Been thinking about Saylor's "borrowing against bitcoin" and the consequences, not to the person borrowing so much, but the wider consequences of the behaviour.

Links with timestamps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4-e5wq5AJ8&t=2940s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSsDqOFdG9I&t=2560s

The majority of this interview was fantastic but Saylor went a bit deeper on this borrowing against bitcoin / bitcoin as collateral and in the second video Peter Dunworth talks about what 'will happen' with bitcoin & what rehypothecation and leverage banks could do should it be "declared" a currency rather than a property and how banks may even want to pay you so they can leverage your bitcoin.

I think both outcomes are sharkish/fiat/shitcoin/yeild minded. The majority of this is fantastic by Saylor, but on this point I'm hearing him really consider using Bitcoin to get "risk free yeild" essentially, and whether it's with risk or not, but to my mind this is antithetical to Austrian economics and frames bitcoin as a tool for the fiat system rather than a different system entirely as maybe Jeff Booth best describes.

I appreciate that he talks frequently about how not to push people away from bitcoin, how to help rather than hurt the cause, that you have a better chance of changing someone's mind if you're polite rather than toxic and be aggressive only when it's life or death.

But on this point, trying to convince money to move into bitcoin by pushing ideas which may cause a lot of harm doesn't seem the best way to go about it either.