Boy, that Saylor-Saif conversation was rough. Both have real blind spots in their arguments, if you ask me. But at the end of the day, only one of them is storing thousands of bitcoin at Coinbase. And I say that as a Saylor fan.
Discussion
What’s Saif’s blindspot?
He’s seemingly against all forms of debt other than basic consumer loans and thinks bitcoin eventually forces everyone into giving up equity if they wish to raise capital
How is he wrong?
Debt is a priority claim on an asset. If the cost of capital is 20%+ on a bitcoin standard, there will be a helluva less debt and more equity funding of assets & companies.
Bitcoin doesn’t end debt but it dramatically reduces the incentive to fund via debt vs. equity.
This is basically my view too. Less debt, not zero debt. I welcome it. A real cost of capital and everyone lowering their time preference would be a win
In that case, I think your view and nostr:npub1gdu7w6l6w65qhrdeaf6eyywepwe7v7ezqtugsrxy7hl7ypjsvxksd76nak ‘s view are very similar.
Agreed, just a matter of degree and speed. There’s definitely a reason my original note called out Saylor and his over-comfortability with custodians.
Actually just listened to last week’s nostr:npub10uthwp4ddc9w5adfuv69m8la4enkwma07fymuetmt93htcww6wgs55xdlq and agree with their framing too. Most Bitcoiners aren’t going to risk any loss for a 5% yield and want to live sats-flow positive generally. I still think the pod didn’t make either party look great, but lean more towards Saif’s positions