Yes, he is very intelligent. No question about it. I agree that Michael’s current path is incompatible with Bitcoin as freedom money. I also think that he is perfectly aware of it. If we define being “in Bitcoin” the way Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be used and understood (“A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.”), I don’t know how many people Saylor has brought into Bitcoin. He has brought many people into the “digital gold / digital Manhattan / digital credit” space, but instead of aligning himself with Satoshi’s vision, he has (at times) been pretty hostile towards the idea of peer-to-peer cash and self-custody. Nobody knows what’s his agenda and what is going on in his head, but what I find very confusing is this: Satoshi made it perfectly clear that Bitcoin is supposed to be peer-to-peer cash. And in some kind of sly roundabout way Saylor has managed to convince many “Bitcoiners” that Bitcoin is NOT peer-to-peer cash. And now I am looking at Saylor like this:

Bruh, some guys had an argument about variable effekt on neural circuits. Some got fired for making things work, but it offended the judges. Maybe not sure, but normalising is a signal processing technique. Whatever works best for the machinery. But don’t tell me it doesn’t fucking matter, Frank.