nostr:nprofile1qqs2xs05tluhtr6hpgsmqqxp04898gayjlyrjlexcrndv8j6el784xqpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqz9rhwden5te0dehhxarj9ehhsarj9ejx2asz4y306 Proves that no matter how much money he has, he is still really fuckin uncool, while simultaneously seeking validation from the cool kids. This is evidenced by how many AI generated self portraits he cranks out wveryday. Bitcoiners are rightly suspicious due to lack of proof of reserves, and Wall Street views him as a reckless religious zealot. He may be onto something Satoshi didn’t intend when creating p2p cash. Can credit and interest be killed by sound money? Should it?
Replies (12)
Hal Finney suggested that banks would create money on top of bitcoin. This is essentially what Saylor is doing.
No argument about what he is doing. I’m not sold on the merits of interest/usury. Compensated for risk seems immoral somehow. Parasitic. I don’t think the genie can be put back in the bottle though.
Additionally, what is the Saylor end-game? Continuous rent seeking with finite digital hoarding at the base? Kinda gay.
I think we'll always need loans, and loans will always have a value. I don't consider interest automatically usury.
My other point is that Hal worried about scalability (and I believe Hal was Satoshi), so I generally don't say that Satoshi would be against this stuff, but that's just me.
what's rent seeking about it? He is creating products the market wants (and in many cases actually needs).
He aims to create credit instruments from holding bitcoin. The design was for it to be cash.
We will continue to need credit instruments, but that's not what he's doing rn. He's creating financial products companies and institutions need to park their cash.
Why? Credit is not necessary to those with capital. It was invented as a way of foregoing parting woth your capital, which means capital must “appear” instead of being transferred. This is a perversion of nature.
Very few people are going to have capital in the next era. So either the world is serfdom (which is quite likely to happen within 10 years) or it will look roughly the way it does now. In the meantime, what Saylor is doing is probably building the capital pool for that era. I just don't know who's going to distribute it. That actually is a very interesting question.
I don’t have a pessimistic view on this transition… I used to, but more and more, the early adopters will be enriched accepting sats for payment directly, limiting any bogus “yield” value from custodians. Imagine if, to access Grok, they ONLY ACCEPTED bitcoin. Or to buy the healthiest farm raised beef, they ONLY ACCEPTED sats. I can see this quickly catching on as more people see commerce through the lens of the shrinking purchasing power of fiat and compare that to the increasing power of sats. We are in the middle of a slow motion fiat car crash… new ground for all alive from a first-hand experience pov.
I'm of two minds on the transition. I don't think either has to happen quickly. I do think at some point there will be a rush to compete for our bitcoin.
I believe, though, that most people will either get stuck in a cbdc of some sort or a limbo created by stablecoins that push the collapse out a few years, and while not preventing it, leads to a more comfortable ending for most people.
Agree on the CBDC risk.
