tY* @Danny Knowles

I'm sorry he treated you this way. This was disrespectful and out of line. His baseless claims that you were criticizing the treasury cos simply by asking the question of their fundamental value is proof that the question needs to be asked. Thank you for this one!

“ do I want to be able to move money at the speed of light and store it forever in cyberspace? Of course I do. Of course I do! Has my conviction been swayed by 94 days of not hitting an all-time high? View quoted note → View quoted note →

$STRC volume spiking today. 👆 Higher

Great work. I hadn’t listened since you took over.

You made him look like the shill he is .

More strawmen than when ciaylor and lapdog Jeff go pumpkin picking together

Saylor is a twat.

Silence Danny, a paper Bitcoin holder ia talking.

Saylor needs some sun. He's cranky. Maybe a steak and some sleep too.

Does capitalism have a central bank?

Good job @Danny Knowles

Damn, I could feel Saylor’s power projection towards you through my earbuds.😅

I'm about 1/2 way through and it's a good episode so far. It appears Michael gets a bit defensive about the Bitcoin Treasury topic, but I'm not sure he truly understood your question. I took your question to be: does it make sense for a company that's not profitable and loosing money to be adding Bitcoin to their balance sheet. I think this is a fair question. It appears Michael heard this as an attack on companies adding Bitcoin to their balance sheet. I'm looking forward to listening to the the second 1/2!

Did capitalism create central banks or banks in general? That would be a better question.

What time should I start watching to see his meltdown? I need something to laugh

A mnav dropping from 3 to 1 will do that.

When can we stop talking about treasury companies?

Looking forward to watching a bitcoiner and non bitcoiner talk.

Thanks 🤝

Danny, you were asking the right question. You did not deserve this anger directed at you. He didn’t take a minute to understand you, he came into the interview already primed. A lot of respect for pressing where and when it was needed.

YES!!

I woulda had to cut the cameras and have a "talk" with that mfker. j/k of course but damn haha.

Sorry you had to go through the Danny. Wtf was that from Saylor

I didn’t know Saylor was in the business of being offended.

Danny and Saylor’s perspectives are both valuable here. Saylor is right that Bitcoiners do too much infighting among ourselves. And that companies are better off saving in Bitcoin than sticking to fiat assets. Danny is right that most plebs are better off buying Bitcoin than betting on the latest Bitcoin treasury co. It’s one thing to have a sizable cold storage stack and dabble a bit in minor treasury company plays. It’s quite another to hold no real corn and leave your fate to these management teams. One is the corporate perspective, the other is the individual perspective. View quoted note →

Saylor needs a dose of the boots 🥾

Saylor assumes the worst in Danny’s position. Not sure if it was intentional or not. Disappointed with Saylor

Saylor's well on the way of the villain's journey

I don't like offended people.

TBH, this was a bit painful to watch. I wish you had enough time to ask him why we need his “digital money” synthetic financial product when Bitcoin itself is already that.

You did well Danny.

Currently listening to it while I scroll NOSTR

Danny, it looks like it's a difference of vision. On the one hand, bitcoin goes into what will likely become a closed command and control market, or we seek a true free market where bitcoin eliminates all of the issues with fiat and we start fresh. I would have like you to address that with him, but I also know it's hard to get an edge in word wise.

I’ve listened to most of it and he sounds like a Karen. Some good points ie; overvaluation isn’t the fault of the company it’s the fault of investors if they buy the top.

I'm surprised, Saylor really sounded so unaware of what was happening. Delusional.

He was aggressive because he knows he is running an unsustainable Ponzi scheme.

Great job Danny! Companies and individuals should strive to be productive. This is the part Saylor ignores. Selling debt to buy bitcoin is not productive. It’s obvious when taken to the extreme in a world where all companies just issue debt and buy bitcoin. It’s absurd. Yet if all companies strive to be productive in their own way then that makes sense. All treasury companies are garbage. Basically scams where insiders use their influence to acquire more bitcoin than they could otherwise do personally. Saylor pretends that these are real businesses trying to be productive and simply buying bitcoin. They aren’t and he knows it. Strategy’s preferreds do add value to the marketplace so let’s call them the exception.

STRC is a way to store money that could be needed in the short term without the volatility. You basically give up the volatility to earn 11% interest. There’s value in that even for Bitcoin maximalists

Crowdfunding Zaps for Danny’s medical expenses 😂🫂⚡️ Well done sir 👏

hard? try impossible. every bully tactic in the book deployed to shame Danny for delving outside ‘acceptable’ line of thinking - all so tiresome.

Saylor sounds like an old whiny bastard that needs to be taken to the nursing home in this one lol. Strawman after strawman, rambles for 20 mins each time haha. It's xrazy too because he's definitely had some of the most enlightening bitcoin podcast appearances I've ever heard heard. Yikes

Saylor is absoltely correct.

well done Danny handled this thin skin lizard like a champ Saylor was insulting saying you had insulted him 🤣 🤣 🤣 saying equity btc is better than cold storage self custody btc...

What Danny Did

Well done Danny. You may have just written yourself into Bitcoin history with this interview. I loved it on so many levels. Thank you. View quoted note →

This made me want to short MSTR

I am sorry that the discussion became personal.

Fair enough, but why call it digital money, if it’s a Bitcoin-backed money market fund.

Good job @Danny Knowles , I’ll leave it at that.

Cause if you don't Knowles now you know

Absolutely insufferable Saylor. Thin-skinned ego maniac.

Oh shit!! That's a callout!!

Pretty funny though. And he said no lies. Companies with Bitcoin are better than companies without Bitcoin. The anti treasury company hysteria was always overblown. Like don’t buy them if you don’t want to buy them.

They should strive to get their investors return. Having a Bitcoin treasury does this. Pretty simple really.

Saylor was mostly right on his rant but definitely took it too personally and went on for too long

Dan Hillery and Forst HODL have some solid MSTR prefs breakdowns. Bitcoin is the engine that powers these products

Saylor is kinda right tho, although he did rant for longer than he needed to

Good job Danny!

Worth listening? Or where can I better spend 2 hrs? 😛

Saylor's answers were all thorough and insightful, just overly aggressive in some cases. I don't think his poor humour in this interview was because he's a shill or has a massive ego, rather a result of him being pissed off for a variety of reasons. He could have kept that in check better. Great work Danny, keep up the great work!

A great analysis. @Michael Saylor is 100% correct that all companies should buy bitcoin, but @Danny Knowles focussing on zombie companies buying bitcoin is the right question. Clearly the answer is that “your capital is at risk” and DYOR.

Danny, well done mate. Saylor is an outlier. Dude has ruthless conviction. You showed poise and you should be proud. Keep at it. Love your work. Onward.

This is awesome and #bitcoin needed this. Reminds me of the old days when we didn’t give a flying shit about the rich and how they play their games. We chose Bitcoin not only to opt out but as revolution, a protest against money printing. Hell yes some have increased their wealth substantially, but don’t let that change you! Turn back on some Rage Against The Machine and “Fuck you I won’t do what you tell me!”

Listening to Saylor go on and on about being insulted was tough. I couldn’t finish it. Still, hats off to Danny — you did well.

After reading the comments, I fear that many Bitcoiner's may have missed that this is a celebration for what makes Bitcoin great - my deeper learning after this is - it is not a zero-sum game. heat + friction > pomp-pomps

Saylor was being a dumb bitch. He completely stopped listening. Never liked him.

Saylor seems to be intentionally missing your point Danny. He's saying, all else equal, it's better for a company to have vs. not have Bitcoin (fine, agreed). But your challenge was whether it makes sense that there are so many companies who's only business model is to buy bitcoin when people could just be acquiring actual Bitcoin themselves, and those companies can't get the same leverage/liquidity as MSTR. Totally fair question he could have just tried to answer since, if anything, it could be interpreted as a compliment to Strategy.

I really don't care what he has to say. #Bitcoin doesn't care.

I can strive to be an Olympic sprinter but it won’t happen. However I don’t go around trying to (fraudulently) get people to invest in my future as a sprinter

I dont think he does. He calls it digital credit. And he wants somebody else to use that product to create digital money which would be a stable coin built on top of it. That’s how I understand his terminology anyway

How is it fraud? They lay out their thesis pretty clearly. Once a company has a stack of bitcoin they have different operating models they can move to. Strategy moved to the preferred market because they think they can offer higher yield while being way more collateralized than the standard offerings and therefore out compete the market. So far this thesis is playing out. I don’t own anything besides bitcoin and some stupid shit in my limited 401k for my fiat job, but I don’t begrudge companies from trying to build a treasury of bitcoin.

It probably isn’t fraud by the legal definition. It’s more like a shitcoin. I’m of the belief that companies should do something productive. Eventually they have to or will fail. My issue with most treasury companies is I don’t believe they actually are trying to do anything productive. I suppose they could so I can’t disagree with you on that. I think they’re all engaged in this ledge Ponzi scheme where they want you to buy equity in their company that does nothing and never will. Since they disclose that it’s not legal fraud. But it’s still a misallocation of capital which I can’t support. They should strive to do something productive with their time as we all should. Hodling bitcoin isn’t productive. Saylor knows this because he could use one of his own absurd analogies to deduce it

Saylor views most of the S&P and misallocated capital and fraudulent. His point is that most companies are shit, so why not at least be shit with Bitcoin on your balance sheet? I’m a self custody maximalist, but I find the STRC product helpful in that I can keep some funds in essentially a stable coin earning yield. This product wouldn’t exist without a company deciding to accrue Bitcoin. Strategies initial plan was to try to beat stacking sats by accessing deeper credit markets and that worked out pretty well but had a limited shelf life. I think offering a high yield savings account is going to drive a lot of profit and will put strategy into a new class of company over the next 5 years. There is of course going to be the pure grifters looking to take your bitcoin, but I think in general there are ideas being generated that will only be possible for companies with a large stack of bitcoin. Now is the time to get that large stack.

You rock Danny!

Bitcoin treasury companies introduce all kinds of risks that bitcoin doesn’t have. View quoted note →

One of your best eps, for the conflict.. not the smug, long-winded explanations from the leverage lord. @Danny Knowles should have let him have it. Need to worry less about being polite to your guests. @Michael Saylor is pioneering pure play, and he knows it. Couldn’t care less about his software company anymore.

I listened. I like your show, but you started the debate by saying, “I’ve been critical of Bitcoin treasury companies,” and then spent the rest of the show on your heels saying, “I’m not being critical of Bitcoin treasury companies.” Saylor is exactly right on every point he makes. Anyone and any entity who buys Bitcoin helps everyone else who owns Bitcoin, and is to be celebrated. This episode will be a service if it ends this particular form of Bitcoin FUD, because Michael Saylor demolished it. Thanks for your show.

Who cares? If a company has taken Bitcoin off the market, it helps everyone else who owns Bitcoin.

FAFO

View quoted note →

Except they will likely have to sell it back, and some already have to buyback stocks and payoff debt. This can actually cause more downward price pressure. It takes a company say 2 years to buy 5,000 Bitcoin. Positive price pressure for 2 years, but barely noticed in markets. Then boom, suddenly their stock tanks, no positive cash flow, no more equity investors, done. Must sell the Bitcoin,mostly all at once or at least rapidly to cover. Much larger downward price pressure than ever hallened upwards. It's stupid to just buy Bitcoin and keep it on your balance sheet with no cash flow. It's worse for people to invest in this crap.

No. Without chrony capitalism and goverenycentral banks wouldn't have been able to have been created. Banks, possibly. But there is nothing wrong with a bank in its purest form.

The problem with this argument is that it relies on a No True Scotsman fallacy. Every time capitalism’s outcomes are criticized, the response is that we do not live under true capitalism. The system that actually exists is always treated as an aberration rather than the logical result of capitalist incentives operating over time. The bureaucratic monopolistic society you describe is not a corruption external to capitalism. It is capitalism doing exactly what it is structurally incentivized to do. Capitalism’s defining objective is not serving people. It is profit maximization. Selling something for more than it costs to produce. That incentive does not stop at the market boundary. Firms rationally seek to reduce competition, shape rules in their favor, raise barriers to entry, and externalize costs such as healthcare, labor, education and environmental damage. When capital accumulates, the most efficient way to protect profit is no longer innovation. It is political influence.This is not socialism. It is regulatory capture, a phenomenon extensively documented in mainstream economics. Industries systematically capture regulators to serve profit and shareholder interests rather than the public. Public Choice Theory explains how private actors use the state to entrench economic advantage. Peer reviewed research has repeatedly linked market concentration to lobbying power and weakened competition and demonstrates that capital concentration naturally converts into political power unless it is actively countered. The regulations you are pointing to are not anti capitalist constraints imposed from outside the system. They are capitalist behaviors expressed through the state. Capital does not invade government accidentally. It does so because it is profitable. This is why food insecurity and healthcare failures exist inside wealthy capitalist nations. Healthcare markets optimize for revenue rather than outcomes as documented by the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund. Food systems prioritize shareholder value resulting in both massive waste and widespread hunger. Market choice disappears when industries consolidate, something the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice openly acknowledge has accelerated. Saying real capitalism would wipe out big business ignores history. Unregulated capitalism has never remained competitive for long. It tends toward monopoly because scale, capital accumulation, and political leverage are competitive advantages. If capitalism were self correcting, it would not require perpetual bailouts, repeated antitrust interventions, or constant state support to prevent collapse. The fact that it does is evidence that the outcomes being criticized are not a deviation from capitalism but its mature form. Capitalism concentrated wealth beyond our imaginations. We live in a post scarcity environment where victims of capitalism and socio economic factors alike keep hundreds of millions unhoused, hungry and sick while the capitalist owners, that by nature produce nothing (proof of work) and only extract value through rent seeking behaviors, enjoy socialist benefits provided by and extracted from the workers that produce all of the things of value that we use. It’s become very common for the capitalist to rage against socialism while they enjoy all of our socialist benefits and initiatives while insisting that the rest of society must stick to raw unfettered capitalism. It’s also very common now for uneducated and ill informed workers to defend capitalism and vote against their own self interest as well. Capitalism only favors those who have breached a certain threshold of accumulation which is only achieved and made possible through extortion of the worker.

Hey Danny, please bro can I bring attention to the way in which transnational organizations have exploited the people and government of Fiji to exploit people’s acquifers, I mean it’s not widely known but Fiji Water is a fucking cancer on Polynesia

1. If they become forced sellers because they're not true hodlers but just grifters trying to get a management fee while the going is good. It's fiat behaviour that gets associated with Bitcoin. 2. All these companies are probably storing their Bitcoin with the same custodian, and they're all much more vulnerable to regulatory risk than an individual. This is added centralisation risk. You can't stop it, but these are fair criticisms. Danny wasn't pushing back on businesses using Bitcoin as a tool - i.e. better cash vehicle while they create value in their chosen markets. He was pushing back against companies doing this as their only activity. Saylor was being a dick - he's smart enought to know the nuanced difference.

I ain't reading all tha, sorry.

No problem, main point is “No True Scotsman Fallacy”. Anytime you criticize a consequence of capitalism, it gets thrown out because “that’s crony capitalism” instead of just a natural destination/ instrument of capitalism itself. Good day to you!

Ah. Thanks! I'm not arguing that, I'm saying by it's very dificlnituon, it isn't capitalism if the state is mandating said cartels products to be used.

I understand your argument completely. However, capitalism will always seek consolidation of power, wealth, and the reduction in competition. The State turns into a tool for what capitalism does naturally.

Of course it seems wealth and reduction in competition..duh. that's a great thing. However, today's largest company Nvidia did not even exist 50 years ago, nor Tesla, Google, meta. Nor openai or anthropic or Bitcoin miners for that matter. The point being, they can seek power and no competition, however they cannot ever achieve this in free market capitalism. There is absolutely no downside to capitalism nor consequences of capitalism as you out it without the state having a say.

Sounds like your argument is with the state, not capitalism. We agree completely!

You think consolidation of wealth and reduction in competition is a good thing?

Please explain.

No True Scotsman fallacy again

This is also No True Scotsman Fallacy

Ummm, no. It's quite literally just a statement that we agree. I'm out, this is nuts, have a good day.

Of course. That's quite literally the goal of a business. To win and make money.

There it is.

Please get off nostr if you don't like markets and capitalism. The entire ecosystem exists only because of it. Your relay is running on a device or server, capitalist. Primal wallet and their node? Capitalist. Funded by ten31. Your phone or cpu? Capitalist. The cell networks, Wi-Fi devices and computers in between? Capitalists. The isp? Capitalist. The network infrastructure? Capitalist. Go go fuck yourself, hypocrit.

You are a perfect example of knowing just enough to get yourself in trouble. You wouldn’t read a few small paragraphs from me and I don’t expect you to read anything contrary to what you “believe”. This is why capitalism is a religion. Thank you for your time.

According to Saylor self custody is worth less than 1% of bitcoin's value proposition -- that's the important point for me, as I strongly disagree! Without self custody can be coerced and controlled like everything else. He's a bitcoiner who doesn't consider self custody important, and he's saying that he agrees "99%" with bitcoiners who do, and should not focus on little differences. Self custody is a huge one, bro! He made some points, but he pretends not to understand that: - there is a difference between a regular company buying bitcoin from its operational treasury vs. a "treasury" company buying bitcoin with debt raised from others - there are many entities that can buy bitcoin directly - self custody is important View quoted note →

How dare you Danny 😂. It was painful to watch how he talked down on you 💔 You deserve all the zaps in the world

It was difficult to sit through that. Always struggled with his arrogance.

You did well Danny, definitely sone cringe moments - I got the impression he was in a bad mood and was exercising some frustrations. He really could have controlled his temper and been a more humble guest on your podcast... Even if he disagrees with the framing of your questions he didn't need to be quite so scathing, he just came off like a irritable twat at moments. Good on you for keeping your cool

When I saw the What Bitcoin Did interview and saw Mike upset (to put it mildly), I got strong Greta Thurnberg vibes. And now, thanks to this pic, I can't get Brigitte Macron out of my head.

In the long run all this noise is totally irrelevant. So price goes down, nbd. Those who understand BTC just keep accumulating. These are just nonsense arguments along the path. Keep helping to educate those close to you and help them avoid the real problems of the existing system.

How was Michael arrogant?

Good work Danny, well handled. You were gracious and respectful.

He spoke down to Danny for no reason. You can push back and not be a total dick at the same time. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

The obsession of the podcasters over the treasury companies has been going on for like a year. It’s worth a little chastisement. Obsess over the no coiners and the shitty politicians who continue to lie and shitcoin for their own profit.

🔴 What Is Islam? 🔴 Islam is not just another religion. 🔵 It is the same message preached by Moses, Jesus and Abraham... 👇🏼 pic.twitter.com/BJBPLamw24 https://jesusen1.blogspot.com/2017/12/what-is-islam.html  🔴 What Is Islam? 🔴 Islam is not just another religion. 🔵 It is the same message preached by Moses, Jesus and Abraham. 🔴 Islam literally means ‘submission to God’ and it teaches us to have a direct relationship with God. 🔵 It reminds us that since God created us, no one should be worshipped except God alone. 🔴 It also teaches that God is nothing like a human being or like anything that we can imagine. 🌍 The concept of God is summarized in the Quran as: 📖 { “Say, He is God, the One. God, the Absolute. He does not give birth, nor was He born, and there is nothing like Him.”} (Quran 112:1-4) 📚 🔴 Becoming a Muslim is not turning your back to Jesus. 🔵 Rather it’s going back to the original teachings of Jesus and obeying him. More .....👇 🔴 THE RETURN OF JESUS

What Is Islam?

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 🔴 ATHEISM EXPLAINED IN 45 SECONDS https://youtu.be/uwqPdWZvjAY 🔴 "ATHEIST VS MUSLIM (PLAN...

This was really good! I am sure Danny can take the heat and he handled it so well. He was asking exactly what most people think and Saylor did his usual thing. Talks like these provoke thoughts and introduce new perspectives. I wish there were more episodes like this on all podcasts. Bravo.