Saylor has created a fiat system on top of Bitcoin

[Publictalk792]

Even adults don't understand everything at first glance, which you have just proven. But that is not the end of the world, we got time to learn until the end of life.

Financialization is not the problem, hyper financialization is the problem and since there is no boundary limiting the number of layers or the level of leverage, the base asset Bitcoin will most likely be overcollateralized while the price finding mechanism stop working efficiently due to financial layer complexity. Supposedly it is not good for Bitcoin, but can't be avoided either.

This is more or less sure outcome when rare, unpolluted asset such as Bitcoin is placed into strong pull of the old financial engineering machine, where endless secondary layers, paper claims and unregulated borrowing are virtually guaranteed. Wall Street generates and builds up layers and layers of financial bets, and the real and physical asset is buried under the fake supply. This hyper financialization results in risky disconnection between the price and the actual onchain supply and demand. That is system complexity and it can be an argument that it is negative for Bitcoin purity, but it is tax of global adoption and it is unstoppable. You can not invite the cash of the world and not the financial sharks of the world.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Central banks were created to bring stability to the banking system. Their contribution to the economy has been incalculable.

Central banks were created for one reason only; to act as a lender of last resort. Before central banks, private banks applied fractional reserve banking to compete with other banks, and did experience bank runs. The central bank was put in place to save the reckless banks.

There is no contribution to the economy from central banks. They weren't created to serve the interest of the people. They were created to save the reckless banks. There is no opportunity cost to being reckless if you can print money. Central banks allow for the privatization of the profits from banks while socializing the losses.

Unfortunately, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it not be retarded.

[Kelward]

If something is too good to be true that is when we should begin to read between the lines and that is what is happening now with the revelation that Saylor, doesn't totally have the interest of Bitcoin as a privacy store of value, clearly he is more interested in using it as a valuable asset bait to sell his company shares. A lot of us were seeing Saylor and Strategy as the forerunners of Bitcoin DCA that if he can invest heavily in Bitcoin despite it's volatility that we can also invest in our own small capacities.

Anyways Saylor and Strategy can only control the amount of Bitcoin that they hold and their accumulation doesn't stop Bitcoin from what it originally is and that is decentralized with limited supply. I wouldn't worry yet about these institutions manipulating the market and holding Bitcoin like it is their centralized properties to attract investors to issue them their company shares. Like I said they can only influence the amount of Bitcoin that they have. For many of us who are capable of holding our Bitcoin in our none custodial wallets it still gives us privacy and freedom unlike the shareholders with these institutions.

[SilverCryptoBullet]

Anyways Saylor and Strategy can only control the amount of Bitcoin that they hold and their accumulation doesn't stop Bitcoin from what it originally is and that is decentralized with limited supply. I wouldn't worry yet about these institutions manipulating the market and holding Bitcoin like it is their centralized properties to attract investors to issue them their company shares. Like I said they can only influence the amount of Bitcoin that they have. For many of us who are capable of holding our Bitcoin in our none custodial wallets it still gives us privacy and freedom unlike the shareholders with these institutions.

They even can not well control their bitcoins as consequence of their leverages used so far as well as responsibility to investors of their Strategy company. Strategy has responsibility to their shareholders, not to Bitcoin community, and it's a very important point about Strategy's Bitcoin portfolio as well as what they will possibly do in the future with their bitcoins.

Strategy has to satisfy their shareholders, not anyone in Bitcoin community, and through my explanation I believe that it's clear enough about main responsibility and priority of Strategy.

[Smartprofit]

Anyways Saylor and Strategy can only control the amount of Bitcoin that they hold and their accumulation doesn't stop Bitcoin from what it originally is and that is decentralized with limited supply. I wouldn't worry yet about these institutions manipulating the market and holding Bitcoin like it is their centralized properties to attract investors to issue them their company shares. Like I said they can only influence the amount of Bitcoin that they have. For many of us who are capable of holding our Bitcoin in our none custodial wallets it still gives us privacy and freedom unlike the shareholders with these institutions.

They even can not well control their bitcoins as consequence of their leverages used so far as well as responsibility to investors of their Strategy company. Strategy has responsibility to their shareholders, not to Bitcoin community, and it's a very important point about Strategy's Bitcoin portfolio as well as what they will possibly do in the future with their bitcoins.

Strategy has to satisfy their shareholders, not anyone in Bitcoin community, and through my explanation I believe that it's clear enough about main responsibility and priority of Strategy.

I think Michael Saylor is more concerned with his own fiat income than with the interests of his shareholders. 🙋

There are four types of people involved in Michael Saylor's financial scheme.

First, there's Michael Saylor himself. He's the founder of this financial scheme. His main goal is to minimize his own risks (for example, the risk of criminal prosecution) and maximize his own profits.

The second type of participant in this scheme are the Wall Street speculators who financed it (by purchasing corporate bonds). Bonds are a financial instrument that guarantees the receipt of the original loan amount plus interest. This type of participant faces minimal risk. They will receive their money (plus interest) from Michael Saylor no matter what.

The third type of participant in this scheme are the shareholders of Michael Saylor's company. They bought shares in this company. Simply put, these people can be considered American housewives. They have no real ability to minimize their risks or influence their profits.  Essentially, they can only sell their shares. But to sell anything, they need a buyer.

The fourth type of participant in this scheme is Bitcoin holders. No one asked them to consent to participate in this scheme. In this scheme, they are victims. Their risks are the greatest. They will not be able to demand money from Michael Saylor and will not be able to sue for damages.🤷

[legiteum]

Central banks were created for one reason only; to act as a lender of last resort. Before central banks, private banks applied fractional reserve banking to compete with other banks, and did experience bank runs. The central bank was put in place to save the reckless banks.

Well, partially. Panics ensue when one weaker bank fails, which causes runs on subsequent, more healthy banks, and can create a contagion that takes down the whole system. A central bank makes sure this doesn't happen, which means investors can rely on a more stable financial system, thus vastly increasing the ability to invest, and at lower interest rates based on reduced risk.

There is no contribution to the economy from central banks.

You just contradicted yourself in the same paragraph.

Central banks allow for the privatization of the profits from banks while socializing the losses.

No, central banks don't do that, governments do that with laws. The body here to blame is Congress, and the people to blame are folks like Elon Musk who corruptly influence the government in order to obtain favors that allow them to socialize their losses and privatize their gains.

[Or course, maybe I'm talking to one of Musk's bots here? I never noticed just how much the Illuminati conspiracy stuff neatly deflects attention from what is really going on. If you are Elon Musk or Donald Trump, this stuff serves your interests quite well! ]

[BlackHatCoiner]

Well, partially. Panics ensue when one weaker bank fails, which causes runs on subsequent, more healthy banks, and can create a contagion that takes down the whole system. A central bank makes sure this doesn't happen, which means investors can rely on a more stable financial system, thus vastly increasing the ability to invest, and at lower interest rates based on reduced risk.

By acting as a lender of last resort, the central bank creates a massive moral hazard. When banks know they will be bailed out in the event of a systemic panic, they are incentivized to take on more risk, lend more aggressively, and hold fewer reserves. Rather than fixing the recklessness of fractional reserve banking, the central bank system implicitly subsidizes it. The risk hasn't disappeared; it has been transferred from the private banks' shareholders to the general public through the devaluation of the currency.

In a free market, interest rates are a price signal. They represent the supply of real savings versus the demand for loans. When a central bank artificially suppresses interest rates to stimulate investment, it sends a false signal to entrepreneurs. Businesses borrow and start long-term projects as if there is a massive pool of savings ready to buy their future products, but eventually reality catches up and it leads to the booms and busts we're experiencing every few years in the last century.

As for the argument that pre- central banking, the system was fragile, if a contagion can take down the whole system, the whole system was built on a foundation of unbacked credit to begin with. If a run takes down a subsequent bank, that bank was not truly "healthy". It was simply relying on the statistical hope that its depositors wouldn't all ask for their money at once. There were banks with more conservative policies that did not experience runs.

No, central banks don't do that, governments do that with laws.

Central banks are independent of the government. The private banks that own the central bank, also own the government and lobby Congress and the government to pass those laws; politicians who do not support the banks will sooner or later get blackmailed, one way or another, just as with the Epstein case.

I know, conspiracy theories.

[MRY]

They even can not well control their bitcoins as consequence of their leverages used so far as well as responsibility to investors of their Strategy company. Strategy has responsibility to their shareholders, not to Bitcoin community, and it's a very important point about Strategy's Bitcoin portfolio as well as what they will possibly do in the future with their bitcoins.

Strategy has to satisfy their shareholders, not anyone in Bitcoin community, and through my explanation I believe that it's clear enough about main responsibility and priority of Strategy.

The legal frameworks of contemporary corporations are actually intrinsically aimed at fulfilling the reimbursement promises of investors who invest in companies by law. Financial leverage allocates treasury on the basis that business managers must comply with the commercial capital markets risk management processes. Liquidation or retention policies are adopted only due to rational computations of safety of corporate balance sheet when the volatility jeopardizes internal solvency.

[legiteum]

I know, conspiracy theories.

Yep. Whatever you do, don't blame Congress or oligarchs lobbying our government on corruption, because that's just what we see with our own two eyes every day in plain sight.

No, blame a mysterious force instead. And make sure it's kinda racist. 

The great thing about this mental masturbation is that it will go on forever and ever since there's no way any world government will exist without a central bank ever again*, because it is so obviously, instantly, self-destructive.

(*And no, forgoing one's own central bank in favor of America's or China's is not "living without a central bank" it's just using a different one).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2025/10/19/milei-can-no-more-dollarize-argentina-than-he-can-decree-happiness/

[BlackHatCoiner]

Yep. Whatever you do, don't blame Congress or oligarchs lobbying our government on corruption, because that's just what we see with our own two eyes every day in plain sight.

Oligarchs lobby the government. The bankers are oligarchs, far wealthier than Elon Musk.

The great thing about this mental masturbation is that it will go on forever and ever since there's no way any world government will exist without a central bank ever again*, because it is so obviously, instantly, self-destructive.

Absolutely. It is self-destructive for the government, because inflation is the most effective way to steal the public. You literally just print money and nobody ever questions it. Taxes are far less effective. It is absolutely not self-destructive for the people.

[legiteum]

Yep. Whatever you do, don't blame Congress or oligarchs lobbying our government on corruption, because that's just what we see with our own two eyes every day in plain sight.

Oligarchs lobby the government. The bankers are oligarchs, far wealthier than Elon Musk.

ROFL

[Dogedegen]

That’s what I was trying to explain to him earlier with the three points listed above. Bitcoin per share is a bullshit concept for that very reason. On their website, under the MSTR tab, they claim that Bitcoin per share is increasing, when in reality the probability that you’ll actually receive any of it is getting smaller and smaller. It’s just another fictional concept that many people don’t understand and simply take at face value—which brings me back to faith.

We can discuss about some subjective aspects when it comes to Strategy and how we see it individually, but there must be a clear line where things are objective facts. It is clear in most companies and definitely in this one that shareholders are not equal and most precisely in events of liquidation. I expect him to know this if this topic comes next time, because I expect good knowledge on some basics from older members.

If you make a rational analysis of what the company is doing, the only reason left for you to invest in one of its products or maintain your investment if you’ve already made it is faith.

Right now, it’s paying 11.5% interest on STRC while the Bitcoin he purchased has a -20% return. What’s he going to do? Raise the dividend again, like he has before? Only someone who doesn’t understand basic math would buy Saylor’s pitch that STRC is a safe alternative to bank deposits and savings accounts.

If we forget about Bitcoin entirely in the sense that we are biased to be in favor of this because it involves Bitcoin, objectively Strategy is not a good investment at all and has not been for a while. It did had a period of good returns but that does not make it a good investment now. I do not know who from the retail is buying it now, even with faith I would not buy it because it is high risk. I am watching closely what they will do in the future now, but anything that is not reducing the risk of this whole thing is not good in my view.

Another concerning development is that we are approaching the sixth anniversary of what he calls the Bitcoin Standard Era—that is, the time he began buying Bitcoin. The world’s largest Bitcoin buyer may reach that anniversary with a negative return on his purchases, not exactly helping the overall market sentiment, which doesn’t seem to be very buoyant this year.

I will go back to the Bitcoin per share that you brought up, it is bullshit and we see that it worked against people so that some were misled that it means anything at all. The company would have to be structured completely differently legally and in its founding documents the share structure would have to declare that shareholders are going to get actual Bitcoin or that they were entitled to actual Bitcoin, which I am not even sure is possible right now but it is not the case here. And even in that case it would only work if there was no constant diluting and stuff like that, because then it does not mean anything.

How many Bitcoin there are per shares of Strategy is as meaningful as the correlation between the price of Bitcoin and my consumption of ice cream...

[Free Market Capitalist]

This has nothing to do with central banks. Central banks create money out of thin air and force you to treat it as legal tender through the threat of violence. Everyone purchasing shares from Strategy does it voluntarily.

By the way, I realize that what you’re referring to here is the etymological origin of the word “fiat,” which means “mandatory,” and in that sense you’re correct that what Saylor is doing wouldn’t be “fiat” in its etymological sense. But my criticism is that fiat monetary systems share a whole series of characteristics, such as centralization, potentially unlimited printing, and a value based on belief or faith, rather than intrinsic value, as would be the case with gold traditionally or Bitcoin.

So, in my opinion, although what Saylor has created diverges from the original etymological meaning of the word “fiat,” it does share a number of characteristics common to modern fiat monetary systems, which is why I draw this comparison.