Jeff Booth makes a similar (though not exactly the same, if I remember correctly) point in his recent interview with Natalie Brunell, which I highly recommend. I think the point Saylor is making is that you WILL be enormously wealthy, in terms of purchasing power and holding the hardest asset on earth, but he’s probably using USD to make the point sensible/comprehensible for a wide audience. It takes a number of rounds and some mental yoga to get to the point where Jeff’s approach really lands. If that makes sense?
Hey nostr:nprofile1qqsw4v882mfjhq9u63j08kzyhqzqxqc8tgf740p4nxnk9jdv02u37ncpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9uju6mpd4czuumfw3jsz9nhwden5te0wfjkccte9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsq3yamnwvaz7tmsw4e8qmr9wpskwtn9wvql3tqm. Can I ask for help with something please? I'm not very versed in economics but I noticed this in Michael Saylor's presentation and I was wondering if I'm right or if I'm missing something:
So according to saylor, if you have 6.5 coins (or whatever amount) would could potentially have a crazy amount or Dollars in 20 years.
But my problem here is that - the reason why you may have millions in 20 years because the dollar is worth less (inflation) than 20y ago. In other words, it's the same bitcoin value, but the dollar just isn't worth shit and you need 1 million to buy milk.
So, when he says you will be "wealthy" that's not really true.
This insistence is measuring the value of bitcoin in dollars seems futile in the long run. It seems to me we should perhaps use gold as it's depreciation is far more stable and maybe say 1btc = 20 gold coins and in 20 years 1btc = 23 gold coins.
Does any of this make sense? Sorry for the long paragraph. I really appreciate you patience to read it.
Discussion
No replies yet.