so they always take war lightly and easily initiate conflict.

让deepResearch 帮我做了一个PAGX - 黄金代币的研究报告：

1 - Paxos Gold（PAXG）所托管的伦敦优质交割金条是**“独立储存”（Allocated Storage）**的，而非“共享储存”（Unallocated Storage）。

✅ 什么是“独立储存”？
在黄金市场中，“独立储存”（Allocated）意味着每一份黄金都有明确的分配对象和编号，实物金条被登记到持有者名下，由金库隔离保存，并可对应至具体的金条序列号。这种方式确保：

黄金所有权属于你，不属于托管机构；

金条是专属保管的，不与他人共享；

即使托管方或平台破产，该黄金不会被用于偿还债务；

你可以通过 Paxos 提供的系统查询到你的 PAXG 对应的具体金条编号和储存金库。

🔒 PAXG 是完全的“Allocated Gold”
Paxos 明确说明，PAXG 背后的黄金为“allocated London Good Delivery bars”，即分配式伦敦优质交割金条。这些黄金：

存储于伦敦Brink's金库；

以 Paxos 信托公司名义单独登记；

每一单位 PAXG 都可以溯源到具体金条（用户可在官网查询自己的金条信息）。

🚫 “共享储存”则意味着什么？
“共享储存”（Unallocated）是指黄金存放在金库，但没有分配给特定客户。这种黄金更像银行的“应收账款”，客户持有的是索赔权利，而不是特定实物。这种储存方式常见于黄金衍生品市场（如纸黄金、某些银行贵金属账户），在系统性风险中可能出现“挤兑”或“资产不足”。

结论：
PAXG 所托管的黄金为**100%独立储存（Allocated）**的伦敦优质交割金条，具有最强的法律保障和所有权清晰性。相比共享储存或纸黄金，这种模式为持有人提供了最大程度的安全性和主权控制力。

2 - XAU也是独立存储。

但PAXG和 XAU有相当大的差异，尤其是法律实体层面：
PAXG 为合规金融产品，在美国投资者拥有清晰的受益人地位，受《信托法》保护；

XAU₮ 的法律归属模糊，投资者很难在法庭上主张实物黄金所有权，更像是“你相信 Tether 给你存着”。

详细见图。

最后Tether Gold（XAU₮）与 USDT 背后的 Tether 公司属于同一母公司集团（iFinex Inc.）旗下的两个子品牌/子公司，但它们之间在法律和资产层面是相互独立、不互担责任的。

也因此，pagx对xau 一般有溢价。

Let deepResearch help me create a research report on PAGX - Gold Token:

1 - The London Good Delivery gold bars held by Paxos Gold (PAXG) are **"Allocated Storage"** rather than "Unallocated Storage".

✅ What is "Allocated Storage"?
In the gold market, "Allocated" means that each piece of gold has a specific allocation and serial number, and the physical gold bars are registered in the name of the holder, isolated in a vault, and can be traced back to a specific bar serial number. This method ensures:

The ownership of the gold belongs to you, not to the custodian;

The bars are kept exclusively and not shared with others;

Even if the custodian or platform goes bankrupt, this gold will not be used to pay off debts;

You can check the specific bar number and storage vault corresponding to your PAXG through the system provided by Paxos.

🔒 PAXG is fully "Allocated Gold"
Paxos clearly states that the gold backing PAXG consists of "allocated London Good Delivery bars." These gold bars:

Are stored in the Brink's vault in London;

Are registered separately in the name of Paxos Trust Company;

Each unit of PAXG can be traced back to a specific bar (users can check their bar information on the official website).

🚫 What does "Unallocated Storage" mean?
"Unallocated" refers to gold stored in a vault but not allocated to specific clients. This gold is more like a bank's "receivables"; the customer holds a claim rather than a specific physical item. This storage method is common in the gold derivatives market (such as paper gold and certain bank precious metal accounts) and may experience "runs" or "asset shortages" in systemic risk situations.

Conclusion:
The gold held by PAXG is **100% Allocated Storage** of London Good Delivery bars, providing the strongest legal protection and clarity of ownership. Compared to unallocated storage or paper gold, this model offers the maximum security and sovereign control for holders.

Let deepResearch help me create a PAGX - Gold Token research report:

https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_68190f87685881919fadbc8f6216898c

Europeans are so stupid
Europeans think they can defeat Russia and control Russia's assets (resources), thereby making Europe great again

The question arises, will China and the United States allow Europe to succeed?

Ukraine has a population of 30 million and has been fighting for 3 years, how long can Russia, with a population of 100 million, fight?

Lacking weapons? Is Old Zhong an idiot to call for Europe to annex Russia?

Isn't J10ce too powerful, forcing India back.

I'm still looking for more gold😂

Don't blame Trump for being reckless; the United States hasn't tried to rebuild its rare earth production lines, but the capitalist system can't handle such heavy assets with low profits.

Over here in the U.S., things are starting to look up, and the rabbits are quietly lowering prices, so American rare earth companies are done for 😂

So it's better to decouple and sever ties, "build high walls and accumulate grain."

However, in the long run, the decoupling between China and the U.S. has just begun, and there are still many strategic interests to untangle, including money, assets, and people, which will take time to separate.

Recently, the discussions about "returnees" have also reflected this issue.

But I have a question: if the rare earth production lines in the U.S. start to improve, and the rabbits announce once again that rare earths are no longer restricted and lower prices, what will happen?

Sigh, this kind of manipulative mindset is unacceptable 😂

Don't blame Trump for being reckless. The United States has indeed tried to rebuild its rare earth production lines, but the capitalist system struggles with such heavy assets and low-profit ventures.

Just as things started to improve in the U.S., the rabbits secretly lowered prices, leading to the demise of American rare earth companies.😂

So, it's better to decouple and sever ties, "build high walls and accumulate grain."

However, in the long run, the decoupling between China and the U.S. has only just begun, and there are still many strategic interests to untangle, including money, assets, and people; all of these will take time to separate.

The recent discussions about "returnees" also reflect this issue.

But I have a question: if the rare earth production lines in the U.S. start to show some improvement, and the rabbits announce again that they will not manage rare earths and lower prices, what would the result be?

Alas, this kind of manipulative mindset is unacceptable.😂

Don't blame Trump for being reckless; the United States has indeed tried to rebuild its rare earth production lines, but the capitalist system struggles with such capital-intensive, low-profit ventures.

Just as things were starting to improve here in the U.S., the rabbits secretly lowered prices, and American rare earth companies are done for 😂

So it's better to decouple and sever ties, 'build high walls and accumulate grain.'

However, in the long run, the decoupling between China and the U.S. has only just begun; there are still many strategic interests between them, including money, assets, and people, all of which need to be gradually decoupled.

Recent discussions about 'returnees' also reflect this issue.

The Yellow River seems to have less impact than the Yangtze River, but it is actually more fundamental to the Huaxia civilization; conversely, the Yangtze River has somewhat less influence.

The entire North China Plain, including the Guanzhong Plain, is an alluvial plain formed by the Yellow River, and the unique geography of the North China Plain/Guanzhong Plain allows for a quick formation of a unified state in the north, while the south (south of the Yangtze River) had higher development costs in ancient times, benefiting from the migration of northern people southward, which accelerated the development (Hangzhou, Hakka, Zhuge Liang's seven captures of Meng Huo).

生育率下降是百姓对过卷的生活的自然反应。

当你拼尽全力只是为了生存时，你没时间也没兴趣去考虑生育。

中韩有接近之处，但韩国更加极致，因为中国年轻人至少还有退路，大城市混不下去可以回乡，社会容忍度比较高。韩国年轻人如果不能在首尔混出头，那就是loser。

经济上也很像，个人消费低迷，固定资产高，外汇储备增加。

也许都是 97 年金融风暴后遗症，对于被华尔街割一刀有种恐惧症，因此拼命的攒外汇储备，这就导致以上的经济模式。

日本是先行者，但日本的军力是这种模式的顶，广场协议让日本出口下行。

这一轮关税战看结果如何吧，也许压制了中国出口，但这并非坏事。

韩国甚至因祸得福？但这也意味着问题进一步被拖延。

直到生育率来做这个硬顶。

The decline in birth rates is a natural reaction of the people to the overly intense life.

When you are doing your utmost just to survive, you simply have no time or interest to consider having children.

China and South Korea have similarities, but South Korea is more extreme, as Chinese young people at least have a fallback; if they can't make it in big cities, they can return to their hometowns, and the social tolerance is relatively high. For young people in South Korea, if they cannot make it in Seoul, they are considered losers.

Economically, it is also quite similar, with low personal consumption, high fixed assets, and increasing foreign exchange reserves.

Perhaps both are aftershocks of the 1997 financial crisis, leading to a phobia of being cut by Wall Street, which drives them to desperately accumulate foreign exchange reserves, resulting in the aforementioned economic model.

Japan is a pioneer, but Japan's military strength is the pinnacle of this model, and the Plaza Accord caused Japan's exports to decline.

Let’s see how this round of tariff wars turns out; it may suppress China's exports, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Could South Korea even gain from misfortune? But this also means that the problems are further postponed.

Until birth rates impose this hard limit.

The decline in birth rates is a natural response of the people to an overly competitive life.

When you are doing everything you can just to survive, you have neither the time nor the interest to consider having children.

China and South Korea have similarities, but South Korea is more extreme because young people in China at least have an escape route; if they can’t make it in big cities, they can return to their hometowns, and the social tolerance is relatively high. Young people in South Korea, if they can't succeed in Seoul, are considered losers.

Economically, it is also quite similar, with low personal consumption, high fixed assets, and increasing foreign exchange reserves.

Perhaps it is all a legacy of the 1997 financial crisis, with a kind of phobia towards being cut by Wall Street, hence the desperate accumulation of foreign exchange reserves, which leads to the above economic model.

Japan is a pioneer, but Japan's military strength is the pinnacle of this model, and the Plaza Accord led to a decline in Japanese exports.

Let's see what the outcome of this round of tariff wars will be; perhaps it has suppressed Chinese exports, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Could South Korea even benefit from this misfortune? But this also means that the problem is further delayed.

Until the birth rate serves as this hard limit.

In order to maximize profits, collars and bells can be put around the slaves' necks, or leadership theories can be invented to provide the greatest emotional value to employees.

Have capitalists become kind?

Of course not, it is the change in production relations.

Why is leadership not emphasized in China?

It's like asking, you are a great beauty, and you walk in front of a group of bachelors, should you shout: offering a hefty sum for a child, 100,000 yuan for a month's support!

Is it necessary? You just give a glance, and a bunch of people will follow you.

The jingle bells of the plantation era and today's leadership are the same thing. 😂

Why is leadership not emphasized in China?

It's like asking, you are a stunning beauty, and you walk in front of a group of bachelors, should you shout: I'm offering a hefty reward, 100,000 yuan for a month's companionship!

Is it necessary? Just a glance, and a bunch of people would follow you. 😂

Just a little complaint, I wanted to clean up my following list today, but every time I unfollow someone, I have to confirm it.

The UX of American apps is really a pile of crap.

Low-entropy structures are not all advantages: high-entropy structures are suitable for rapid deployment and adaptation in expansion games where resources have not yet been divided, while low-entropy structures are suitable for establishing efficiency advantages and strong control in systems where resource boundaries are already established and entering stock competition.

Taking the history of the East and West as an example: The expansion history of the Han people was basically completed in the Zhou Dynasty, which is a typical high-entropy disordered structure, where each feudal lord acted according to their own interests.

The expansion of the British Empire is actually very similar to that of the Zhou Dynasty, where charter companies (such as the East India Company, Hudson's Bay Company), pirates, adventurers, missionaries, merchants, and scientists all played important roles in the expansion history, but the Royal Navy/British unified currency provided a bonding role similar to 'Zhou Li'. Similar examples include Russia's expansion in Siberia, which was not conducted by regular troops, but by merchants, adventurers, Cossacks, and other decentralized high-entropy expansions.

In contrast, why was Zheng He’s voyages to the West terminated? I think it was because he used a low-entropy structure to carry out expansion. Suppose Judy was a bit smarter, she could simply issue licenses, appoint kings/governors, would the British still have the opportunity to play the colonial game?

However, the premise of high-entropy expansion is that you are making incremental gains. What is incremental gain? It is a technological gap; for the Zhou kings and lords who mastered agriculture and bronze technology, the border minorities were considered 'blank areas'. For the British, who mastered modern technology, the whole world was a 'blank area'.

But when all the colonies have been divided and entered into stock competition, it is clear that low-entropy countries have more advantages, such as after the end of the Spring and Autumn period entering the Warring States (stock competition), but the low-entropy structure (county system) obviously had the upper hand, defeating the high-entropy structure (Chu State, with many nobles). Similarly, Germany had a significant advantage over France and even Britain; if it were not for the United States entering the war, the outcome would be uncertain.

The question arises: Is the current US-China competition a stock game or an incremental game? How about China-India?

I see it more like a stock game, with no such thing as 'one trick that can conquer all'.

So, what is the conclusion?

The system designed by Xiao He for the Han dynasty is a masterpiece, far surpassing the designs of Li Shimin in later generations.

Therefore, the genius of Xiao He has not been properly recognized.

对台海局势的推演如下：

1/ 台湾宣布独立，美国主导，目的是为了让大陆先开枪，之后美军不会介入，而日韩菲也无能力介入，但美国会联合其他国家实施制裁

2/ 为了反制以上的制裁，大陆最佳策略是围而不打，斩首，宣传，推动台湾内部崩溃并投降。占据国际法理，尽量避免被孤立

3/ 军事角度，日韩菲大概率不会参与，而印度则有可能在民族情绪兼野心兼美国人引诱之下“封锁马六甲”，这是印度人多年来yy的场景

4/这个情况也许会再次演变为第二次“对印自卫反击战”，不过是在海上。结局是印度航母被击沉，老共军舰直逼孟买和班加罗尔，港口被破坏，印度不得不屈服。

5/印度的大国梦再次被打断，印度人再次忍辱偷生 20 年😂