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: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  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) 

 hyper BTC scenario where Fiat is dead:
you do not borrow to buy consumer goods (cars, houses etc) you could borrow to buy CAPITAL GOODS that generate income in Bitcoin terms 

 The furthest future discussed in the video is 2045, and in no case we're seeing that happen in such short period of time. 

 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. 

 😂 I know, I know. My point is only that lenders will create the markets they need to expand their own wealth. They're just looking for angles to exploit. It's that simple.  

 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.  

 It's more than 2 hours long, so I'll talk to you tomorrow xD