Oddbean

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.