Oddbean

It’s very real. There’s a substantial group on Xitter forming around MSTR, a bit like GME except they’ve drawn entirely from Bitcoin Xitter. They’ve gone from posting about MSTR to a cult around Saylor. They all went into bat for him after the podcast with Saif re yield, and they’ve been vociferously defending his recent comments about self-custody. It’s pretty clear this is going to see a schism at some point.

I just do not understand it. Even the debate about yeild seems strange. Many of these bitcoin arguments just feel like politics now. People arguing talking points rather than trying to understand what is being said.

Because it is politics. Saylor is the State liaison for Bitcoin. Think about it in those terms. He’s here to tell Bitcoiners what is acceptable from the State’s perspective. He plays that role because he is by far, the single person most susceptible to the State (specifically the USD regime) within Bitcoin circles. Whether he is a spook directly isn’t relevant. You can’t have a company (an entity whose existence DEPENDS on the State - it’s literally a statist fiction) with 250,000+ BTC in it, and be out there advocating for the demolishing of the State. They would have Jack Ma’ed him already. This is the schism. This is “and then they fight you” with Saylor as special envoy making us an offer that we can have Bitcoin, but only on terms acceptable by the State. Everyone should watch @gsovereignty talk from Nostriga. He articulated a key insight about the State in there which I think most Bitcoiners don’t understand - the real source of the State’s power is its capture of the economy. Saylor is saying - don’t go and capture the economy, Bitcoin ought just be a financial asset inside the current economy, don’t threaten the State’s power, subordinate yourself to them and we can find a “truce”. It is entirely political and we’re not ready for this.

I have just watched the full Saylor interview. I do not think I agree with most of the criticism he is getting. In part 2 at 47mins he directly talks about how the feature of bitcoin is that if the government decideds to seize your assets they won't be able to so this with bitcoin. Here he clearly seems to be advocating for bitcoins ability to be outside the reach of governments and outside the traditional financial system. In context I don't find his other remarks that were clipped as bad as they are being portrayed except for his statements about gold being seized. I have also watched the nostriga video you recommended. I think this is central to the problems Saylor has. Microstategy is a company and as gsovereignty states in many ways a company is just a branch of the state. I think you are correct that Saylor is restricted by his position and is limited in what he is able to say. Still I do not view him as an enemy of bitcoin as some now seem to. You just have to accept that what he says will have to come through a certain filter.