Today should be interesting. Let the games begin.
And I’ve re-thought the Saylor/Saif interview.
“Where will the yield come from Michael ?” is a valid question just like with Celsius.
Don’t play with your coin. Store it safely until you need it & then spend some. Don’t chase yield or “sell the news” type games.
History rhymes.
I've finished the podcast today and I am not sure were really the controversy is.
In Saylor's view, the yield clearly comes from lending the money to an individual/entity that will amplify the value of the original loan amount. His comment ton the 65y old that wants his money to receive a yield and so he lends it out a 22year old with a great business plan etc. On an individual level, this is associated with high risk and uncertainty but once you bundle multiple of these events, the risk becomes more easy to manage and basically a bank is born. The alternative would be a VC that forms and instead of expecting a yield, they want equity. Both forms are well established principles and will continue to be so even with a fixed, deflationary money. This is a simple concept and will forever be a valid argument to loan out money to another party with the expectation to receive a yield on this loan.
And I think Saifadean's view is actually not that different, it's mostly were he sets the baseline. He argues that a "yield" will be 0 when you lend your bitcoin will be zero. But then he argues that this is better then the alternative because zero is better than a negative yield (which would occur due to cost of keeping this capital as he said over and over again).
So Saifadean's argues from a scenario where with a loan you get zero % yield but keep the value of your capital fixed but without a loan you get a negative yield (say -0.5%). How is this conceptually different from saying with a loan you get 0.5% yield and without a loan you have 0% yield? it's just moving the baseline by 0.5% one direction or the other and in a scenario that Saifadean envisions keeping your 1 bitcoin buying power constant if you loan it to someone is still better and an incentive than not loaning it out and slowly have your buying power eroded. Saylor's argument that there will always be benefits from a credit/loan system no matter the underlying monetary system is still valid either way.
Very valid. So much of the discussion requires a lot of time to pass before any of it makes sense anyway.
So in the end, who knows.
First a revolution, then a businesses, then a racket.
It just seems to be how humans work.
Hey, but there is always a revolution around the corner.
I’m no expert but I think the yield comes from real productivity.
In the end, we all succumb to utopian thinking when we want something to happen. And we always want shit to happen.
In the end I see both sides, two utopians who think they are too smart to be utopians disagreeing about whose utopian picture is more realistic.
Well said
