Exactly this.  What I think is hanging people up is that Saylor repeatedly referred to "risk-free".  In the context of the entire conversation, however, it's clear he was referring to the fiat system which he said wasn't going away in the next 10 years (this doesn't seem an unreasonable working assumption to me).  What nobody bothers to mention is that Saylor also clearly acknowledged the counterparty risk inherent in lending Bitcoin for yield in Bitcoin terms; and this is correct.  There is the obvious risk that the counterparty may not live up to the deal; but there's nothing about a fixed supply system that prevents a counterparty from returning more Bitcoin than what was borrowed (i.e. 'yield') any more than it prevents a renter from paying a landlord at the end of the month in Bitcoin the renter hasn't yet earned - which is a point Saylor tried to make; but by that time, Saif was a brick wall.