Saylor’s discussion with Saif was an unfortunate one. Saylor still doesn’t seem to understand basic Austrian economics, and the fact that #Bitcoin is going to obsolete the dollar whether financial behemoths try to run the current system with it or not. He does not seem to understand the end game of fixed supply money. I like the guy a lot, think he is generally brilliant, but this is a bad blind spot. He majorly recognized the error of his ways before with regards to #Bitcoin in general, and I assume he will recognize his error again at some point down the road. This has nothing to do with ideology or beliefs, but simple math and economics.
I haven't watched it, should I?
It’s worth listening to for sure. I find conversations like that force you to develop your own responses to misguided thinking. It stirred up a lot of thoughts with me.
Will give it a listen later today🫂
Or he has to play nice.
Then that’s just pathetic.
I’d say pragmatic. At the end of the day, the hardest money wins. There are gonna be a lot of powerful interests impacted by that transition. He doesn’t need to (and probably doesn’t want to) make enemies. He’ll leave that to the @saifedean of the world. They have less to lose (and don’t have a fiduciary obligation to publicly traded shareholders).
Then just don’t talk about it. Don’t argue incorrect things simply to not “rock the boat”. This wasn’t just some healthy debate. It was a total misunderstanding of fixed supply money. If he actually understands fixed supply money, just zip it on the topic then.
He’s probably defending the position the banks are trying to take when they enter the game. Their model is to take deposits and offer yield. That’s what they do. Obviously bitcoin will humble them BUT the fact that they’re considering legitimizing bitcoin into the legacy system and the legacy institutions is huge.
I’m sure a lot of Saylor’s time is spent orange-pilling his peers. And I’m sure he has heard from banks that they have to take deposits and offer yield. Banks are walking an incredibly fine line.
They’ll be humbled by bitcoin the asset and the protocol, no doubt, but they can’t jump into the business model of bitcoin with a reckless cannonball … it’ll destroy their legacy business model. They have boards, shareholders, and customers to consider.
Unless you say everyone in the legacy system is evil and actively trying to ruin the lives of everyone … in which case …
I’m going to give the same reply I did to someone else.
I don’t disagree, but he also shouldn’t be arguing demonstrably false premises just to try to appease everyone. There is a distinct possibility he doesn’t actually understand the end game of a fixed money supply.
His overuse of Straw Mans was astonishing. Glad Saife mostly kept his cool in the face of them.
He couldn’t accept that a young person won’t need a car loan or a mortgage. They will buy such things from savings like our parents and grandparents did. This is such a simple concept that he couldn’t break out of the fiat framework to understand.
Exactly. Saife has a chance to say “they will work and save” but didn’t take it. Also, Saylor kept saying that Saife thought there would be *zero* credit, which wasn’t true. Pretty sure Saife thinks there will be still be *some* credit, just orders of magnitude less than today. So people can mostly save and occasionally take on a small amount of debt for durable consumer goods like cars and houses. I don’t know why Saylor has a mental block against that.
Saif tried to explain that once, but it just flew by. I also agree that lending will largely go away. Equity investments will make more sense. Even gold is not fixed in supply and more is created each year, allowing for interest. You can’t really pay interest after 21MM without some portion of borrowers failing simply because they can’t get more of the currency. Right now that issue is just papered over by printing more currency. You will need to have a share of the increased productivity of a business to actually gain on your investment and be willing to part with your money.
Sometimes I think Saylor is just focused on trying to recruit other Billionaires who have benefited greatly from the current system He doesn’t want to scare them off by saying Bitcoin will ruin the system they like. Every example he gives is “if you have $100m you need to move” so I know he’s not talking to me😂
I don’t disagree, but he also shouldn’t be arguing demonstrably false premises just to try to appease everyone. There is a distinct possibility he doesn’t actually understand the end game of a fixed money supply.
Oddbean new post about login | logout