Replies (100)
That means a lot. Thank you 🙏
Great read! Keep up the great work!
Imo, If bitcoin isn't money, air must not have oxygen.
Thank you very much for the kind words as well as for taking the time to read and comment.
Yes, something to this effect, for sure!
Saylor wants Tether's business
Could be
I want to make a correction to this article. Bitcoin is not scarce. Bitcoin is limited, finite.
21 million is not scarce.
21 quadrillion is not scarce.
Its just we cant make more, thats the important part.
The number could have been larger or smaller, it doesnt matter. It is technically smaller now.
or what ever the number of satoshis are, quintillion. lol
he's just simping for Lord Doge and his lapdog
it's so transparent
But there's infinite demand so any limited supply is scarcity
He’s a very smart man
Or he’s an absolute lunatic
What do you mean infitine demand? Demand is also finite.
If you measure demand in dollars it's infinite for many assets because dollars are freely printed by moving bits around in bank computer networks so there are unlimited dollars
If you measure demand in people it's potentially infinite for strong assets like Bitcoin because we don't really know for sure if people will ever stop being born
The worst kind of lunatic is a very smart lunatic
Yeah, I had certainly given me a lot to think about. I just read it. There’s some things I see the point but the whole reason it works is the ability to use it to page other you know that it can be used in that way, but at the same time I do believe it’s a Veblen good.
Use it to pay each other
He think what he want, free market force are the only decisions maker. No body can play with energy.
#bitcoin #nostr
Saylor is a wolf with a sheep skin.
But people die too, remember.
Definitely a possibility
Bitcoin maxis want the world to all centralize around one money, Bitcoin. What happened to decentralization? Competing currencies!
Excellent piece Frank. Thank you.
My note on Saylor dissrespectors. Don’t blame Saylor for doing his own diligence and running his own business by his own rules. While not being in line with vision of Bitcoin shared by many bitcoiners including myself he is only one of the players in this game. Stronger than many but still one of many. Future of Bitcoin is not determined yet, nothing is granted. There is no final truth. Everyone is free to do what they want.
Bitcoin is freedom.
Michael Saylor may be the next FTX
isnt kinda paradoxical to someone be a maxi and not see btc as currency? if you see and predict bitcoin succeding, it pratically means that fiat tend to zero. in that scenario you would be forced to use btc as currency because the other one ($) has no value, which also makes it not a great capital allocation if the underlying currency of valuation is worth nothing
Almost certain.
Bitcoin is a currency
Saylor can fuck off
Your opinion is as relevant as Saylor's.
I would never disagree with this. He’s insanely bright
True to some degree
Could be but what he’s doing is the complete opposite of what FTX was doing. His operations are out there for everyone to see
Definitely a bit confusing at the very least
I actually didn’t have much of an issue with him until what he said on this podcast. And I still think he’s allowed to think and say whatever he wants. I just felt a need to push back, because I felt some of the rhetoric he was using is dangerous, especially to those new to the space.
Good distinction
Growth overall as long as there are more planets
Nicely done. My only hope is Saylor is playing 4-D chess here. The alternative would mean we’re in for an imminent currency vs capital war that could get ugly quickly
I'm proud to say that I thought Saylor was harmful before it was cool. Nice to see more people saying so, though.
Bitcoin is a capital asset. It needs a currency to meet it's transactional demands. This is beyond debate. A digital dollar is stupid. A currency pegged to bitcoin is not stupid. Lightning, Liquid, and e-cash are currencies built on bitcoin.
Capital is an abstract concept. Gold is a representation of capital. So is the US Dollar, so is MSTR stock and so is Bitcoin. All just representations of the abstraction.
The question is which representation is the best one to use for any given use case. And the answer changes depending on circumstances and time.
Just because Satoshi did not use the word "Capital" in his whitepaper or in communications with others doesn't mean that Bitcoin is not capital. Terminology does not make something what it is, function does.
Capital is the abstration behind Money, and Money has all properties: Store of Value, Medium of Exchange, Unit of Account. Words get in the way here, they don't help.
Saylor is a businessman, in the United States. Of course he is going to talk about money in terms of the US Dollar. That's not a surprise, it's just the default.
I agree with you that anything tied to the value of the US Dollar is going to go to zero against Bitcoin. USDC, USDT, anything related. No question.
But that doesn't mean that the USD and stablecoins are not representations of capital that we can or should use. It means that if we set our default to BTC, we will be building. If that default is set to USD, we will be sinking.
I'd rather build than sink.
Don't know if you listened to
@jack mallers podcast from this week with
@ODELL and
@HODL, but one of the premises is his recent commentary and Digital Assets Framework is that its essentially a way to keep himself, MicroStrategy, and Bitcoin out of the crosshairs and in everyone's good graces.
Further, Bitcoin's beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. For Saylor, he needs it to be capital and nothing else. So I honestly don't expect him to go out of his way to sell it any other way. Lastly, his statements aren't geared at or to maxis, they're geared to suits, politicians, and that ilk.
One final point. I don't think Eric Trump's statements at Bitcoin MENA about knowing Saylor for 20 years was a throw away line. Just like I don't think Saylor's recent framing of Bitcoin was probably advised by whatever cabal is working on things behind the scenes.
Now, if this doesn't end up being trojan horse the Greeks pulled up the Walls of Troy, I will be extremely disappointed but that is still where my two sats lie.
The market will decide.
I agree with you. He is free to share his thoughts as anyone is free to disagree and provide contrarian views.
I just think, by looking at the comments, that people either had to big expectations of him and now feel betrayed or maybe disappointed. Sailor whether one likes it or not is part of Bitcoin. We are all Bitcoin.
This is one of those things that takes some time to play out and in hindsight, we’re gonna see things. Some of these things may not be to Bitcoiners liking.
Agreed.
He’s absolutely free (and welcome) to share his thoughts and we’re free to push back.
Always good to temper one’s expectations, especially when it comes to heroes in the Bitcoin space.
I’d argue that Saylor absolutely is a part of Bitcoin. And I agree 100% when you say we are all Bitcoin. In fact:
Bitcoin Magazine
We Are Bitcoin
A seemingly contradictory, yet profound message from Jeff Booth…
Yes
Thank you for sharing. I will listen to that episode.
Fingers crossed that it isn’t a Trojan horse.
I agree with your points here. I’m not arguing that US dollars or stablecoin versions of them aren’t capital. I’m simply making the point that it’s important remember that while bitcoin is capital, it’s also very much a currency.
I don’t think he’s entirely harmful, though, what he said on this podcast episode is in many ways
Thank you, Avi 🙏
I hope that’s what he’s doing, too. And I agree. I don’t really want to think about the alternative.
Yeah, there's a bunch of misconceptions in this article. But a good heuristic for you might be that if someone is LITERALLY more invested in something than you, they might understand it better than you think.
The semantic "iT dOeSn'T sAy CaPiTaL in ThE wHiTe PaPeR?!?" argument is just a fundamental misunderstanding of money, capital goods, currency and financial systems.
Assets and capital are what determines final settlement. Is bitcoin settlement, final settlement? Yes? Then it's capital. Is lightning utilized as a medium for timely exchange to ease the use of the underlying asset? Yes? Then it's currency. Is there a promise to repay in exchange for interest or equity? Then it's credit. This is how money works.
So are you making the same argument I did in the piece, which is that Bitcoin is both money and capital?
And is your argument that people who have the most Bitcoin get to control the narrative around the asset? If so, that seems completely antithetical to Bitcoin
You said it is currency, it is not, definitionally. Also this isn't a narrative. It is a fact based observation. Bitcoin literally cannot handle the financial transaction load unless abstracted to another layer. Money is an asset and capital. There's not distinction in kind between the two.
Definitionally, it is (as per the Whitepaper). In your opinion, it’s not. And that’s fine.
Because the money is used to transact on a second layer doesn’t mean it doesn’t benefit from the security of the base layer in very important ways.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with the last two sentences.
If you’d like, pitch a rebuttal piece to my piece to Bitcoin Magazine. We welcome disagreement.
True, IMHO it's a different attack vector and kind of threat, still it is a serious threat. This time mainly based on Bitcoin Ownership Centralization. En plein air. Like the best scams.
If he seems a spook, smells like a spook and speaks like a spook, probably Saylor is a spook.
To paraphrase him:
"People who sell us Magic Internet Money as not being Money, we call them 'scammers'.
Just my 2cents
Sure, I will try to write one up this weekend. I will look into the submission process soon to see how welcome to descent BM is.
Sounds like a false dichotomy. Saylor’s use case is capital, additional use cases only further strengthens the capital use case.
But, maybe, just maybe, even forces against Bitcoin are part of Bitcoin? They are shaping Bitcoin trying to push it in that or other direction while pro-Bitcoin forces which are not united are opposing and trying to push the other directions. It’s like crowd rolling big ball on the beach.
I would say that Bitcoin is not only for enemies but also for enemies of Bitcoin.
I still bet this ball is rolling the right direction.
✌️
Yes, I made that exact point in the piece
I don’t think it’s a matter of “good” and “evil”. It’s more about everyone with a stake in Bitcoin speaking up to add to the narrative around it and to move the protocol in the direction they see fit. And you’re right, Bitcoin is for enemies, though, I’d prefer not to think in such a black and white way about Saylor. I think he’s also done some good for Bitcoin.
It's not that he doesn't understand it.
Hes just pragmatic, and realises who his audience is.
That’s one take and it’s surely a possibility. Doesn’t make his rhetoric any less dangerous though
Agreed. Great article!
Thank you and thank you for taking the time to read it!
?Come on people! If Michael would run around and call BTC a currency the FED, SEC, Oligarchs and all of their lobbyists and influence would wreck his business in a matter of days… so smart people won’t do this at this point.
Thanks for this text. It aligns with the default heuristic for independent thinking: don’t idolise anyone—anyone can be wrong at any time.
I don’t treat Saylor as enemy of Bitcoin either. It was general statement. Saylor is in ny opinion proBitcoin, positive force although hus view differs from mine.
Saylor
__________________
fifth column
__________________
noun
A clandestine subversive organization working within a country to further an invading enemy's military and political aims.
A group of persons inside the battle lines of a territory engaged in a conflict, who secretly sympathize with the enemy, and who engage in espionage or sabotage; -- sometimes also referred to as a trojan horse.
Hence, any faction of persons within a group who secretly sympathize with an enemy, especially those who engage in activities harmful to the group; an enemy in one's midst; a group of traitors.
A group of people which clandestinely undermines a larger group, such as a nation, to which it is expected to be loyal.
A subversive group that supports the enemy and engages in espionage or sabotage; an enemy in your midst.
Thank you for that.
You may very well be right.
I view this pretty the same way, though, I’d take the word “positive” out of that statement.
My pleasure
@Gracjan Pietras (and thank you for the recent ODF text you helped author!)
It’s surely important not to idolize people, especially in this space.
His perspective is not wrong or right. Just, bitcoin has to be something(capital or peanuts) for long time before it becomes a currency.
😎
Currency is not a creation. Currency is something accepted for majority as mean of exchange starting from something that someone created(man or nature). It could be gold, peanuts or bitcoin. I believe it will be bitcoin for logical reasons. But we are yet far away from that.
You are correct. But at the same time it’s already being used as currency by people all over the world. And it’s one thing to say it will eventually be used as currency and another to say it’s not currency.
Think of the dollar as Agent Smith In The Matrix trilogy. It's the Oracle's plan to let Smith take over the world, then everything centralized has a single weak point and can be destroyed. It's inevitable. The other fiat currencies are weak so the dollar will consume them. Then it's only one step to make the dollar defined as a unit of sats. If the Fed won't do it, any one of these could flip a switch and convert all their customers to sats: Visa, Google Pay, Amazon, or Apple
Probably true, but not something in all that concerned about. I’m more concerned with new people entering the space listening to his offbeat rhetoric.
*I’m all that
Ok valid point, hope they then will get to you. Let’s say there is no bad publicity.
But there are bad plans
He’s a new Bitcoiner so he still has much to learn, even though he has a loud megaphone
I think it's a strategic move. He is very clear about the continual debasement of the dollar, he knows it has a limited life although it could be decades yet. To come out & publicly as he does and promote bitcoin as a currency to replace the dollar would create an awful lot of pushback I believe. There's institutional adoption happening that is undeniably a result of his bitcoin moves & I suspect the ETF's might not have happened this year without him . I think we'll all come to appreciate Saylor in the years to come, he's positive for bitcoin even if we don't agree with him on everything
I already appreciate Saylor’s conviction around bitcoin as capital.
Without in-kind redemptions, I don’t think the ETFs are a good thing.
It could be a strategic move, but I don’t think it is. I’d imagine it’s very much the US government’s plan to hook the world on digital dollars and I wouldn’t put it past him to help play a role in that plan.
Not that new
I’d imagine that those companies don’t do that because they understand what the repercussions would be.
Sure if that's what you think that's fine. I have my doubts Saylor is in cahoots with the government that makes zero sense especially over a currency he has said over & over again is losing it's value. Even if he was championing bitcoin as the new reserve currency of the world it won't happen until bitcoin can scale. Onchain transactions cannot be used for day to day use and Lightning is nowhere close to ready for the world to use instead of dollars or stablecoins.
What he says just makes sense, and stablecoins are far more practical at the moment for daily transacting that anything bitcoin currently has to offer which is why people in high inflation countries use them. The government can't "hook the world" onto something that is constantly losing its value particularly if that value starts to decrease at a faster rate but bitcoin currently isn't ready to replace the dollar for daily use by the world, it just isn't.
If the SEC had it's way we would still be without the ETF's. I imagine in the next 12 months in-kind redemption will be allowed.
great article.
unfortunately a currency with a fixed immutable supply will always strongly incentivize maximizing your hodling,
and conversely incentivize minimizing spending.
although there's probably progress to be made in attitude and Bitcoin culture,
the incentives are what they are.
He started buying in 2020 and was anti Bitcoin previously
It is times like these I wish we could ask Satoshi or Hal to weigh in and offer their perspectives. I think Satoshi made clear what #Bitcoin is in the white paper.
That’s a dangerous way to think about things. #Bitcoin is a leaderless protocol. We are Bitcoin. It’s up to us to share our perspectives on what Bitcoin is and what it should be.
Almost 5 years is about a third of #Bitcoin’s existence
He also owns about 2% of the supply of bitcoin.
I’d say he’s had his time and reason to study what Bitcoin is extensively.
Thank you and thank you for taking the time to read and comment.
Agreed. This is what makes #bitcoin good capital.
The part many aren’t taking into account in their responses to this article, though, is that the #Bitcoin network can be used permissionlessly, which will be increasingly important as we move into the age of CBCDs and which is already important in an age where digital dollar transactions (including those in which USDT or USDC are used) can be and are censored.
Good point, i agree with it being a leaderless protocol and that’s one of its many attractive features. i think everyone who participates in the protocol can do so for whatever reason they want, whether to transact, use it as a store of value, regard it as digital property, etc.
It’s also interesting that after 15 years we have yet to see it widely adopted as currency, and the peer to peer cash system that the white paper laid out.
This lack of clarity in use case makes it easy to see how the Saylor’s of the world can imprint their own narratives on what they hold.
Would love to see the mass adoption and democratization that connects to Satoshi’s original mission and thesis.
I’ve seen it used as a currency countless times across the world.
People use it as a currency every day on this platform.
That’s exactly why I’m checking out this platform
Glad to hear that 🤝
as I know you already know
if it isnt possible for users to easily and cheaply get privacy on Bitcoin,
and the Cantillionaires are highly incentivized to control the on/off ramps to prevent escape from the system that they control,
they can prevent people from making self custodial p2p transactions and undermine that censorship resistance.
Enjoyed your article
@Frank Corva and don’t necessarily disagree with where you are coming from, but I think Saylor is pretty smart. He knows the US is a long way from really having to consider Bitcoin as currency, and hence the conversation is a needless distraction whilst the volatility is still this high and Gresham’s law is in full display.
Perhaps he’s a bit disingenuous with some of his framing - but I think we forget how few pro Bitcoin executives of large corporations we ever hear speaking. As a different example have a look at Saylor’s comments on the US election before it happened - there essentially weren’t any.
Thank you for taking the time to read and share your thoughts.
I hear where you’re coming from and have considered your point. To speak to your point about the election, I wish Saylor took the same approach here - Don’t say anything.
Also, I’d ask you to consider one important thing. What if this really is his plan? And what if he’s speaking on behalf of the state to some extent. Shouldn’t we be pushing back if that’s the case?
Thanks Frank - these are good questions. I am an interested stakeholder as a MSTR shareholder. Based in the UK, I like many over here have no other Bitcoin related proxies to match MSTR within a pension. This fact has pushed me into a higher MSTR exposure than I’d rather have, relative to Bitcoin, and the risks are somewhat higher in many ways.
Fully agree with your right to push back on narratives, and of course limit the power of the state. It might be most prudent to assume he was pretty connected and act accordingly. An aside, but one thing that reassures me as a current shareholder is MSTR’s recent Bitcoin principles slide and the transparency of that long term plan. Saylor provides all the right signals in this respect, though of course it doesn’t concern the exact areas under debate here.
