Oddbean

I’d say pragmatic. At the end of the day, the hardest money wins. There are gonna be a lot of powerful interests impacted by that transition. He doesn’t need to (and probably doesn’t want to) make enemies. He’ll leave that to the @saifedean of the world. They have less to lose (and don’t have a fiduciary obligation to publicly traded shareholders).

Then just don’t talk about it. Don’t argue incorrect things simply to not “rock the boat”. This wasn’t just some healthy debate. It was a total misunderstanding of fixed supply money. If he actually understands fixed supply money, just zip it on the topic then.

He’s probably defending the position the banks are trying to take when they enter the game. Their model is to take deposits and offer yield. That’s what they do. Obviously bitcoin will humble them BUT the fact that they’re considering legitimizing bitcoin into the legacy system and the legacy institutions is huge. I’m sure a lot of Saylor’s time is spent orange-pilling his peers. And I’m sure he has heard from banks that they have to take deposits and offer yield. Banks are walking an incredibly fine line. They’ll be humbled by bitcoin the asset and the protocol, no doubt, but they can’t jump into the business model of bitcoin with a reckless cannonball … it’ll destroy their legacy business model. They have boards, shareholders, and customers to consider. Unless you say everyone in the legacy system is evil and actively trying to ruin the lives of everyone … in which case …

I’m going to give the same reply I did to someone else. I don’t disagree, but he also shouldn’t be arguing demonstrably false premises just to try to appease everyone. There is a distinct possibility he doesn’t actually understand the end game of a fixed money supply.