Original source: Wu said blockchain
In this interview, Wu said Colin and MicroStrategy founder Michael Saylor discussed the following issues: Will MicroStrategy continue to acquire Bitcoin; Is MicroStrategy at risk of being liquidated; How do you view the cyclical nature of cryptocurrencies and the possible bear market; Will MicroStrategy lend or pledge Bitcoin to earn interest in the future; How do you view Asian companies imitating MicroStrategy; Will MicroStrategy develop its own second-layer Bitcoin network; How many Bitcoins does Michael personally hold, and why did he announce that he would destroy his private keys after his death; Does he still support the view that bank custody is safer than self-custody; How do you view Trumps new policy and the national reserve of Bitcoin; Is there a risk of U.S. centralization in Bitcoin; Is Bitcoin too expensive, and only rich people and institutions buy it? How do you view young peoples preference for memecoin; 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 US$31.1 billion and an average price of US$65,033, making it the entity with the most Bitcoin in the world.
Audio transcription is done by GPT and may contain errors. Please listen to the full podcast:
Can you introduce yourself and MicroStrategy?
Michael Saylor: I founded MicroStrategy in late 1989. We started as a business intelligence software company and went public in 1998. I have also founded about a dozen other businesses, including a public company. I have always been interested in the history of science and how science affects economics. I studied at MIT, majoring in aeronautical engineering and history of science. I wrote a book, The Mobile Wave, which discusses how software migrates to mobile devices and brings about changes. I explored what happens when software runs on mobile devices. In 2020, I discovered Bitcoin, and then our company became the first company to include Bitcoin on its balance sheet. Today, we are the worlds largest Bitcoin holder.
Will MicroStrategy continue to acquire Bitcoin? What is the maximum amount it will acquire?
Michael Saylor: Yes, we will continue to acquire Bitcoin. Think of us as a real estate development company. If you were the first company to go public in Manhattan, and you kept acquiring real estate in Manhattan and developing it in 1750, you would continue to do so for hundreds of years. So you are not selling, you are constantly buying. We will continue to develop Bitcoin as a digital Manhattan - a digital asset. We will continue to acquire Bitcoin and then use it as collateral to launch other businesses. For example, we are now the largest issuer of convertible bonds 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 see new opportunities.
Some people say that MicroStrategy may be at risk if the average purchase price of Bitcoin exceeds $150,000 in the future. Do you agree with this view?
Michael Saylor: No, I disagree. The company has acquired most of its bitcoin through equity. For example, we currently have $45 billion to $50 billion worth of bitcoin, and our debt is only $3 billion, and that debt is already secured by assets. So in fact, we have 15 times the amount of bitcoin as collateral than our debt. And our debt is non-recourse and has a term of more than four years. Therefore, Bitcoin could drop to $1 tomorrow and there would be no problem. I mean, even if Bitcoin plummeted 98%, the company would not face liquidation risk. The company has permanent capital.
What do you think of Bitcoins price cycles? Do you think there will be a bear market this year?
Michael Saylor: I dont pay much attention to cycles. I dont believe in cycles. I think the concept of cycles comes from the first 10 to 15 years in 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 enters in the form of equity. For example, BlackRock and ETFs have purchased more than $100 billion in Bitcoin in the past year, and the amount of Bitcoin they have purchased exceeds the total amount of Bitcoin mined by miners. So when we went through the last halving, the amount of Bitcoin mined and sold became secondary, and the demand for Bitcoin really dominated the market, which has entered a different stage.
I think it’s a bit distracting to focus too much on cycles. People try to time the market and they always fail. If you tried to time the best time to buy Manhattan real estate over the last 300 years, you would have talked yourself out of it. But the fact is, you would have been right at any price over the last 300 years. The same thing applies to Tokyo real estate. If you tried to time the best time to buy Apple stock over the last 40 years, your biggest mistake would have been not buying it. What you have is a dominant digital currency network that is only going to go up. I think Bitcoin will go up an average of 29% per year over the next 21 years. On that basis, by 2045, the price of a Bitcoin will be $13 million. You can buy it for 1/100th of that right now. So does it really matter if you buy it at $95,000, $105,000, $92,000, or $108,000? Traders don’t get rich, they just participate in the market. The world’s richest people like Bernard Arnault, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk became wealthy because they bought into a dominant digital monopoly and held on to it rather than trading it in the market.
Will MicroStrategy lend or stake Bitcoin to earn interest in the future?
Michael Saylor: I dont think it will. I think the smartest thing to do is to issue securities that are backed by Bitcoin. When you lend Bitcoin to someone, you take on risk because they may not give it back to you. But if you issue securities to the market, you still hold Bitcoin. There are right ways to manage risk and there are wrong ways to manage risk.
A better approach would be to issue $1 billion in securities collateralized by $10 billion in Bitcoin and pay 8% interest while investing at a 60% yield. Wouldnt that be better? You get to hold onto your assets while earning a 52% spread. If you can earn 60% through the Bitcoin network while borrowing funds at 8%, 10%, 12%, or whatever, why not do it? Thats much better than lending you $10 billion in Bitcoin at 4%. Why would I risk $10 billion to earn 4% instead of earning 40% with zero risk?
What do you think of some mining companies and listed companies in Asia imitating MicroStrategy?
Michael Saylor: I think the more participants that join the Bitcoin network, the higher the price of Bitcoin will be, and the stronger the network will be, so everyone will benefit. I expect we will go from just a few companies adopting the Bitcoin standard to dozens, hundreds, and eventually thousands of companies.
You can choose to invest your capital in bonds, which may only yield a 2%-3% return after tax; or you can invest your capital in Bitcoin and get 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 that join the Bitcoin standard, the better it will be for all Bitcoin holders and all companies that adopt the Bitcoin standard. Its a virtuous cycle.
Will MicroStrategy develop its own Bitcoin Layer 2 network, or support existing Bitcoin Layer 2 solutions?
Michael Saylor: I think well watch the market first. You can think of MicroStrategy as already operating on three layers of Bitcoin. Layer 2 is an open protocol like Lightning, and layer 3 is a platform like Binance, Coinbase, or MSTR, which are proprietary protocols. So, we already have a three-layer architecture thats doing billions of dollars a day. We also recently launched Strike, another three-layer protocol, which is doing tens of millions, even over $50 million a day. These are security layers, or three-layer protocols, that are already very strong and attract a certain type of investor.
In the future, second-layer solutions like Lightning may be successful, but I think the real $100 billion opportunity right now is on the third layer.
How much Bitcoin do you personally hold? What is your average purchase price? Do you hold any other cryptocurrencies?
Michael Saylor: I dont own any other cryptocurrencies. About four years ago, I publicly disclosed that I owned 17,732 Bitcoins, which I bought at a price just under $10,000 per coin. I dont remember the exact number, but the information can be found in my public tweets. Since then, I have bought some more, but I have never sold any. Therefore, I now own more Bitcoin than I did then, but I have not publicly disclosed how much more.
You mentioned that your Bitcoin private key will be destroyed upon your death. Why not leave it to your family or donate it?
Michael Saylor: Im single and I dont have children. Regarding charity, I think if you have a lot of resources, you have to make sure that these resources are ultimately used for the right things. If you destroy the private key directly, it is actually equivalent to donating these bitcoins to everyone in the entire Bitcoin network in proportion. Is this fair? This is the most fair way.
If you believe in Bitcoin and have invested a certain amount, then anyone who destroys their private key is actually supporting those who share your beliefs. This is an immediate, irrevocable, and permanent donation. But if I donate this money to a charity, 100 years later, when I am no longer here, the administrator of this organization may spend it on things that I dont approve of. For example, people criticize Rockefeller because some of his charitable foundations now support projects that not everyone agrees with. But the problem is that Rockefeller has been dead for a long time, and he himself may not agree with these uses. So, a person who has been dead for 100 years is criticized because his money is used for something controversial. This is the risk of leaving wealth to a foundation or trust.
Of course, there are other options. You can spend the wealth while youre still alive, or set very strict rules about how to spend it. If you have family and want to leave your Bitcoin to them, that might be a reasonable option, too.
But I think Satoshi Nakamoto set a very admirable example. Satoshi Nakamoto has 1 million bitcoins, but these bitcoins have never been used. In fact, he 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 might be safer than personal custody. Do you still think so?
Michael Saylor: I think different people should have different ways of custodying Bitcoin. Some people are very good at self-custody, and they should do it themselves. But some people are not capable of that. For example, would you let a 3-year-old child manage Bitcoin himself? Or an 80-year-old who cant even type or read a keyboard well? If they are blind, can they safely custody Bitcoin?
The answer is obvious, right? If you set up a trust for your unborn child, can they hold custody of the bitcoin themselves? Who should be responsible for custody? There are also some companies that are not legally allowed to hold custody of their own bitcoins. This raises another question - do you really want your mayor to manage all the bitcoins on behalf of the citizens of the city? What if the mayor steals from the trust? What if he is kidnapped or murdered?
In the early days of Bitcoin, many people realized the importance of self-custody because the market was flooded with crypto cowboy-style 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 very strict operating procedures, while many crypto exchanges may only have a few people managing them.
I dont think theres a single right answer here. If you live in a war zone, like Iraq or North Korea, and you dont custody your bitcoin, youre likely to lose it. But for a lot of institutions and organizations, they cant legally buy bitcoin without a custodian. So the rational view is that some people should self-custody, some people can manage it by memorizing mnemonics, some people can engrave mnemonics on metal plates, some people use hardware wallets, and some people need to rely on institutional custody, whether its an institution in their own country or a custodian overseas.
So the key is what kind of entity are you - a city, a charity, a family, a trust, an individual? The real question is, what is your investment horizon? Is it 100 years? 1,000 years? One year? Five years? Are you going to die in three years? It all comes down to how uncertain your circumstances are. Do you live in Manhattan, or in Ukraine or Afghanistan? Do you live in Africa? If so, which country in Africa? All of these factors will influence your choices.
It also depends on your physical and mental condition. Some people cant even type, some cant even read the words on their phones, and some dont have phones at all. In the crypto world, people tend to assume that everyone is a male in their 20s. If you are between 20 and 40 years old, your view of the world may be very similar. But in reality, there are many people in the world who dont belong to this group - some have cancer, some are 85 years old, and some are in completely different environments. Therefore, everyone needs to make a decision based on their own situation.
If you are too dogmatic or stubborn about how Bitcoin is managed, you will limit the growth of the network. I think the smartest approach is to be inclusive of all types of entities around the world, regardless of their circumstances. Anyone who buys an asset backed by Bitcoin in any way is actually driving the development of the Bitcoin network. The ultimate goal is to keep the Bitcoin network expanding.
What impact do you think a Trump presidency would have on the crypto industry? Do you think he would create a national Bitcoin reserve?
Michael Saylor: I think Trumps election will be good news for the entire industry, both for Bitcoin and the crypto industry. What the specific impact will be remains to be seen. But if the White House, cabinet members, regulators, the Senate and the House of Representatives are all supportive of the crypto industry, then the political consensus will tend to promote technological progress, business development, freedom, sovereignty and capitalism.
I think this political consensus means that the government is likely to introduce many constructive and positive policies to help the industry grow. As for what specific measures will be, 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 its clear that Bitcoin is the most decentralized crypto asset in the world. Miners are distributed all over the world, and so 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. Its also the most recognizable brand in the crypto space.
Bitcoin is also the most stable, with its protocol barely changing. For example, Ethereum has a 10-year roadmap with more than 40 planned updates, while Bitcoin has no so-called “roadmap” at all.
Bitcoin has been completed. It was basically finalized more than ten years ago. It can be said that Bitcoin was basically completed more than ten years ago, even when it was born on January 3, 2009. An ideal protocol should be widely distributed, mathematically complete, logically complete, and gain global consensus. At present, the only asset that is recognized as logically complete worldwide is Bitcoin. Therefore, I do not think that Bitcoin is moving towards centralization. Instead, I think it is constantly decentralizing and becoming more and more decentralized.
Hundreds of millions of people around the world already hold Bitcoin, and no other crypto asset is as widely held, recognized, and supported as Bitcoin.
Are there other cryptocurrencies worth considering? What do you think of memecoin now?
Michael Saylor: I think if 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, digital commodities are assets without issuers and backed by digital computing power. Bitcoin is the most powerful digital commodity. There may be a few similar digital commodities in the world - assets without issuers and backed by computing power, but 99% of the market share belongs to Bitcoin. Digital commodities are best suited as currencies, stores of value, or digital capital. In this case, the strongest assets will eventually be monetized, and all others will be demonetized.
For example, if you decide to make gold a monetized asset, then silver, copper, palladium, and paper money will all eventually go to zero. Right now, in the entire crypto ecosystem, Bitcoin is being monetized. All other assets that are trying to be digital commodities will eventually go to zero relative to Bitcoin, and should. Because, why hold the second best thing? You only need the best, and Bitcoin is the best.
If we talk about other types of assets, such as stablecoins, they do have market demand. But currently, the regulatory environment is still unstable. If the United States establishes a clear regulatory framework for stablecoins, allowing U.S. companies or banks to issue digital currencies backed by U.S. dollar equivalents, then this market could grow 10 times or even 100 times, and could eventually reach $10 trillion.
But even so, the dollar is still the strongest fiat currency in the world. So, what is the second best currency? Its the euro. But what is the future of the euro? Back to zero. No one really wants other currencies. No one wants the yen, no one wants the euro, and no one wants any fiat currency in Africa, Asia, or South America. If you talk to Europeans, you will find that 99% of the demand for digital currency in the European market is for digital dollars, not digital euros. The euro is already the second strongest currency in the world, but even so, the market still prefers the dollar.
As for memecoin, they are digital tokens. There is no regulatory framework for digital tokens in the market, so there is no legal path for them. But if a complete digital asset regulatory framework is established in the future, such as the United States clearly stipulates that tokens are assets that are supported by the issuer and have digital uses but no physical uses, then memecoin may be included.
If the regulatory framework can be further refined, such as defining digital securities (backed by the issuer and backed by security assets), ABTs (backed by the issuer and backed by physical assets, such as an ounce of silver, a barrel of oil, or a gold bar), and NFTs (non-homogeneous assets with digital uses and backed by the issuer), the market can issue millions of assets in a standardized manner and ensure compliance. The problem is that such a complete digital asset framework has not yet been established globally.
Currently, the only digital asset with a clear regulatory status is Bitcoin, which is defined as a digital commodity and applies to the digital capital sector. If you are investing $1 billion, $10 billion, or even $100 billion, you need regulatory clarity, and Bitcoin already has a clear position in this regard. But for digital currencies, tokens, NFTs, ABTs, and securities, we still lack regulatory clarity, even though there is a real demand for them in the market.
At present, in Washington, D.C., there is a consensus that a regulatory framework for digital assets should be established. But the problem is that Congress has not yet legislated or passed the relevant bill. Therefore, we are now in a gray area - the market has demand, regulators also recognize that rules need to be formulated, but the law has not yet been introduced. In this case, there is no legal path, so as an institutional investor, I cannot make a clear judgment on it. If you are a public company or an institutional investor using other peoples funds, it may not be appropriate to invest a huge amount of money (such as $1 billion) to bet on these uncertain assets. You can only wait for the final decision of the law, and we dont have an answer now.
Some people think that Bitcoin is too expensive now and only rich people or institutions can afford it. What do you think?
Michael Saylor: I think its just a misconception. Bitcoin is actually cheaper than a house, and people still buy houses, right? Its cheaper than a yacht, but people still buy yachts. Its cheaper than an expensive piece of art. Whats more, you dont have to buy a whole Bitcoin, you can buy a 100 millionth of a Bitcoin - a Satoshi, which costs less than a penny. You can buy Bitcoin for $20, you can buy Bitcoin for $200, you can buy Bitcoin for $2,000, you can buy Bitcoin for $2 ...
So, this idea is wrong. People just lack understanding, they make cognitive errors, and this error is sometimes caused by being misled by other projects or investment ideas. But if your goal is to make money or get rich, you have to overcome these cognitive biases. It is smarter to buy $100 of Bitcoin than to spend $100 on stocks, because Bitcoin is a digital asset, while stocks and real estate investment trusts (REITs) are just securities.
From the perspective of asset attributes, the ownership of stocks is far inferior to that of Bitcoin. If you invest $100 in a real estate development company, you are just a limited partner, a small shareholder, and you have no ownership of the real estate itself. But if you buy Bitcoin with $100, you are the full owner. You can hold it yourself, you can lend it to earn income, you can use it as a mortgage, and you can transfer it freely. So, if you have to choose between real estate and Bitcoin, lets take an example, for example, in Hong Kong, is there any building that you can buy for $50? Impossible, right? So, Bitcoin is a better way to invest, much fairer than buying real estate in Hong Kong.
And if you buy a building in Hong Kong, you cant take it out of Hong Kong, right? But Bitcoin is different. You can buy a little bit every week for a lifetime. You can transfer Bitcoin outside of Hong Kong or hold it in custody, so it is completely out of the Hong Kong banking system. This is a truly powerful asset, far more advantageous than any other asset.
So, I think people should respect Satoshis vision. Thank you.
Many people have seen the PPT you made for Microsoft. Will you continue to do this and communicate with large companies in the future?
Michael Saylor: Absolutely, Ive been talking to companies. Whenever theres real interest, Ill talk to the CEO or board member. Most of the time, Ill communicate with them privately through MicroStrategy videos. Im posting that publicly because I want all public companies to see it. The analysis is the same for any public company - 99.9% of their capital structure is bond-financed, and they should move to Bitcoin as a reserve asset.
I talk to different companies from time to time and continue to advocate for the Bitcoin Standard. Just this weekend, I posted a great video from the CFO of Jet King. Jet King is the first company in India to be listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and adopt the Bitcoin Standard, and they have already started converting their cash flow into Bitcoin. I think there are at least 100 more companies in India that will go the same way, so I shared this video.
At MicroStrategy, we publish a lot of Bitcoin-related data, such as BTC yield, BTC appreciation, and BTC USD appreciation, and have set up a dedicated website to help companies understand financial management under the Bitcoin standard. Now, many companies are imitating our approach, and their lawyers study our financial reports and legal documents to find a method that suits them.
I see this as an ongoing outreach campaign. There are 400 million companies in the world — 400 million! They should all base their asset allocation on the Bitcoin standard. Of course, you can’t convince them one by one, so you have to make videos, publish content, and let the information spread.
Many people around the world have come to understand the Bitcoin standard and been inspired by it because of my podcast or MicroStrategys public documents. I have never met them, but that doesnt stop them from knowing us. I hope that in the future, someone in Hong Kong will see our podcast and start thinking about the Bitcoin standard and benefit from it.
We are spreading a new economic philosophy, new technology, and a new network consciousness that I believe will give people greater power.
You said Bitcoin has matured, so will the Bitcoin protocol continue to evolve? How do you see the Bitcoin ecosystem evolving?
Michael Saylor: I think some improvements are meaningful. For example, miner nodes will continue to be optimized, ledger nodes will also be improved, and hardware wallets and signature devices will also become better.
There has been a heated discussion in the community about whether changes to the Bitcoin protocol are needed. I personally tend to be relatively conservative. I think we should be extremely cautious and thoughtful when promoting any changes. Most protocol adjustments or proposals are likely to be iatrogenic - that is, they may cause more harm than good. This situation is similar to lawmaking. People always try to regulate the economy through regulations, so they have enacted thousands of pages of laws in the hope of making the market more efficient. But in the end, it was found that if you implement millions of rent control regulations, the real estate market will be destroyed and it will become more difficult to rent a house.
Politicians and regulators are always proposing new ideas, but 99.9999% of the proposals are ultimately bad. So we should be highly skeptical of these changes. Of course, occasionally a new idea may be necessary, and we can consider it carefully. If there is broad consensus across the community, I will support it. But most of the time, we dont need a massive protocol upgrade.
Many new proposals are usually just to benefit a second-layer solution or a third-layer protocol, but will harm the interests of the entire Bitcoin community. Therefore, I believe that we should be extremely conservative, cautious and skeptical about protocol changes. Frankly speaking, most proposals are more like a cancer that does more harm than good to the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Do you think Bitcoin is a religion?
Michael Saylor: I think Bitcoin is more like an ideology. It is a protocol that allows you to bind economic energy to individuals. This is the first time in human history that there is a mathematical and technical protocol that allows capital (economic energy) to be bound to companies, individuals, and even countries. We have never had anything like this before. This kind of change is like someone invented language for the first time.
Imagine what would happen if I first introduced the numbers 0 to 9 into language? What would happen if I took those numbers away and didnt allow you to use numbers or even express the concept of 14? You would feel extremely limited, right? If I took away fire, electricity, mathematics, or if I didnt allow you to speak, to express complete sentences, and even removed all nouns from language, your ability to express yourself would be completely destroyed.
So, I see Bitcoin as an economic protocol that promotes prosperity. It is the first economic protocol in human history that is based on science, in accordance with the principles of thermodynamics, physically reliable, and mathematically rigorous. So, Bitcoin is an ideology, but is it a religion? Im not sure. It may be more of a secular ideology.
However, many people believe that these elements, such as mathematics, electricity, and fire, are essential to the development of mankind. If you try to take these things away, people may revolt. I think the reason why Bitcoin has aroused great enthusiasm among people is that it is a protocol that promotes economic prosperity.
Do you have anything to say to Chinese investors?
Michael Saylor: I think Bitcoin is becoming the worlds emerging capital network. This digital energy network is expanding at a rate of hundreds of millions of dollars every day and becoming more and more powerful. It is supported by the worlds most powerful computing power and relies on a decentralized network 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, building homes, companies, cities, and even countries based on Bitcoin. There are many ways to participate. When I joined the Bitcoin network, its market value was only $200 billion. Today it is over $2 trillion. In the future, it will reach $20 trillion, $200 trillion, and even $400 trillion. This network will continue to grow in our lifetime.
Smart money will eventually flow to Bitcoin. People will gradually abandon 20th century assets - real estate, stocks, collectibles, fiat currencies and bonds. They will exchange the assets of the past for the assets of the future. They will move from physical assets to digital assets, from unsound money to sound money, and from weak assets to stronger assets.
Some people ask, “What if Bitcoin stops going up?” But that question is like asking, “What if water stops flowing down?”
What if time stopped moving forward? What if you dropped something off a hill and it stopped falling? What if gravity suddenly stopped working? These things don’t happen. If you understand the physics of the Bitcoin network, you’ll understand that none of this is random.
This is the law of thermodynamics. Why does fire burn? Why does it generate heat? Its not random. Why does electricity work? Why does a water wheel work? Why does ice melt? Why does water boil? These are not random phenomena, but many people dont understand the principles. If you understand the physics of economic systems, you can build a machine.
You can build hydroelectric power plants, airplanes, and ships. Henry Ford Looking at the flame, some people might ask, What if the fire goes out? But the fire will not go out. The essence of the internal combustion engine is to light a flame in the machine and keep it burning forever.
If you light a flame in a jet engine and have it fly you across the Pacific Ocean for 15 hours by pumping kerosene, someone might ask, What if the fire goes out? If the fire goes out, your plane will crash. But the key is, it wont go out. Why? Because the engineers designed the machine so that the flame wont go out.
So, I would say to everyone, you can design a better financial system. You can build an economic machine that runs on Bitcoin. MicroStrategy is like a crypto reactor, and Bitcoin is its fuel. This is not random. If you think this is just speculation, you dont really understand it at all.
Just like some people in ancient times believed that fire was created by gods, and worried that if they angered the god of fire, the fire would go out. But Henry Ford didnt think so. He created the entire automobile industry so that everyone could own a car. Today, there are more than 1 billion cars in the world.
You need to look at the world like a physicist, a scientist, a mathematician. When you really understand how things work, you will see that Bitcoin is a digital energy network. For the first time in human history, there is a global digital energy network that you can access at any time. This is the path to prosperity.
You can run away from it, or complain about it, but if you want to create a better world, if you want to be rich, if you want to change the future of 10 billion people, you need to be an engineer. You cant just be afraid of being electrocuted, burned, or the thunder of the gods, you have to control it, use it, and move the world forward.
