Ah, I think I see where our interpretations of Saylor differ.  I think Saylor was trying to make a distinction between "risk-free" yield in fiat - which as he said "isn't going away in the next 10 years"; and an eventual non-fiat Bitcoin standard future.  (I think he was having difficulty clarifying this distinction because they were talking past each other so much).

I believe Saylor's overall point was that there will always be willing borrowers and willing lenders of capital in exchange for a yield (I agree).  In a fiat world that offers cheap money backed by a money printer, I agree that borrowing and lending 'risk-free' fiat will likely continue to make the most sense.  However, as the world moves on to a Bitcoin standard - and pricing BTC in fiat terms becomes obsolete - borrowing BTC subject to counter-party risk will become normalized.

It seems Saif's position is that in this future, otherwise would-be lenders would necessarily receive shares of equity in exchange for their capital rather than yield.  I don't really understand how that would work for someone who just wants to buy a car with capital they haven't yet acquired. 

 To reiterate what I say in the other note, it's important to understand that Saylor's analysis doesn't go beyond 2045, and by that date he contemplates BTC being just a 7% of global wealth, and mainly by demonetizing a range of asset classes a lot more diverse than just "money", as Saif insisted.

In fact, Saylor says at one point that he doesn't even believe BTC is actually competing against the USD and US Government-backed debt.

So it can hardly be that he is talking about a future in which BTC is the unit of account and fiat a relic of the past.

We all agree that there will always be lenders and borrowers. But just as nobody generally speaking would borrow a piece of real estate if I want to fund my startup, they wouldn't borrow BTC. 

 On multiple occasions, Saylor refers to the non-fiat gold standard of the 1800s, or 200 years ago, etc.  Then, at one point, Saif frames the conversation as "In a world in which you only have 21 million, and you don't have a lender of last resort, I don't see how this model survives." to which Saylor responds by again referencing the gold standard of the past - this time with the emphasis of "before fiat" - followed (eventually) by "the idea that I would get interest on a sound money asset, I don't think is unreasonable in the future because it wasn't unreasonable in the past."

To me, this can only be interpreted as analogizing Bitcoin's eventual fiat-less future to gold's fiat-less past.  This, btw, does not contradict the notion that Bitcoin is not currently competing against the USD nor will it for the foreseeable future. 

 Wchih takes us back to my initial comment: if Saylor's meaning is that you lend BTC and get BTC + interest *in BTC*, he's taking the piss. It's impossible. And if he means that you get interest *in fiat*, well, it's a fiat standard. 

 Respectfully, this seems non-response to my comment.  Either it was meant to be a reply somewhere else, or we just simply aren't communicating clearly with each other.