Oddbean

Seems to me this is the value proposition of a hard money lender. Think of it from the lenders position. He fully expects for you to fail. He wants the money and/or the collateralized asset that is hopefully a cashflowing asset. If the lender sets his terms well enough, he could end up with all of his money back plus some and a cash flowing asset that continues to strengthen his position. Saylor strikes me more and more like a monopolist.

OK so what about the borrower? It's still an irrational decision. If BTC is going to beat fiat (because it will remain forever more volatile), it will always be better to take loans in the cheaper depreciating asset. Not to mention, in the example nostr:nprofile1qyvhwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnndehhyapwwdhkx6tpdshszythwden5te0dehhxarj9emkjmn99uq3uamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3dwp6kytnhv4kxcmmjv3jhytnwv46z7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uq3zamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qyg8wumn8ghj7efwdehhxtnvdakz7qgewaehxw309anxjct5dfskvtnwdaehgu339e3k7mf0qyw8wumn8ghj7enfv96xgetwd9jhytnwdaehgu339e3k7mf0qy08wumn8ghj7en9v4j8xtnwdaehgu3wvfskuep0wphhqatvv9eqz9mhwden5te0veex2mnn9ehx7um5wgcjucm0d5hsz9nhwden5te0dp5hxapwdehhxarj9ekxzmny9uq3jamnwvaz7tmgdahxw6m0denjuumrv9exzc3wd9kj7qg4waehxw309a3kcmm4v3h82mrv9ekxzmny9uq3uamnwvaz7tm8v93xjar99e3xjarrda5kuetj9eek7cmfv9kz7qguwaehxw309anx2etywvhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7mt9d4jhxqftwaehxw309a3xjarn9ekxucnr9eekktmwdaehgunrd35k2mn59ashq6f0wccj7un9d3shjqfzwaehxw309askzcfdv9cxjtnxwfjk2enjdakjuumsv93k2tmkxyhhwucpzpmhxue69uhkztnwdaejumr0dshszrthwden5te0vfexytnfduhsz9mhwden5te0vejk2ern9ehx7um5wghxyctwvshszxnhwden5te0vfhhxarj9ekx2cm5w4exjene9ehx2ap0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3camnwvaz7tmrdpexjum5wp5kcmpwdehhxarjxyhxxmmd9uq3xamnwvaz7tmsw4e8qmr9wpskwtn9wvhsqg9hnxhz0cphpv59dxf7d4y0zhgk2ww54fglhultm0ftcs8kpfxjtc7mggyq mentions the purchase of a car, which is a liability, not an asset, and even less a yield-bearing asset (unless you're telling me that you use it for work or something and so on, but that's splitting hairs)

And by the way, that's exactly what I keep saying I hope BTC becomes: collateral to borrow against and buy capital goods that produce cash flow. That's the only possible "yield" that BTC can generate.

Never make value judgments on why someone would want something. Only care about the fact that they do and what you can do to profit from it. Borrowors make lots of dumb decisions. Does the pawn shop care? Negative. Just structure the deal correctly.

I'm not making value judgments. We're just trying to figure out what scenarios are probable between now and 2045. Obviously there are always individuals making all sorts of bizarre decisions, but sticking to the discussion in the video, we're talking about a $100 - 300 T asset class and a whole global banking system attached to or built around it, not some rando nutjob making bizarre financial decisions for unpredictable and uniquely personal reasons.

OK but you don't sustain a 300 trillion dollar market, 7% of the world's wealth, with that. It can't be something that exists among the general public with the cooperation of "systemic banks", which Saylor is saying will be the lenders.

We're getting into the weeds. I'll need to listen to the interview. I'm talking about the general concept of lenders creating a system that allows them to scrape off the top. No, it rarely makes sense for the borrower who carries the vast majority of the risk. But I think we're talking passed each other because I'm completely lost on your post. Sustain a 300 trillion dollar market on what? Lending? BTC? Lending BTC? I've lost track of what we're talking about. Let me listen to the interview and get back.