Dialogue Michael Saylor: Does the Strategy have liquidation risk?

Original Title: "Wu Said in Conversation with MicroStrategy Founder Michael Saylor: How to Build the Company with the Most Bitcoin in the World? Why Decide to Destroy Personal Private Keys After Death"

Original Source: Wu Said Blockchain

Editor's Note: As of February 6, MicroStrategy has officially changed its name to Strategy. For the convenience of readers, this article still uses the name "MicroStrategy."

In this interview, Wu Said's Colin and MicroStrategy's founder Michael Saylor discussed the following questions: Will MicroStrategy continue to purchase Bitcoin indefinitely? Does MicroStrategy face the risk of being liquidated? How do you view the cyclical nature of cryptocurrency and the potential upcoming bear market? Will MicroStrategy lend out or stake Bitcoin to earn interest in the future? How do you view Asian companies imitating MicroStrategy? Will MicroStrategy develop its own Bitcoin Layer 2 network? How much Bitcoin does Michael personally hold, and why announce the intention to destroy the private keys after death? Do you still support the view that "bank custody is safer than self-custody"? How do you view the Trump administration and Bitcoin as a national reserve? Is there a risk of U.S. centralization in Bitcoin? Is Bitcoin too expensive, with only the wealthy and institutions buying, and how do you view younger people preferring memecoins? Is Bitcoin a religion? What advice do you have for Chinese investors?

As of February 9, 2025, Strategy holds 478,740 BTC, with a total acquisition cost of $31.1 billion, an average price of $65,033, making it the entity with the most Bitcoin in the world.

The audio transcription was completed by GPT and may contain errors. Please listen to the full podcast:

Xiaoyuzhou: https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com

YouTube: https://youtu.be

Can you introduce yourself and MicroStrategy?

Michael Saylor: I founded MicroStrategy at the end of 1989. We were initially a business intelligence software company and went public in 1998. I have also founded about a dozen other companies, including a publicly traded company. I have always been interested in the history of science and how science influences economics. I studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), majoring in aeronautics and the history of science. I wrote a book called "The Mobile Wave," which discusses how software is shifting to mobile devices and bringing about transformations. I explored what happens when software runs on mobile devices. In 2020, I discovered Bitcoin, and subsequently, our company became the first to incorporate Bitcoin into its balance sheet. Today, we are the world's largest Bitcoin holder.

Will MicroStrategy continue to buy Bitcoin? How much will it buy at most?

Michael Saylor: Yes, we will continue to buy Bitcoin. You can think of us as a real estate development company. Suppose you were the first company listed in Manhattan and you kept buying real estate in Manhattan and developing it, and that was in 1750, and you kept doing that for hundreds of years. So you're not selling, you're constantly buying. We will continue to develop Bitcoin, seeing it as a "digital Manhattan"—a digital asset. We will continue to buy Bitcoin and then use it as collateral to launch other businesses. For example, we are currently the largest convertible bond issuer in the U.S. market and have just launched our first convertible preferred stock. Both of these securities collateralized by Bitcoin are unique in the market. As the price of Bitcoin rises, we will continue to do similar things and also see new opportunities.

Some say that if MicroStrategy's average Bitcoin purchase price exceeds $150,000 in the future, it may face risks. Do you agree with this view?

Michael Saylor: No, I do not agree. Most of the company's Bitcoin was acquired through equity purchases. For example, we currently hold Bitcoin worth $45 to $50 billion, while our debt is only $3 billion, and this debt is already collateralized. So in fact, the Bitcoin we hold as collateral is 15 times our debt. And our debt is non-recourse and has a term of over four years. Therefore, even if the price of Bitcoin drops to $1 tomorrow, there will be no problem. I mean, even if Bitcoin crashes by 98%, the company will not face liquidation risk. The company owns permanent capital.

What is your view on the price cycle of Bitcoin? Do you think there will be a bear market this year?

Michael Saylor: I don't pay much attention to cycles. I don't believe in the concept of cycles. I think the concept of cycles comes from the first 10 to 15 years of the crypto world. Now, we have entered the era of institutional investment, and most of the capital in the market comes from large institutions and is in the form of equity. For example, BlackRock and ETFs have bought over $100 billion worth of Bitcoin in the past year alone, and the amount of Bitcoin they have purchased exceeds the total amount mined by miners. So, as we went through the last halving, the number of Bitcoins mined and sold became secondary, and what truly dominates the market is the demand for Bitcoin, which has entered a different phase.

I think too much focus on timing is somewhat distracting. People try to perfectly time the market, but they always fail. If you tried to time the best moment to buy Manhattan real estate in the last 300 years, you might eventually convince yourself not to buy. But in fact, in the past 300 years, buying at any price point would have been correct. The same applies to Tokyo real estate. If you tried to time the best moment to buy Apple stock in the last 40 years, the biggest mistake would have been not buying. What you have is a dominant digital currency network that will only continue to rise. I believe that Bitcoin will increase by an average of 29% per year over the next 21 years. Based on this benchmark, by 2045, the price of each Bitcoin will reach $13 million. The current price you can buy at is only 1/100 of that. So whether you buy at $95,000, $105,000, $92,000, or $108,000, does it really make a difference? Traders don't get rich; they just participate in the market. Global billionaires like Bernard Arnault, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk became wealthy because they bought into a dominant digital monopoly asset and held onto it, rather than engaging in frequent market trading.

Will MicroStrategy lend out or collateralize Bitcoin to earn interest in the future?

Michael Saylor: I don't think we will do that. I believe the smartest approach is to issue securities collateralized by Bitcoin. When you lend your Bitcoin to someone, you take on the risk that they may not repay you. But if you issue securities to the market, you still hold the Bitcoin. There are right and wrong ways of risk management in this scenario.

A better approach would be to collateralize $10 billion in Bitcoin, issue $1 billion in securities, pay 8% interest, and invest at a 60% yield. Wouldn't that be better? You can hold onto your assets and earn a 52% interest differential. Why would you risk $10 billion for a 4% return by lending out your Bitcoin when you can have virtually no risk and earn 40%? Why would I risk $10 billion to earn 4% interest when I can earn 40% risk-free?

What are your thoughts on some mining companies and Asian listed companies imitating MicroStrategy?

Michael Saylor: I believe that the more participants join the Bitcoin network, the higher the price of Bitcoin will be, and the whole network will be stronger, so everyone will benefit. I expect us to evolve from initially only a few companies adopting the Bitcoin standard, to dozens, hundreds, and eventually thousands of companies joining.

You can choose to invest your capital in bonds, with a after-tax yield of only 2%-3%; or, you can invest your capital in Bitcoin and achieve a 30%-60% return, which is a 10x higher return. I believe that in the long run, companies will make rational choices, and I think they will eventually start to consider this issue. The more companies join the Bitcoin standard, the better it will be for everyone holding Bitcoin and all companies adopting the Bitcoin standard. This is a virtuous cycle.

Will MicroStrategy develop its own Bitcoin Layer 2 network, or support existing Bitcoin Layer 2 solutions?

Michael Saylor: I think we will first observe market developments. You can think of MicroStrategy as already operating on the third layer of Bitcoin. The second layer is an open protocol like Lightning, and the third layer is platforms like Binance, Coinbase, or MSTR, which are proprietary protocols. So, we already have a three-layer architecture with daily transaction volumes in the billions of dollars. We recently launched Strike, another third-layer protocol, with daily transaction volumes in the tens of millions, even exceeding $50 million. These are secure layers, or third-layer protocols, that are already very robust and have attracted a certain type of investor.

In the future, second-layer solutions like Lightning may succeed, but I believe the true opportunity at the current billion-dollar level is on the third layer.

How much Bitcoin do you personally hold? What was your average purchase price? Do you hold any other cryptocurrencies?

Michael Saylor: I do not hold any other cryptocurrencies. About four years ago, I publicly disclosed holding 17,732 bitcoins, with a purchase price slightly below $10,000 per coin. I don't remember the exact number, but this information can be found in my public tweets. Since then, I have bought some more, but I have never sold. So, I now own more Bitcoin than I did at that time, but I have not publicly disclosed how much it has increased.

You mentioned that after you pass away, your Bitcoin private key will be destroyed. Why not leave it to your family or donate it?

Michael Saylor: I am single and have no children. Regarding charity, I think if you have a significant amount of resources, you must ensure that these resources are eventually used for the right things. If you directly destroy the private key, it is actually equivalent to proportionally donating those bitcoins to everyone in the Bitcoin network. Is this not fair? This is the most equitable way.

If you believe in Bitcoin and have invested a certain amount, then anyone who destroys a private key is actually supporting those who share your beliefs. This is an immediate, irreversible, and perpetually effective donation. However, if I donate this money to a charity, 100 years later, when I am no longer around, the organization's managers may spend it on things I do not approve of. For example, people criticize Rockefeller because some of the projects supported by his charitable foundations are not universally accepted. The problem is that Rockefeller has been dead for a long time, and he himself might not approve of these uses. So, a person who has been dead for 100 years is criticized because his money is used for some controversial purposes. This is the risk of leaving wealth to a foundation or trust.

Of course, there are other ways. You can spend this wealth during your lifetime or set very strict usage rules. If you have family and want to leave Bitcoin to them, that may also be a valid choice.

But I think Satoshi Nakamoto set a very admirable example. Satoshi Nakamoto owned 1 million bitcoins, but these bitcoins were never spent. In fact, he effectively destroyed the private key and disappeared forever. This is equivalent to permanently contributing 5% of the value of the Bitcoin network to everyone. I think this is a very meaningful thing.

You mentioned that banks may be safer than self-custody for individuals. Do you still believe that?

Michael Saylor: I believe that different people should adopt different ways to custody Bitcoin. Some people are very good at self-custody, and they should manage it themselves. But some people do not have this ability. For example, would you let a 3-year-old child manage Bitcoin on their own? Or an 80-year-old, or even an elderly person who cannot proficiently type or read the keyboard? If they are blind, can they safely custody Bitcoin?

The answer is obvious, right? If you set up a trust fund for an unborn child, can they self-custody Bitcoin? Who should be responsible for custody? There are also some companies that are legally not allowed to self-custody Bitcoin. This raises another question — do you really want your mayor to manage all the Bitcoin on behalf of the entire city? What if the mayor embezzles it? What if he is kidnapped or murdered?

In the early days of Bitcoin, many people recognized the importance of self-custody because the market was filled with "crypto cowboy" speculators and short-term operating platforms. But the difference between Mt. Gox and JP Morgan is huge. A large bank has tens of thousands of cybersecurity and compliance experts, and has very strict operational procedures, while many crypto exchanges may only have a few people managing them.

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer here. If you live in a war-torn area, such as Iraq or North Korea, and you don't self-custody Bitcoin, you are likely to lose it. But for many institutions and organizations, if there is no custodian, they cannot legally purchase Bitcoin. So, the rational view is that some people should self-custody, some can manage through mnemonic phrases, some can engrave the seed phrase on a metal plate, some use hardware wallets, and some need to rely on institutional custody, whether domestic institutions or overseas custodians.

So the key is what type of entity you belong to — a city, charity, family, trust, or individual? The real question is, how long is your investment horizon? Is it 100 years? 1000 years? Or 1 year, 5 years? Will you die within 3 years? Ultimately, it depends on how uncertain your environment is. Do you live in Manhattan, Ukraine, or Afghanistan? Are you living in Africa? If yes, which country in Africa? All of these factors will affect your choice.

It also depends on your physical and mental condition. Some people can't even type, some can't even see clearly on a phone, and some don't have a phone at all. In the crypto world, people often default to everyone being a male in their 20s. If you are between 20 and 40 years old, your view of the world may be quite similar. But in reality, there are many people who do not belong to this group — some are cancer patients, some are 85-year-old seniors, some are in completely different environments. Therefore, everyone needs to make decisions based on their own circumstances.

If you are too dogmatic or stubborn about Bitcoin custody, it may actually limit the growth of the network. I believe the wisest approach is to be inclusive of entities from around the world, of various types, regardless of their environment. Anyone supporting assets through any form of Bitcoin purchase is actually contributing to the development of the Bitcoin network. The ultimate goal is to keep expanding the Bitcoin network.

What impact do you think Trump being elected president will have on the crypto industry? Do you think he will establish a national Bitcoin reserve?

Michael Saylor: I believe that Trump's election would be good news for the entire industry, for Bitcoin and the crypto industry alike. The specific impact remains to be seen. However, if the White House, cabinet members, regulatory agencies, Senate, and House of Representatives all hold a supportive stance towards the crypto industry, then political consensus would be inclined towards driving technological advancement, business development, freedom, sovereignty, and capitalism.

I believe this political consensus implies that the government may enact many constructive, positive policies to help the industry grow. As for the specific measures, we will have to wait and see.

There is another view that Bitcoin or the entire cryptocurrency industry may become more centralized in the United States. Do you agree with this view?

Michael Saylor: No, I think it's quite obvious that Bitcoin is the most globally decentralized crypto asset. Miners are distributed worldwide, as are holders. Bitcoin has the most decentralized developer community, the most decentralized holder community, the most decentralized miner community, the most decentralized corporate participants, and the most diverse regulators and policymakers. At the same time, it is also the most well-known brand in the crypto space.

Bitcoin is also the most stable; its protocol has hardly changed. For example, Ethereum has a 10-year roadmap with over 40 update plans, while Bitcoin doesn’t have a "roadmap" at all.

Bitcoin is already complete; it was largely finalized over a decade ago. One could say Bitcoin was essentially complete over a decade ago, even at its birth on January 3, 2009. An ideal protocol should be widely distributed, mathematically complete, logically complete, and globally agreed upon. Currently, the only asset globally recognized as logically complete is Bitcoin. So, I don't think Bitcoin is trending towards centralization; in fact, I believe it is continuously decentralizing, becoming more and more distributed.

There are already hundreds of millions of people globally holding Bitcoin; no other crypto asset is as widely held, recognized, and supported as Bitcoin.

Are other cryptocurrencies worth considering? What is your current view on memecoins?

Michael Saylor: I believe that when you look at digital assets, you can categorize them into: digital commodities, digital securities, digital tokens, digital NFTs, digital ABTs (Asset-Backed Tokens), and digital currencies.

Technically speaking, a digital commodity is an asset without an issuer, supported by digital hashing power. Bitcoin is the most robust digital commodity. Globally, there may be a few similar digital commodities—assets with no issuer, supported by hashing power, but 99% of the market share belongs to Bitcoin. Digital commodities are best suited as a currency, store of value, or digital capital. In this case, the strongest asset will eventually be monetized, while other assets will be demonetized.

For example, if you decide to monetize gold as an asset, then silver, copper, palladium, and fiat will all eventually go to zero. Now, within the entire crypto ecosystem, Bitcoin is being monetized. All other assets trying to become digital commodities will eventually go to zero relative to Bitcoin, and they should go to zero. Because, why hold the second-best thing? You only need the best, and Bitcoin is the best.

When we talk about other types of assets, such as stablecoins, they do have market demand. However, the regulatory environment is still uncertain. If the US were to establish a clear stablecoin regulatory framework, allowing US companies or banks to issue digital currencies backed by the equivalent of the US dollar, then this market could grow 10 times or even 100 times, eventually reaching a scale of $10 trillion.

But even so, the US dollar remains the world's strongest fiat currency. Then, what is the second-best currency? It's the euro. But what is the future of the euro? Zero. No one really wants any other currency. No one wants yen, no one wants euros, and no one wants any fiat currency from Africa, Asia, or South America. If you engage with Europeans, you will find that the European market's demand for digital currency, 99%, is for the digital dollar, not the digital euro. The euro is already the second strongest currency in the world, but even so, the market still leans towards the dollar.

As for memecoins, they fall under digital tokens. Currently, there is no regulatory framework for digital tokens in the market, so they don't have a path to legalization. But if a comprehensive digital asset regulatory framework is established in the future, such as the US clearly defining tokens as assets supported by the issuer, with digital utility but no physical utility, then memecoins might be included.

If the regulatory framework can further refine, for instance, defining digital securities (supported by the issuer and backed by securities assets), ABTs (supported by the issuer and backed by physical assets like an ounce of silver, a barrel of oil, or a gold bar), and NFTs (digitally useful, issuer-backed non-fungible assets), then the market can issue millions of assets in a standardized manner and ensure their compliance. The issue is that a comprehensive digital asset framework has not yet been established globally.

Currently, the only digital asset with a clear regulatory status is Bitcoin, defined as a digital commodity applicable to the digital capital domain. If you were to invest $1 billion, $10 billion, or even $100 billion, you need regulatory clarity, and Bitcoin already has a clear positioning in this regard. However, for digital currencies, tokens, NFTs, ABTs, and securities, we still lack regulatory clarity, although there is indeed market demand for them.

Currently, in Washington D.C., there is a basic consensus that a digital asset regulatory framework should be established. However, the issue is that Congress has not legislated or passed relevant bills. Therefore, we are now in a "gray area" — the market demands it, regulators acknowledge the need for rules to be established, but the law has not yet been enacted. In this situation, there is no legalized path, so as an institutional investor, I cannot make a definitive judgment. If you are a public company or institutional investor using other people's money, then investing a huge amount of capital (like $1 billion) in betting on these uncertain assets may not be appropriate. You can only wait for the final decision of the law, and right now, we don't have an answer.

Some people believe that Bitcoin is now too expensive, only the wealthy or institutions can afford it. What is your view?

Michael Saylor: I think this is just a misconception. In fact, Bitcoin is cheaper than a house, and people still buy houses, right? It's cheaper than a yacht, but people still buy yachts. It's cheaper than an expensive piece of art. More importantly, you don't need to buy a whole Bitcoin; you can buy one hundred millionth of a Bitcoin — which is a satoshi, priced at less than a penny. You can spend $20 to buy Bitcoin, or you can spend $200, $2,000, $200,000, $2 million, or even $2 billion to buy Bitcoin. The way to acquire Bitcoin is much fairer than buying real estate in Tokyo, Hong Kong, or New York. You can't buy one hundred millionth of a building, but you can buy one satoshi of Bitcoin.

So, this idea is wrong. People just lack understanding, they make cognitive mistakes, and sometimes these mistakes are because they are misled by other projects or investment ideas. But if your goal is to make money or become wealthy, you must overcome these cognitive biases. Instead of spending $100 on buying stocks, buying $100 of Bitcoin is the smarter choice because Bitcoin is a digital asset, while stocks and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are just securities.

From an asset perspective, owning stocks is far inferior to owning Bitcoin. If you invest $100 in a real estate development company, you are just a limited partner, a small shareholder, with no ownership of real estate itself. But if you spend $100 to buy Bitcoin, you are the absolute owner. You can self-custody, lend to earn interest, use it as collateral for a loan, and freely transfer it. So, if you are choosing between real estate and Bitcoin, let's take an example, such as in Hong Kong, is there any building you can buy for $50? Impossible, right? So, Bitcoin is a better investment, much fairer than buying real estate in Hong Kong.

Moreover, if you buy a building in Hong Kong, you cannot take it out of Hong Kong, right? But Bitcoin is different; you can buy a little bit every week, for your whole life. You can move Bitcoin outside of Hong Kong, or self-custody it, completely independent of Hong Kong’s banking system. That is the truly powerful asset, far superior to any other asset.

So, I think people should respect Satoshi Nakamoto's vision. Thank you.

Many people have seen the PowerPoint presentation you made for Microsoft. Will you continue to do such things in the future and engage with large companies?

Michael Saylor: Of course, I have been engaging with various companies. As long as someone is genuinely interested, I will have in-depth discussions with the CEO or board members. In most cases, I communicate privately with them through MicroStrategy's videos. I make those communications public because I want all publicly traded companies to see them. The analytical logic is the same for any public company — 99.9% of their capital structure is debt-financed, and they should shift to Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset.

I engage with different companies irregularly and continue to advocate for the Bitcoin standard. Just this weekend, I released a fantastic video from Jet King's CFO. Jet King is India's first company listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange to adopt the Bitcoin standard, and they have started converting cash flows into Bitcoin. I believe at least 100 companies in India will follow the same path, so I shared that video.

At MicroStrategy, we publish a lot of Bitcoin-related data, such as BTC returns, BTC appreciation, and BTC USD appreciation, and have created a dedicated website to help enterprises understand financial management under the Bitcoin standard. Now, many companies are emulating our approach, with their lawyers studying our financial reports and legal documents to find their own way.

I see this as an ongoing marketing campaign. There are 400 million companies worldwide — 400 million! All of them should be allocating assets based on the Bitcoin standard. Of course, you cannot convince each one individually, so you have to create videos, publish content, and let information spread organically.

Many people around the world have started to learn about the Bitcoin standard and been inspired because they have seen my podcast or MicroStrategy's public documents. I have never met them, but that doesn’t stop them from recognizing us. Hopefully, in the future in Hong Kong, too, people will see our podcast and start thinking about the Bitcoin standard, thus benefiting from it.

We are spreading a new economic philosophy, new technology, and a new network consciousness. I believe this will empower people even more.

You mentioned that Bitcoin has matured, but will the Bitcoin protocol continue to evolve? How do you see the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem?

Michael Saylor: I believe that certain improvements make sense. For example, mining nodes will continue to optimize, full nodes will improve, hardware wallets and signing devices will also become better.

Regarding the need for changes to the Bitcoin protocol, the community has been engaged in heated discussions. Personally, I lean towards a relatively conservative stance. I believe that we should be extremely cautious and thoughtful in advancing any changes. Most protocol adjustments or proposals may be "iatrogenic" — meaning the harm they cause may outweigh the benefits. This situation is similar to lawmaking. People always try to regulate the economy through laws, resulting in thousands of pages of laws in the hope of making the market more efficient. However, in the end, if you enforce millions of rent control laws, the real estate market will be disrupted, and renting will become even more difficult.

Politicians and regulators always come up with various new ideas, but 99.9999% of proposals turn out to be bad. So, we should be highly skeptical of these changes. Of course, occasionally, necessary new ideas may emerge, and we can consider them with caution. If the entire community reaches a broad consensus, I would support it. However, in most cases, we do not need a massive upgrade of the protocol.

Many new proposals are often just to benefit a certain Layer 2 solution or a Layer 3 protocol at the expense of the entire Bitcoin community. Therefore, I believe we should maintain an extremely conservative, cautious, and skeptical attitude towards protocol changes. Frankly, most proposals are more like a "mutation" that does more harm than good to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Do you consider Bitcoin to be a religion?

Michael Saylor: I think of Bitcoin more as an ideology. It is a protocol that allows you to tightly couple economic energy with the individual. In human history, this is the first time a mathematical and technological protocol has emerged to bind capital (economic energy) to companies, individuals, and even nations. Before this, we had never seen anything like it. This transformation is like someone inventing language for the first time.

Imagine if I were to introduce the numbers 0 to 9 into the language system for the first time, what would happen? If I took away these numbers, didn't allow you to use them, or even express the concept of "14," what would that be like? You would feel extremely limited, right? If I deprived you of fire, electricity, mathematics, or prevented you from speaking, from expressing complete sentences, or even removed all nouns from the language, your ability to express yourself would be utterly destroyed.

So, I see Bitcoin as a protocol for prosperity. It is the first protocol in human history that is scientific, thermodynamically sound, physically secure, and mathematically rigorous when it comes to economics. So, Bitcoin is an ideology, but is it a religion? I am not sure. It might lean more towards a secular ideology.

However, many believe that elements like math, electricity, and fire are crucial for human progress. If you try to take these things away, people might revolt. I think the reason Bitcoin can evoke great passion in people is that it is a protocol that drives economic prosperity.

Is there anything you would like to say to Chinese investors?

Michael Saylor: I believe that Bitcoin is becoming the global emerging capital network. This digital energy network is expanding at a rate of hundreds of millions of dollars every day, becoming stronger and stronger. It is supported by the world's most powerful computational network, a decentralized network composed of millions of computers. Anyone in the world can access this energy network.

You can access this network by buying Bitcoin, holding Bitcoin, developing applications based on Bitcoin, or building households, companies, cities, or even countries based on Bitcoin. There are many ways to participate. When I joined the Bitcoin network, its market value was only 200 billion dollars. Today, it has surpassed 2 trillion dollars and will reach 20 trillion dollars, 200 trillion dollars, or even 400 trillion dollars in the future. This network will continue to grow in our lifetimes.

Smart money will eventually flow into Bitcoin. People will gradually abandon 20th-century assets—real estate, stocks, collectibles, fiat currency, and bonds—and exchange their past assets for future assets. They will transition from physical assets to digital assets, from unsound currency to sound currency, from weaker assets to stronger assets.

Some may ask, "What if Bitcoin stops rising?" But that question is like asking, "What if water stops flowing downhill?"

What if time stops moving forward? What if you drop something from a mountain and it doesn't fall anymore? What if gravity suddenly fails? These things won't happen. If you understand the physical principles of the Bitcoin network, you will realize that none of this is random.

This aligns with thermodynamic principles. Why does fire burn? Why does it produce heat? It's not random. Why can electricity be harnessed? Why does a water wheel operate? Why does ice melt? Why does water boil? These are not random occurrences; it's just that many people don't understand the principles behind them. If you understand the physical principles of the economic system, you can build a machine.

You can build hydroelectric power plants, airplanes, and ships. When Henry Ford looked at a flame, perhaps someone asked, "What if the fire goes out?" But the fire does not go out. The essence of the internal combustion engine is to ignite a flame inside the machine and keep it burning forever.

If you ignite a flame in a jet engine and keep it going by continuously inputting jet fuel, allowing it to carry you across the Pacific for 15 hours, someone might ask, "What if the fire goes out?" If the fire goes out, your plane will crash. But the key is, it will not go out. Why? Because engineers designed this machine to ensure the flame does not go out.

So, I want to say to everyone, you can design a better financial system. You can build an economic engine powered by Bitcoin. MicroStrategy is like a "crypto reactor," with Bitcoin as its fuel. This is not random. If you think this is just speculation, then you do not truly understand it.

Just as some in ancient times believed that fire was created by the gods and feared that angering the god of fire would extinguish it. But Henry Ford did not think that way; he created the entire automotive industry, allowing everyone to own a car. Today, there are over 1 billion cars worldwide.

You need to view the world like a physicist, scientist, or mathematician. When you truly understand how things work, you will see that Bitcoin is a digital energy network. For the first time in human history, we have a global digital energy network that you can access anytime. This is the path to prosperity.

You can evade it or complain about it, but if you want to create a better world, if you want to become wealthy, if you want to change the future of 10 billion people, you need to become an engineer. You cannot just fear being shocked, burned by fire, or fear the thunder of the gods; you must control it, harness it, and drive the world forward.

Original Article Link