Hal saw Bitcoin as becoming "high-powered" reserve money for banks to transact with while issuing their own digital cash. It's interesting reading some of the replies -- some were quick to call out the woes of fractional reserve.
He liked the idea of Bitcoin-backed banks, much in the same way that Michael Saylor does (and has been getting called out on it for what he said in a recent interview on CNBC, in the very same way as Hal was).
"For the [Bitcoin] industry to move to the next level, we need to migrate to 'adult supervision.' We're gonna need big banks to become the c̶r̶y̶p̶t̶o̶ [Bitcoin] custodians. We're gonna need Wall Street to take a role..."
Is this the ultimate fate you see for Bitcoin as well?
Truthfully, I think Hal and Michael both think very practically about bitcoin -- in the world as it is today and how it will function.
They're focused on the next 3 decades for Bitcoin, probably not beyond then (well perhaps Hal was, but I'm ~90% certain Michael has explicitly mentioned this on an interview -- can't remember where)
Point being, I don't think Saylor is coming from a "wrong" point of view, but perhaps from a more (boring) grounded timeline.
As I mentioned in my recent post, Bitcoin is the TROJAN HORSE. While we should absolutely be keeping the unbanked unbanked, developed nations with established financial systems will likely have to be reworked from the inside out -- it's an inevitable force of "mainstream" adoption.
I do not think that Bitcoin banks are the ultimate fate; I'm fully looking towards a custodianless world. Starting with myself and my family, and then helping others as I go.
But in the short term, Hal and Saylor I think have "Bitcoin banks" right in terms of the timeline. I just think it's an inevitable step rather than an ultimate fate.
And yea, it's gonna piss a lot of us off.