Michael Saylor’s main argument for the value of Bitcoin is different from other Bitcoin advocates. Although Bitcoin is conceptualized as a digital currency with both its philosophical starting point and its promises for the future, Michael Saylor has a different perspective. Saylor emphasizes that Bitcoin has more value as a digital asset, not a digital currency.
Michael Saylor tries to explain the above argument with different examples on a different platform almost every week. So what is Saylor’s thesis and how does it differ from other fundamental Bitcoin arguments? According to Saylor, every material asset will eventually be replaced by a digital counterpart. Saylor discusses this issue under four headings in his interview with Sven Henrich: digital assets, digital currency, digital platform and digital applications. The assets corresponding to these four categories are Bitcoin, stablecoins, blockchains (such as Ethereum, Polkadot) and applications running on these blockchains such as Uniswap or Aave.
So what are the equivalents of these four digital assets in the material world? According to Saylor, a real estate in the center of London (although in the example London is mentioned, the most valuable districts of Istanbul can be thought of as real estate for easier understanding), respectively, the money printed by the states (such as USD and Pound), the buildings on the real estate in London and the last as companies within these buildings. The table below may help us to see this analogy better.
|Materiel||Real estate||USD, Pounds||Building||Companies in buildings|
|Digital||bitcoin||stable coins||blockchains||Uniswap, Aave etc.|
The biggest divergence in Saylor’s thesis manifests itself in the first two categories. Many Bitcoin advocates argue that Bitcoin is not only a store of value, but also money. On the Lightning Network, Bitcoin can be exchanged much faster and more effectively than current money transfer systems with a small transaction fee. However, Saylor emphasizes that the asset with which Bitcoin competes as a store of value is gold and should not compete with the USD or Pound as a digital currency.
There is a very simple reason why Saylor put forward this thesis. There is no political power against Bitcoin, which competes with gold. If it offers better conditions than gold as a store of value, Bitcoin will already be the winner of this competition. However, competing with fiat currencies, which is one of the most important elements on which states base their legitimacy, does not seem like a battle that Bitcoin can win, at least at this stage (in the next 20-30 years). In fact, Saylor emphasizes that if Bitcoin wins this war, Bitcoin will not have a field to be used. In other words, in order for Bitcoin to replace the dollar, almost all companies in the world collapse, and states lose their legitimacy, so that the accounting systems change completely (he constantly emphasizes how difficult this issue is as someone in this sector), it is a problem both in terms of political and economic order. A reset (restart) has to be experienced, in which case Saylor underlines that where and how we will use the Bitcoins we hold in our hands is an issue that we need to think about.
Bitcoin should compete with gold, which it already does. However, it is possible to control the states without replacing the state money. Saylor actually touches on this issue in many of his speeches. So Bitcoin standard instead of gold standard. The fact that states have Bitcoin in their treasury and can print their own money as much as the Bitcoin they hold. In fact, this will force states to act more responsibly in terms of economic policies. To see where the world economy was headed after it broke off the gold standard in 1971 on this site It would be helpful to look at the graphs.
To summarize, Saylor argues that Bitcoin competes with gold as a digital store of value. Although it is a fact that states are competing against currencies, Saylor states that it will be very difficult for Bitcoin to win this war. He emphasizes that it is almost impossible, at least in the next 20 years. He claims that if we take only gold, not the states, then we can explain Bitcoin to large circles much more easily, and this will reflect on the Bitcoin price much faster and more positively.