“It's mainly paranoid cryptoanarchists who say that.”
With these eight words, spoken on “Markets with MadisonMicrostrategy CEO Michael Saylor's podcast sparked outrage from almost everyone in bitcoin.
Shinobi called him “x.com/brian_trollz/status/1848150945957339539″>spectrum.” Carvalho was x.com/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1848347081129251077″>confused. Svetski stated that this will x.com/SvetskiWrites/status/1848335011965194322″>the next fork war begins.
Simply put, Saylor said something bad. He broke the taboo. He said it's better to entrust your bitcoin to state escrow than to have your own private keys, then went further and called out all the companies involved in escrow projects effectively calling them shitty sellers.
It was, let's say, a “big poof”, a “gun”, the cartoon scene in which the hero is hit with an anvil.
Here's Adam Simecka's clip from the full video:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet”>
Saylor thinks you're a paranoid cryptoanarchist if you have your own keys and don't trust the government. pic.twitter.com/6owj7LzrdM
—Adam Simecka (@AdamSimecka) twitter.com/AdamSimecka/status/1848131598044074289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>October 20, 2024
Yet, paradoxically, I admit, it's probably the most interesting thing Saylor has ever said?
For years, Saylor and the Cyber Hornets have been “Grut and the Minions,” Saylor using his pulpit to spout whatever bullish nonsense was trending, without adding anything of his own.
Other people said things and then Saylor said them again. He was the “people’s champion,” a “man of the plebs,” a role that even his mundane ai-generated tweets seemed to underline by tagging artists, invariably with some random pseudonym.
So, anger aside, I have to say that right now I'm on the fence. Sure, as someone who lived through the Fork Wars, I find Svetski's position romantic (it's nice to think we're in the middle of a bigger fight), but maybe it's too early to cry.
Instead, I find myself (for once) trying to understand what Saylor is saying.
From what I can tell, there are actually three ideas at play here:
- This is a new thesis on how to drive bitcoin adoption using public markets. Saylor raises the issue of self-custody not as an issue to be solved with innovation, but as an issue to be improved. His point of view: It doesn't matter how people own bitcoin, just that they own it. His preferred vehicle for this is the stock market, and he appears to want to co-opt it as a massive vehicle to buy bitcoin and sell exposure.
- This thesis could actually solve the problem of how to fight the cryptocurrency market. This is also one of the most compelling things about bitcoin “Season 2”: the idea that you can “co-opt the crypto apparatus” as a way to engage retail. Here, Saylor seems to want to gather his army of bitcoin stocks for that purpose; In his opinion, retail will start buying Microstrategy and Metaplanet, instead of memecoins, chasing, as they always do, the beta version of bitcoin.
- It's a novel thesis on how to convince the government to adopt bitcoin – A world where bitcoin is the reserve asset for regulated entities seems like one in which draconian laws become less viable. After all, in this world, bitcoin would have a direct link to the American economy (at least the version that interests most politicians). You have to admit: “You can't ban bitcoin, it will hurt the stock market” sounds good.
Of course, maybe the commentators are right. Saylor's incentives seem to move away from the network. Maybe you're putting your business and your quest to accumulate bitcoin above all else, and it's worth questioning your motives right now.
Some argue that self-custody, at least, is at the core of bitcoin, the fact that you can't trust anyone but yourself to hold and safeguard your wealth.
On the other hand, in Saylor's view, inflation is the real boogeyman, the degradation of purchasing power the much bigger problem.
Is it possible that this is a giant government psychological operation, that Saylor flew too close to the sun, and that there is an army of regulators twisting his arm to say this?
Sure, Microstrategy works with intelligence agencies, but even then, intelligence agencies and their pension funds need somewhere to invest. A hyperbitcoinized world is surely one in which these funds will also buy bitcoin.
But I have to say, as someone who has never found Saylor very interesting…for now, at least I'm paying attention.
I'll start there.
This article is a Carry. The opinions expressed are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of btc Inc or bitcoin Magazine.
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″>
