pull down to refresh

There are a lot of moving parts to this one and it's long-form... but bear with me it's worth it.
  1. Mike Saylor may want to run for president one day (in the next 8-12 years) and he probably sees himself as an important historical figure.
From Larry Lepard and Natalie Brunell on Youtube (33:35) https://youtu.be/y347CSCcFc8?si=CW0zGB78nkHKl1xY&t=2015
From Larry Lepard during the interview:
  • "Will Michael Saylor run for president? You know it strikes me that over time um the politics are going to reflect the on the ground conditions and the on the ground conditions are going to be bitcoiners are doing well and Bitcoin is, are a big voting block and bitcoiners are going to be wealthy when these coins are worth a million dollars a coin... and you know I could easily see, you know I mean I have the sense that sailor kind of sees himself as as a really unique individual with a with a higher purpose. I think he's going to be a huge historical figure and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him run for president in eight years or 12 years."

  1. The idea of the United States 'using' stablecoins, to export its debt and currency is nothing new. Paul Ryan (former Speaker of the House 2015-2019) advocated for it.
Crypto Could Stave Off a U.S. Debt Crisis: Stablecoins backed by dollars provide demand for U.S. public debt and a way to keep up with China https://www.wsj.com/articles/stablecoins-could-stave-off-a-us-debt-crisis-china-digital-currency-c491d717
  • "Several nations that have historically been large buyers of U.S. debt, such as China and Saudi Arabia, are gradually retreating from the market. They are also increasingly looking for options for settling payments outside the dollar system. There is, meantime, growing risk that the U.S. government could soon experience a failed debt auction. Such an event would roil markets and severely undermine U.S. credibility.
  • If other countries are successful at bolstering their currencies’ influence while dumping Treasury debt, the U.S. will need to find new ways to make the dollar more attractive. Dollar-backed stablecoins are one answer.
  • Promoting dollar-backed stablecoins would follow a well-trodden path and offer clear near-term benefits. There would be an immediate, durable increase in demand for U.S. debt, which would reduce the risk of a failed debt auction and an attendant crisis. Unlike China’s digital financial infrastructure, dollar-backed stablecoins issued on public, permissionless blockchains come packaged with the deeply American values of freedom and openness."
OK I don't know about the 'freedom and openness' bit... but the math isn't complicated. The greater the demand for Dollars globally... the lower the 'interest rate' on government borrowing the lower the 'yield' and consequent servicing costs for the US treasury (and taxpayers). From the same article:
  • "Among the perks: cheap, reliable financing for fiscal spending and substantial influence over the global financial system."

  1. Bitcoin is arguably Digital Capital Not Necessarily Digital Currency... Why and What does that mean? Bear with me...
First in defining "Capital" as Opposed to Currency... What is Capital anyway?
  • "What is capital? Capital revolves around two aspects of life most of us are quite familiar with-production and consumption. Broadly defined, capital is anything that brings our ideas and abilities to fruition and enables us to produce goods and services more efficiently."
This definition, from the University of Kansas School of Business - https://onlinemba.ku.edu/experience-ku/mba-blog/what-is-capital-in-business
  • "In business, the term “capital” refers to financial assets used to fund operations and growth. It can be used to purchase assets, cover expenses, and invest in new opportunities. Businesses have to efficiently manage their capital to meet their obligations as well as innovate and expand into new markets. Although capital is money, from a business perspective, it’s specifically money for current operations and future investments."
OK then... so what is "currency?" I personally subscribe to the idea that "currency" is a Unit of Account and (frequently substandard) Store of Value but typically Issued by a Government. This definition is not without justification...
  • "Currency can be defined as a system of money issued by a State on a national territory, used by people in that nation, allowing to carry out monetary exchanges."
From The Economist "The A to Z of economics" (Yes I know the Economist is totally No-Coiners... and the Salt is unbearable) https://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z#C
  • "Currency - The monetary unit of a nation state, or group of states. Examples are the American dollar, the euro and the Japanese yen. In the modern era, most currencies are allowed to rise and fall in value against each other and are traded in the foreign exchange market."
So... Perhaps being a 'currency' alone is... highly overrated relative to "being Capital" and the demand for it...

  1. From the Wall Street Journal article titled How Wall Street Keeps Absorbing America’s Borrowing Binge: https://www.wsj.com/finance/how-wall-street-keeps-absorbing-americas-borrowing-binge-5e1262e7?mod=article_inline
  • "One big advantage is that Treasurys are easier to trade than other bonds. Size, in this case, is helpful. The huge volume of outstanding Treasurys means investors can easily buy large amounts of bonds of practically any maturity. They can also feel free selling their own holdings knowing that they can quickly find replacements."
[In other words, volume and liquidity come at a premium!]
  • "The liquidity of Treasurys is one reason why the dollar is known as the world’s reserve currency, according to analysts. Central banks and governments of other countries hold reserves for a variety of reasons, including managing the value of their own currency, but they favor the dollar in part because they can buy and sell Treasurys more easily than other government bonds.
  • “What I’ve sometimes said is that it’s not that the dollar is the dominant reserve currency, it’s that Treasurys are the world’s dominant reserve asset,” said Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former adviser to the U.S. Trade Representative."
In other words, US Bonds are not only highly liquid and tradable... but considered "safe" forms of Capital Preservation - Capital referring to financial assets that "fund operations and growth" (see above).
And Capital being so important not to mention so broad as to encompass "anything that brings our ideas and abilities to fruition..." it plays a far more important role than when compared to currency alone and the market for Capital is much, much bigger.
On August 1st 2023, Veteran bond analyst Greg Foss was interviewed by Saifedean Ammous about the ongoing "Bondapocalypse" (1:01:55) of that year and previous years. https://youtu.be/s-p4VnZRaEM?si=OE5wwao43MWo10Jp&t=3715
During the interview Saifedean remarks:
  • "...but what bonds are essentially are [is] an alternative to Gold I mean the point of bonds is it's not Equity you're not taking on risk... you're not going to get a million x because you found the next Facebook at its infancy. It's not Venture Capital it's not stock trading and it's not Equity at a company. It's supposed to be the cash part of your portfolio... the safe part of your portfolio so effectively bonds are the replacements for gold. And so you know Bitcoin... saying Bitcoin is digital gold is useful pedagogically useful... to communicate uh the properties of Bitcoin. But the gold that Bitcoin is after [the] real gold here at the end, the end goal that's at the end of the Fiat rainbow is the bond market that's the bond market..."
To which Foss replies:
  • "...yes sir and it's because again... I'll say it [again] because it [Bitcoin] will replace bonds as the long volatility insurance part of your portfolio. Bitcoin will replace bonds as the long Vol asset in your portfolio and everybody needs long volatility assets in a world of short volatility assets."
So if Bitcoin has no issuer, is more than 'money' alone (but not exclusive to being money), competes in capital markets for Capital Preservation Long Volatility and (according to Saif) has the Bond Market at the end of the Rainbow...
What is "Saylor's Strategy?" and does it make any sense? Why is it important and why would it be impactful should it transpire?

  1. On March 7th, 2025 the White House hosted the 1st-ever "Crypto Summit" with mostly... "shipcoiners" from exchanges and "founders" of sketchy crypto air-tokens. For example, some of the people who donated to Mr. Trump's presidential campaign (with deep pockets).
A few days before the summit Mr. Trump also had posted to social media his 'crypto' intentions... to create a Bitcoin Reserve + Crypto 'Stockpile.'
Mentioning, much less including Shipcoins like XRP and others... only muddies the waters, confuses the public, and creates the space for scams and unregistered securities to proliferate. That's why Saylor released his (and accordingly 'presented') the "Digital Assets Strategy to Dominate the 21st Century". https://www.michael.com/a-digital-assets-strategy
The "Strategy" first categorizes "crypto" on whether or not it
  1. has an issuer
  2. is backed by "Utility" (Like a "token")
  3. is backed by a "Security" (Like a Stock or Bond)
  4. is backed by "Currency" (like a Stablecoin) or
  5. is backed by "Digital Power" which is exclusively Bitcoin and has no issuer.
He doesn't use the word "crypto" without a purpose... but instead Crypto to "Grow the Global Economy" with the ultimate goals of
  1. Capital Creation
  2. Capital Efficiency
  3. Digital Commerce and
  4. Capital Preservation (Bitcoin).
This is MUCH more useful, in my opinion, than the mass of incompetence from the Biden administration... or the potential corruption/possible conflicts of interest of the Trump Administration.
Note that the only "Crypto" explicitly, sufficiently decentralized enough to not have an Issuer IS BITCOIN IT STANDS ALONE and his Strategy and later comments (for the BITCOIN bill) absolutely reflect this.
Note that this framework (Digital Assets Strategy) does not hamper censorship resistance, self-custody, or encourage onerous or excessive tax compliance:
  • "Owners should have the right to freely custody, trade, and transfer their assets."
  • "Digital assets should move freely over the internet, as swiftly as computational processes allow, without censorship or regulatory obstruction."
  • "Hostile and unfair tax policies on crypto miners, holders, and exchanges hinder industry growth and should be eliminated, along with arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory regulations."
In other words, hold the scammers accountable, only Bitcoin doesn't have an issuer (keeping it neutral) and keep the government hands-off so as to not create unnecessary tax burdens or regulatory issues.

Continuing... 6) I believe Mr. Saylor's comments reflect his belief that basically everything other than bitcoin OR a stablecoin is an unregistered security and everything OTHER than stablecoins effectively go to zero relative to Bitcoin.
The Proof?
"Michael Saylor COMES CLEAN [says it's centralized] about Ethereum" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmscQ2Ibnmk
  • "...um with regard to ethereum... you know i think ethereum's a security, I think it's pretty obvious
    it's a security it was issued by an ICO there's a management team uh... there was a pre-mine there
    uh there's a hard fork there's multi you know... there there's continual hard forks there's a difficulty bomb that keeps getting pushed back the difficulty bomb is going to wipe out the entire eth mining industry... it's going to obliterate it murder it. Okay the fact that somebody is able to murder an entire industry and then they keep changing their mind every six months about whether to do it or not do it is... it's a security and not a commodity for it to be a commodity there can't be an issuer and the truth is you can't really make decisions..."
He goes on and on... and could not be more critical about anything and everything that's not Bitcoin. I have to find the video... but I specifically remember him saying (on more than one instance) that eventually the "crypto" market would be 95% "proof of work"... because otherwise it's unethical/unstable/cannot persist. https://youtu.be/Of0Ojk9yVWE?si=L4qRNeZNooPWsh--
In Saylor's recent Keynote at Bitcoin for America he says the exact same thing despite pleasantries about 'tokens' and securities in front of 'crypto people' at the Trump administration. https://youtu.be/4UkXL3bqvCA?si=kvJC3LpLzF6nVk1_&t=1312 (21:52)
  • "I'm making a strong assertion bitcoin is the digital capital network. I'm not just the one making that assertion, the President of the United States made that assertion last week... explained by david sacks on Friday night [the night of the mostly-private 'summit'] he said "Bitcoin is the only crypto asset that is truly decentralized it is special." Maybe in the future there might be some other digital capital... the US government doesn't recognize any other digital capital nor do we... and that's because 99% of the power in the crypto ecosystem is in the bitcoin network. If you want to own cyberspace and own the future you need to own it embrace bitcoin..."

  1. Now the controversial part -
  • Tying the use of 'stablecoins'
  • The definition of Bitcoin as Crypto-Capital
  • The 'Digital Strategy' to placate the altcoiners while redirecting their attention
  • The fragility of the US Bond market sensitivity to global demand... and the "global reserve" nature of US treasury securities...
To Mr. Saylor's "Speculative Attack" he is trying to execute on non-US assets and currencies. The "speculative attack", the same he has tried to execute through MSTR, would recapitalize the world on Bitcoin and (potentially he believes) enrich the United States 100x in the process.
As the US builds a "Bitcoin Reserve" of considerable size and US citizens and companies capitalize (short for 'buy') Bitcoin quickly, a "speculative attack" takes place of all non-US assets while accruing a massive amount internationally to Bitcoin (and Bitcoin hodlers) simultaneously.
The only way to 'afford' this is to classify Bitcoin as "Digital Capital", sell it to the world in the form of an idea... while selling US Dollars as stablecoins funding very large Bitcoin purchases (for the government) in the process.
In this way it's not dissimilar to 'selling shares' of MSTR... and taking the revenue to buy Bitcoin while 'selling the idea' of a wealthier MSTR in order to generate a premium... which can be sold to buy more Bitcoin.
Except it's the United States.
This is 'not really' something a private citizen would do (in my opinion)... but it is something a President would do by forming, and implementing such a strategy if they were smart enough to implement it and they had the opportunity to.
Ultimately for Saylor, I think he knows that Bitcoin competes with the Dollar very long-term... but exporting US debt in the form of Stablecoins is necessary to raise the revenue... plus political capital necessary to buy 1 Million Bitcoin like he and Lummis propose.
  • "Embrace bitcoin and strengthen the dollar. We have the chance to establish, own and control the global digital capital network that is bitcoin, we can back the US dollar with Bitcoin reserves, the only monetary asset that is competitive to the dollar. If i need a liquid fungible asset to capitalize a company or an institution it's not real estate, it's not natural gas, it's not art it's not private and public equity portfolios... it's not even going to be a index of equity. The only asset that I can use other than bitcoin is... it's [US] Treasuries. Everywhere in the world, if anybody ever decides to replace those they'll replace them with Bitcoin we should own both."

You may or may not agree with the "speculative attack" he's trying to execute or my analysis. Maybe you would prefer the government not be involved with Bitcoin at all (as I would).
BUT DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER. What he is trying to do (which would enrich HODLERS) is a really big deal, and it just might happen. I haven't seen this covered enough.
If it was politically popular enough and he were lucky he would run as president in the next 8-12 years... stranger things have happened you heard it here first.
One of the biggest problems with doing this in the political sphere is that you can't count on executing it as a long-term plan, because the next Congress/President can just stupidly sell it all off.
I think you're right, though, about this approach being in serious consideration. It fits perfectly with Trump's desire to make the rest of the world pay for America's big stupid government.
reply
That's because any sitting administration gets Bitcoin at the price they deserve, if the next president sells it off, the following administration then need to get off zero....again 🤣🤣
reply
It's not about them 'paying'... it's about (if the above is correct) the world 'recapitalizing' around the Bitcoin and the US's ability and desire to front-run that.
If US companies have Bitcoin, US private citizens, and the American government and the government sell stablecoins to "buy Bitcoin"... it's a massive speculative attack.
reply
Isn't that a way of having the rest of the world pay? I'm not saying there's nothing more to it, but rather that this is what would appeal to this administration about the approach.
I don't quite understand why the rest of the world would go along with this, instead of buying bitcoin themselves. Why sit back and let yourself be front-run?
reply
Why does the rest of the world 'want dollars'?
The crazy thing is that in the 'global south' (take el Salvador for example) the demand for stables is at least as high as that for Bitcoin. Stablecoins are a huge business and you don't have to 'convince' people in the developing world of the value of USDT.
But Bitcoin is widely misunderstood/underutilized all throughout South America... it was in el Salvador becuase the state 'chivo' wallet was terrible and education was non-existent and it's the same everywhere.
If they want stables then... sell them stables that's Saylor's "evil genius" strategy but take the revenue/yield control and capitalize it indirectly for BTC.
reply
I should have clarified: I understand the short term interest in stable coins.
Once this bitcoin acquisition strategy is in place, though, the continued strength and stability of the dollar becomes inexorably linked to the prospects for bitcoin, right?
In that situation, I don't understand why you'd opt for the clearly inferior stablecoins, which will perform worse than bitcoin by design.
reply
"clearly inferior stablecoins..."
The world doesn't understand that though yet. From the Wall Street Journal today
Trump’s New World Order Tests the Dollar: Investors are more optimistic about Europe while tariffs cloud the U.S. outlook https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/trump-trade-tariffs-us-dollar-value-814cbe37?mod=hp_lead_pos2
  • "In another scenario, the dollar could continue to weaken and Trump could achieve his goal of shrinking the gap between U.S. exports and imports, but only because the U.S. economy is suffering, Setser added.
  • Foreign investors might be tempted to shift money out of U.S. assets. But the alternatives, including Europe, have problems of their own.
  • All of this is creating uncertainty,” said Robert Rubin, who served as Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration and once co-led Goldman Sachs. “On the other hand, where else do foreign companies and investors go?”"
🤯
I never even considered it, but it makes perfect sense. He already has a strong following and a large group of potential donors.
reply
Yes it does. You heard it here first!
reply
Knowing the Treasuries control on finance & relentless pursuit of KYC and AML, how will they prevent terrorists and child traffickers in Africa from using dollar stablecoins to conduct nefarioius activities?
reply
how will they prevent terrorists and child traffickers in Africa from using dollar stablecoins to conduct nefarioius activities?
Why would they? They don't give a hoot about that. Unless the narrative serves their interest, which in this case is doesn't, because dollarizing the world is a bigger interest to serve than control through AML/KYC.
reply
  • "As the world modernizes its payment systems, the U.S. cannot be left behind,” Hagerty said. “Stablecoins can play a pivotal role in spurring that modernization. Whether it’s improving transaction efficiency, freeing up working capital, or driving U.S. Treasury demand, the benefits of a clear regulatory framework for stablecoins are immense.”"
reply
what does usdt and usdc do right now?
reply
you mean it's a coordinated live action role play where we hotswap the entire planetary basis for measuring value and it was hatched in the 70s after closing the gold window?
reply
It's a massive speculative attack. First from Mr Saylor with Microstrategy MSTR... and now (potentially) with the United States Treasury.
Front-run the rest of the world, go all-in on Bitcoin and sell stablecoin tokens in the process.
Capitalize US debt, drive down interest rates and yields, and generate the funds plus political capital in the process to support massive Bitcoin buys on behalf of the US Treasury and federal government.
It's a massive grand strategy and speculative attack on anything not dollar-denominated.
reply