Just watches the episode. I'm not sure what Michael doesn't understand about Saifdean's point. As far as I’m concerned, I think they're on the same page. Saifdean is just saying it's realistic that nominal interest rates will go to 0%, but that doesn't mean the real interest rate will be zero. Because Btc is deflationary, the real interest rate under 0% nominal rate will be whatever the deflation is. So let's say it's 3%, that means the borrower will earn 3% a year by borrowing their money for 0% nominal interest rate. 

Can someone help me understand why Michael gets so irritated about this point? 

 Because Saylor is a statist BitcoinBug.

He can see that Bitcoin will succeed and destroy fiat which he will benefit from with NGU, but he can’t bring himself to accept that means the destruction of Statism as well. 

 I’ve now watched the episode again. Seems the main difference between the two is that Saylor doesn’t agree nominal rates will ever fall below zero–which is a good point. Don’t see how it can, as no one would introduce risk without the possibility for higher returns.