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 … nostr.fmt.wiz.biz 

 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.