My Take: "Saylor's Comments on Banks as Bitcoin Custodians Makes Sense"
Subhead: "Today versus Tomorrow"
*** Feedback Wanted ***
Recently Saylor made comments on how banks could become Bitcoin custodians and people are in an uproar:
I could see how people at Coinbase/Swan would be concerned but I feel what Saylor says makes sense and would make sense to Satoshi?
Let me explain .
Not thinking of how things are today but tomorrow. For instance, take PayPal, Swan, Strike, Coinbase today. What are the steps you have to do. I will list just one:
1) Link a bank account in order to Wire Transfer or Send some limited daily/monthly amount of FIAT
We already have to have the banks so what if Wells Fargo or US Bank was a custodial of Bitcoin?
You wouldn't have to link a bank account to any other 'Bitcoin custodian' and you could simply buy and HODL Bitcoin in your bank account.
Then, when/if you were uncomfortable or saved enough to make it worthwhile to send to the Base Layer, you could simply send whatever Bitcoin off to Cold Storage? (E.g. Wells Fargo to Green App/Jade)
Exactly like how ayPal, Swan, Strike, Coinbase work today.
I think what people are missing is Saylor made this assumption, at least that is what I am thinking, it is too logical.
These banks are not FTX and would have to be held accountable, just like BlackRock/Fidelity/ARK will be with their Bitcoin spot ETFs. People will want to move their Bitcoin from ETFs, somehow, even if it is huge fees to get to their banks (....and start the Bitcoin loop over again if they want?)
Satoshi wouldn't care, you are still opting out of the banking system via Bitcoin (Portfolio/System Diversification) and can tap into all the benefits of the Bitcoin you know and love.
Further, in the future, we all know the fees to get on the base layer of Bitcoin are going to be expensive and prohibitive, perhaps everyone will only do about 2-5 transactions to the Base Layer the rest of their lives?
(Consolidate those UTXOs that may not have enough to cover the fees?)
Tomorrow's Bitoin will be different than today. Today using banks seems stupid, but tomorrow, having and holding Bitcoin via a bank that you can opt of whenever you want or makes the most cents/sense is fine with me.
Plus, if they try to screw us, Bitcoin Community (nightmare) Class Action Lawsuits and the Supreme Court would have to back logical Bitcoin math, free speech. Bitcoin is open sourced code on a public ledger. Talk about transparency, everything compared to Bitcoin is opaque.
Saylor resonates with me, for years, especially when he brought up 'regulation' and people got mad, then CBDCs will be fine along side Bitcoin, (even though he states no one will want a Chinese/US/Russian CBDC) but if you look at Bitcoin as Digital Property Saylor has said:
"There is room for all of us to win." - Michael Saylor
Including banks, Swan, Coinbase, agree with it or not, all paths lead to Bitcoin in Cold Storage (if you hold it as digital property) or to various wallets if you want to use Bitcoin as currency for a circular economy.
The latter, however, has the most friction, I documented the 'friction' here with a zillion quotes from Saylor with whom I agree:
https://bitcoinapolis.blogspot.com/2022/12/bitcoin-bitcoin-as-digital-property-is.html
Bitcoin is a massive commodity. Like Air and Water. There is room for many options including Banks as custodiana.
Thoughts?
#bitcoin #pleb #grownostr #zapathon