I finally watched the famous Saif-Saylor interview, at normal speed and in one sitting, so I can opine about it.

The tl;dr is: I agree with all that Saylor says, except the "yield" thing, which I think is unclear in the way he explains it.

To the point, the Bitcoin-24 scenarios Saylor presents are in my opinion a lot more solid and realistic, and most importantly, more useful as an analytic and decision-making tool, than Saif's theses.

If anything, BTC as 7% of the total global wealth by 2045 even seems utterly optimistic to me, since Saylor himself says that he's basing it in Western governments *not* going full Pol Pot on us all, which I think is a 50-50 chance...

Anyway, the yield thing.

I think Saif, like most of us, interprets Saylor's words as lending BTC, and *getting interest in BTC*. That's simply impossible for reasons perfectly known by all here, and anyone offering sats on your sats is either trying to steal your stack, or gambling it away, full stop.

But as the discussion progresses, I think it becomes clear that what Saylor is saying is that what he sees is BTC holders sending their BTC to a system-level custodian (JP, City, etc) and that bank paying them back a portion of *the interest in fiat* obtained by lending the BTC to people who want to borrow capital.

My problem with this is in Saylor's own scenario.

He is saying that BTC's return in fiat terms will eventually converge towards stocks, staying above it due to greater volatility. Say, 18-20% yearly price increase. I fully agree. He also says that this will push interest rates on government and private debt up. I fully agree too.

So how much are people going to have to pay to borrow BTC? And for what purpose would they borrow it, of they can always borrow fiat, which will always depreciate against BTC? It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

When gold was the reserve asset, it could make sense to borrow gold to invest it on a business venture, because you didn't have to convert it into national currency to invest it, and you could beat gold's appreciation rates relatively easily. Say, borrow 1 million in gold at a 5%, and invest it in a business that yields 10%. Whatever the math.

But even if we envision BTC as being accepted without converting it to currency, what are you going to invest it in that yields more than BTC's own appreciation in fiat terms, if that's 20% *yearly*, plus the risk premium of your investment?

I simply don't see it. But I'd like to know it if anybody understands it.

Then again, at some point Saylor does let it slip "you either get yield *or borrow against it*", which is a completely different animal, and in fact what I think will happen in the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7XhzXMSAPo