Michael Saylor Podcast Transcript: Can Bitcoin Without Cash Flow Become a Quality Asset?

Author| @nataliebrunell
Compiled by| Aki Wu on Blockchain

The content of this article does not constitute any investment or financial advice. Readers are advised to strictly comply with the laws and regulations of their respective locations.

Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor stated in an interview on Natalie Brunell's podcast that the recent price trend of Bitcoin is flat, which is a sign of strength rather than weakness. The market is in a consolidation phase, with early holders gradually cashing out while institutions are waiting to enter after volatility decreases. The core focus of the interview is "reconstructing the credit market with Bitcoin." He believes that the traditional credit market is "yield-starved and lacks liquidity," while Bitcoin collateral can create stable cash flow without selling spot assets and integrate Bitcoin into mainstream funding channels for credit and stock indices; companies primarily pay dividends through continuous equity financing, supplemented by futures/options and other derivatives, and seek qualifications for ratings and inclusion in mainstream indices.

Statement: This article is a transcription of a video published on September 19, and some information may be outdated. The content does not constitute any investment advice and does not represent Wu's views or positions.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbODA93ByS0\&t=195s

Why is the market sentiment towards Bitcoin weakening now?

Michael Saylor: I believe that both macroeconomic conditions and community sentiment experience natural ups and downs. Bitcoin will go through periods of rapid growth and excitement, where emotions are extremely heightened, and adrenaline is pumping, followed by celebrations and linear extrapolation (as if "going to the moon"). Then the price retracts and consolidates, and many people expect a quick rebound, but instead, it moves sideways for a while.

There is always a tendency for frustration in human nature. But I don't think there is anything to be frustrated about. The fact is, if you look at the chart over a one-year period, Bitcoin has increased by about 99%, nearly doubling. If someone says they have heavily invested in an asset that has nearly a 100% annual increase—shouldn't they be happy? Of course, they should. It's just that the path to realization is often more volatile.

As for the recent sideways support, I believe it is largely because about $2.3 trillion worth of Bitcoin is in a "unbanked" state, and many holders cannot obtain loans using BTC as collateral. When you hold a lot of Bitcoin but lack fiat currency and cannot borrow money, the only thing you can often do is sell your coins. Currently, Bitcoin is somewhat like a "Magnificent 7-level startup," where employees are extremely wealthy on paper due to options but cannot use them as collateral for loans, so they have to sell. Outsiders may ask: Are the employees selling shares because they lack confidence in the company? The answer is no—they just need to send their kids to college, buy a house, or support their parents.

Thus, the current selling pressure mainly comes from seasoned crypto OGs, who are diversifying their positions by about 5% or similar operations. The market is digesting this selling pressure and solidifying support, and volatility is converging—this is actually a good sign. For an asset to mature, it needs more long-term capital (large enterprises and institutions) to enter; early OGs who bought in at $10 or even $1 are moderately cashing out to feel more secure; after volatility decreases, super-large institutions will enter on a large scale. The contradiction is: when super-large institutions enter and volatility decreases, the market may appear "boring" for a while, adrenaline fades, and people's sentiment turns bearish. But this is just a normal growth phase in the process of asset monetization.

Can Bitcoin, which has "no cash flow," become a quality asset?

Natalie Brunell: Recently, I attended some events alongside TradFi practitioners, and the reasons everyone gave for not allocating Bitcoin were almost unanimous: there is no cash flow; some financial institution employees are also prohibited from directly purchasing Bitcoin due to compliance. How do you view these concerns? From the perspective of TradFi, what progress have we made? What changes are needed to get more people to embrace Bitcoin?

Michael Saylor: I believe that many of the most important "property-type assets" in Western civilization—such as diamonds, gold, classical master paintings, and land—do not generate cash flow.

Many truly important things in our lives also do not generate cash flow: marriage and children do not generate cash flow; real estate does not generate cash flow; a Nobel Prize does not generate cash flow; yachts and private jets also do not generate cash flow. Many things that are widely regarded as "valuable" in the world are not judged by cash flow. Moreover, in terms of currency, "perfect money" should not have cash flow—money is defined by high liquidity and strong marketability. If you want something to serve as money, it should not have too strong of a "use value": for example, gold is more suitable as money than silver precisely because it has fewer industrial uses; once materials with high use value, like copper or silicon, are involved, they become unsuitable as money.

Some might say: "No cash flow means it's not a good investment asset." This viewpoint has mainly formed over the past two generations. Since 1971, the global mainstream asset allocation concept has evolved into: long-term capital = a 60/40 ratio of bonds and stocks—bonds provide coupons, and equities provide dividends or profits, and the world understands assets based on this. Ultimately, the S&P 500 has become the dominant benchmark.

If we look at indexed investments, about 85% of index funds are allocated to the S&P 500. When many people talk about "long-term capital," they think of funds that preserve and appreciate value using stock indices (like the S&P 500 Index). Vanguard commercialized this idea, launching and popularizing the Vanguard 500 and the concept of index funds. When the idea of "a fund composed of 500 constituent stocks" achieves extreme success, and the entire institutional system of S&P, Vanguard, and mutual funds is built on this thinking, they are unlikely to immediately embrace a better disruptive new idea; it is more a matter of path dependence. This is a practical issue.

In an era where the dollar is the currency, the U.S. economy continues to develop, and the dollar is the world's reserve currency, and since the end of World War II (1945), there has never been a global world war, you find yourself in a specific environment at a specific point in time. In the language of differential equations, this is a particular solution obtained under fixed boundary conditions: if all boundary conditions are fixed, substituting these numbers will yield the corresponding answers; as long as these assumptions/boundary conditions are not changed, this solution holds.

But once the material changes from aluminum to steel (metaphorically, external conditions change), the original formula no longer applies. At this point, you cannot use the particular solution anymore; you must return to the "homogeneous solution," no longer looking up formulas in a tabular manner but deriving from first principles like a physicist. In reality, most people have never truly derived anything from first principles in their lives—they use "particular solutions" provided by others.

When the entire monetary system collapses, this "plugging in particular solutions" method will fail. For example, in Lebanon, if your bank account is frozen and your local currency becomes worthless; in some African countries; or during a currency collapse in Argentina—even if you hold cash-flow-generating assets, they will be worth almost nothing when priced in local currency. Ironically, those assets traditionally considered "safe and cash-flow-generating" become unsafe when priced in Nigerian naira, Venezuelan bolívar, Argentine peso, Lebanese pound, Iraqi dinar, or Afghan afghani. Similarly, in Russia, this was also the case before the ruble sharply depreciated in the late 1990s.

Those who cling to old ideas hold a set of "particular solutions" that only work within a highly stable, closed system. This system has neither undergone external stress testing nor faced genuine challenges from new ideas. Those who can truly understand Bitcoin often come from extremely chaotic environments with currency collapse, forced to think independently; or they are essentially first-principles thinkers—questioning everything like scientists and re-deriving.

Therefore, it is most ironic that the CEO of Vanguard says Bitcoin is not investable because it has no cash flow; yet the largest shareholder of my company is Vanguard. As Musk said: "The most ironic outcomes are often the most likely to occur."

What pain points do you see in the traditional fixed income space, and how can Bitcoin address them?

Michael Saylor: When discussing the credit market, you will find three characteristics: first, there are mortgage-backed securities (MBS), with a leverage ratio of about 1.5 times, yielding approximately 2%--4%. There is also fiat credit—backed by the government's promise that it "can continue to print money," which sets the so-called "risk-free rate." For example, Japan is about +50 basis points, Switzerland about -50 basis points, Europe about +200 basis points per year, and the U.S. about +400 basis points per year, with a recent cut of 25 basis points.

Furthermore, there is corporate credit, supported by corporate cash flow—whether it is high-quality companies like the "Magnificent Seven" (such as Microsoft, Apple, etc.), high-yield bonds (junk bonds), or struggling companies. Their credit spreads range from about 50 to 500 basis points. For example, if you buy a corporate bond in Europe, it might yield 2.5% annually. However, the real monetary inflation rate is often higher.

Thus, Japan, Switzerland, Europe, and the U.S. are all in varying degrees of a state of financial repression: the nominal yield of so-called "risk-free" fiat assets is lower than the rate of monetary expansion and lower than the appreciation rate of scarce, desirable assets. This is the first challenge. The second challenge is that these instruments have poor liquidity (some are similar to old-style preferred stocks), are difficult to trade, and may not trade for long periods, and they are under-collateralized. The credit market we observe is weak and unhealthy. For example, if you put money in a bank in Switzerland and only get 0% or even have 50 basis points deducted, it is hard not to call this a "yield famine." Many markets are eager to create yields.

Michael Saylor: On the other hand, at an event I spoke at a few days ago, there were about 500 people. I asked, "How many of you have bank accounts?" Almost everyone raised their hands, but when I asked, "How many of you have an annual yield over 4.5% on your checking or savings accounts?" almost no one did. Then I asked, "If a bank account could offer you an annual interest rate of 8--10%, would you be willing?" Everyone on site was willing, but who is offering such long-term rates? No one.

The opportunity we see in the market is: unless you hold Bitcoin, possessing an asset that can store value long-term (which I call digital capital), and are willing to hold it for 30--40 years, no one will give you a fair, long-term yield. Please tell me: who will give you 10% interest for the rest of your life? Your bank won't (long-term 10% interest), companies won't, governments won't, and MBS issuers won't either.

Why is a 10% long-term interest rate difficult to establish in the traditional system?

Michael Saylor: The reason is that no company can reliably and sustainably generate returns above 10% every year; moreover, borrowers of mortgage loans cannot afford such costs. Furthermore, established governments are also unwilling to do so; they prefer to pay you far below that level. Weak governments are forced to offer higher rates, but their currencies and political situations are often heading towards collapse, so you cannot find a reliable national borrower that can pay such rates long-term. You can hardly find a company willing to do so—most companies' financial strategies are not "issue more debt and manage it well," but rather to take on less debt and buy back stock.

We find that Bitcoin is digital capital. Bitcoin's appreciation rate is long-term faster than that of the S&P 500. Once you acknowledge that Bitcoin appreciates faster than the S&P 500, and my assumption for the next 21 years is that its annual compound growth rate is about 29%, then you can use this type of appreciating asset as collateral to create credit.

Bitcoin is digital capital whose appreciation rate exceeds the cost of capital; the cost of capital can be approximated by the long-term return of the S&P 500. Credit issued against it is digital credit. This digital credit can have longer or shorter durations, can set higher yields, and can be denominated in any fiat currency because Bitcoin is stronger (more scarce, lower inflation).

A key point in the credit market is: the currency used to price debt should be weaker than the "currency" corresponding to the collateral you hold. If you price debt in a stronger currency while holding a weaker currency collateral, you will end up in a negative spread and ultimately go bankrupt. This is common in some countries where residents borrow in dollars but repay in local currency income, and when the local currency collapses, they ultimately go bankrupt.

Therefore, we can choose to issue debt in relatively weaker currencies such as yen, Swiss franc, euro, or dollar. In this way, we can bear the currency risk while providing higher yields (similar to the coupon levels of distressed debt), but with collateral ratios far exceeding those of U.S. investment-grade companies—not 2--3 times, but 5 times or even 10 times over-collateralization.

Thus, we can create credit instruments that are lower risk, longer duration, and higher yield, and design them as quasi-perpetual structures for public issuance (listing), thereby achieving better liquidity. In summary, we aim to provide a smarter, faster, and stronger credit product that has better long-term liquidity, lower risk, and higher yield.

For any Bitcoin treasury-type company, the opportunity lies in: you hold the world's highest quality collateral—Bitcoin, which is digital capital. If you issue digital credit based on this, you can create the highest quality credit instruments globally. The volatility and yield stripped from this credit will be transferred and amplified to the equity of common shareholders. Thus, you gain an exposure of "amplified Bitcoin" on the equity side, while on the debt side, you "tame" Bitcoin into a low-risk, low-volatility, yield-generating asset.

What was previously labeled as "having no cash flow" is now endowed with cash flow. Ironically, many traditional credit-preferring investors—those who only want to buy cash flow—will buy bonds or even the stock of a loss-making company, even if that company's operating cash flow cannot cover the interest payments, yet they still emphasize "at least there is cash flow." What we are doing now is generating cash flow from Bitcoin, turning it into a credit asset that can be included in bond indices; at the same time, we create equity exposure that can outperform, allowing it to enter stock indices. Both paths can continuously raise funds, serving as entry points for capital. Capital flows into the Bitcoin ecosystem through these entry points, and we then purchase Bitcoin, thereby providing funding and momentum for the Bitcoin network.

What are perpetual preferred shares? What customizable terms do they have compared to bonds and convertible bonds?

Natalie Brunell: You pointed out that there is a serious mispricing of capital: collateral in the traditional world is often overvalued, while Bitcoin is undervalued. Based on this, you see opportunities and have launched a series of credit instruments—STRIKE, STRIDE, and now STRETCH. Let's clarify: many people are not clear on what preferred shares are. The name includes "stock/share," but in practice, they are more like credit instruments, even similar to bonds, providing yields. Can you explain the essence of preferred shares? Additionally, you issue perpetual preferred shares; what is unique about this structure in the market?

Michael Saylor: Preferred shares are a second class of stock distinct from common stock. Common stock represents ultimate ownership of the company but typically does not have special priority or guarantees. Preferred shares can stipulate dividends: for example, fixed distributions monthly or quarterly, or floating with SOFR (Secured Overnight Financing Rate), which can be fixed or variable. You can write cash flow and yield rights into preferred shares.

Preferred shares can also set conversion terms: for instance, they can be convertible into common stock at a ratio of 1/10 or 1/5 shares, or fully convertible. You can set certain equity upside, certain yields, liquidation priority, and can create higher priority levels, adding guarantees such as cumulative preferred dividends—if we miss a distribution, it accumulates; or stipulate default penalties—missing a distribution incurs penalties. In short, preferred shares are a versatile "container" where you can almost write in various terms as needed.

Natalie Brunell: And it is not debt, right? Unlike convertible bonds, which must repay principal at maturity. You finance through preferred shares without needing to repay principal.

Michael Saylor: Correct, it is typically different from debt instruments, which require principal repayment at a certain point. Of course, you can also make preferred shares "debt-like": for example, granting holders a put option requiring the company to buy back in cash; or giving it a redemption right, making it look more like debt.

Conversely, you can make it more like equity: for example, non-cumulative—principal never matures, and even if distributions are paused, no cumulative interest or liabilities accrue (STRIDE is non-cumulative). Therefore, preferred shares can be adjusted across a full spectrum from very debt-like to very equity-like, making them a very flexible security form for a public company.

Michael Saylor: If you are a public company and hold a large amount of Bitcoin, you can design such securities yourself and then publicly issue them. The first step of innovation is to "create" this tool; the second step is to list it—such as using a four-letter code (like STRC) for the IPO. The third step of innovation is: once publicly listed, you can also submit a shelf registration for it. This means that initially, you might sell $1 billion in one go, and then you can almost continuously issue more, like selling $50 million weekly; this is similar to how ETF shares increase with capital inflows—like IBIT growing, almost "daily subscriptions and daily expansions."

Therefore, when you create a publicly traded, shelf-registered preferred share, you are almost creating a "quasi-proprietary ETF." It combines the advantages of an ETF while also having the benefits of proprietary assets—because you are creating this credit tool in real-time; rather than like some "junk bond ETF," which first collects investors' funds and then buys a bunch of other people's junk bonds. ETF providers merely add a "shell" to others' assets; when you make a "digital credit tool" into a preferred share, you are actually creating a native tool that vertically connects all the way down to Bitcoin as the underlying asset.

Natalie Brunell: Over-collateralized.

Michael Saylor: Exactly, under this structure, you can design a preferred share that is 10 times over-collateralized, with a 10% annual dividend, and pays dividends perpetually. Once the terms are set, I can issue a certain scale of products under these conditions.

What problems do Strike, Strife, Stride, and Stretch each solve?

Michael Saylor: So far, we have designed four types of tools. The first is called Strike. Its idea is to distribute an 8% dividend based on a face value of $100, continuously paying an 8% dividend; while also giving holders a conversion ratio—allowing them to convert at 1/10 of a share into MSTR common stock. Thus, if MicroStrategy's stock price is around $350, this tool embeds about $35 of equity value. In other words, it has both equity upside and provides downside protection through liquidation priority, while also generating continuous cash flow through dividends. From a design perspective, this type of tool aims to achieve upside with minimal downside risk while receiving yields during the waiting period.

The second tool is Strife (STRF), with a face value yield of 10%. Simply put, you can understand it as a "long-term (even perpetual) high-yield note," with a face value of $100, paying 10%. We also place it at a senior level in the capital structure and specify in the contract: no preferred shares with higher priority than STRF will be issued, so STRF will always be the highest-priority long-term credit tool. This is important for "risk-averse" credit investors—because it means their principal amount is better protected.

This is a positive factor on the "credit" level and can also elevate our credit rating in the eyes of investors. After issuance, it trades at a price above face value, showing significant appreciation. Its pricing logic is that as company credit improves, market acceptance of Bitcoin increases, and Bitcoin prices rise, the price may move from 85 (discounted) back to 100 (face value), then to 110, 120, 150, or even 200. Since this is a perpetual tool, it could very well remain at a premium long-term, thus anchoring the company's cost of capital. In other words, if you are asking, "How should the market price the long-term (equivalent to 30-year) debt rate of a company with Bitcoin as its core asset and investment-grade credit?" the current market price essentially provides the answer.

The third tool is Stride (STRD). Its design is to remove two stipulations related to "penalty clauses" and "cumulative dividend clauses" based on Strife (STRF), while keeping the rest consistent. Thus, it remains a "10% dividend/yield based on face value," but its nature shifts from senior long-term credit to subordinated long-term credit. The former is more debt-like, with a higher level in the capital structure and lower risk; the latter is closer to equity, with a lower level and higher risk, only above common stock. After issuance, STRD trades at an effective yield of 12.7%; in contrast, STRF's effective yield is about 9%. Thus, a credit spread of 370 basis points emerges between the "safest" and "riskiest" tools.

Some may ask—also somewhat counterintuitive—why the issuance scale of Stride (STRD) is twice that of Strife (STRF) and is more successful? Clearly, it lacks cumulative dividend rights and penalties, and is subordinated. The answer is simple: they believe in Bitcoin and trust this company. At the same time, they want yield. If you put money in an account, would you prefer to earn 12.7% or 9% annually? The question becomes: do you trust the "bank" holding your funds? Once you trust the other party, and they offer you 12% instead of 9%, you will naturally choose the former.

So who will trust the company? The shareholders themselves. Just as who will trust Bitcoin? Bitcoin holders. In the end, it is about what you choose to trust. These tools bring two core benefits:

1. First, they allow those who believe in the company and Bitcoin to earn 12.7%, which is very attractive to them;

2. Second, they allow the company to continue building collateral assets beneath senior tools, which is credit positive: beneficial for Strife, beneficial for Strike, and beneficial for everything else. Meanwhile, it also provides the company with a scalable way to leverage the purchase of Bitcoin, which itself has no counterparty credit risk.

Theoretically, if the market can absorb $100 billion of Stride, we will issue $100 billion of Stride, raising the company's leverage to 90%, and then buy Bitcoin. This is beneficial for Bitcoin, beneficial for common stock; as common stock rises, it will also benefit the "equity embedded part" of Strike. At the same time, because we have purchased a large amount of Bitcoin, it means that Strife's collateral will reach 50 times over-collateralization. Therefore, this is beneficial for credit, beneficial for convertible bonds, beneficial for stocks, beneficial for Bitcoin, and beneficial for Stride holders—creating a flywheel effect. This is why we launched Stride.

The final tool is Stretch. Its starting point is: many people say they want fixed income, such as increasing a 5% bank interest rate to 10%, but they do not want volatility. They do not want the market price of the principal to fluctuate by $10. If I buy at a price of 110, and then due to interest rate changes it drops to 105, that would mean losing a year's worth of interest. Therefore, we want to find a solution that anchors the price around a face value of $100, minimizes volatility, while extracting yield.

So the core idea of Stretch is: we do not want duration risk. Products like Strife have long durations, equivalent to a 120-month interest duration, which causes the principal price to fluctuate significantly around the face value. In fact, for every 1% change in interest rates, if the asset has a 20-year duration, the principal price may change by 20%. Therefore, we want to strip away all duration—not 120 months, but reduce it to 1 month. When you strip away duration, you also strip away volatility; after all, the volatility of a 30-year bond is much greater than that of a 1-month asset.

We aim to reduce volatility by stripping away duration. To achieve this, the product form must change to monthly rather than quarterly, so we change the dividend to monthly cash distributions and introduce a floating monthly dividend rate. This is the first time in modern capital markets that a company has issued "monthly floating dividend" preferred shares. We call it Treasury Preferred. This is something we invented based on AI—I designed it using AI. No one had thought of doing this before because there was no underlying asset to support such a design. But Stretch is not a "zero-volatility high-yield checking account," nor can it allow you to deposit $1082.32 today and withdraw exactly $1082.32 tomorrow; it is not at that level yet. But it is quite close: you can put in funds you need to hold for a year and receive a 10% dividend with extremely low volatility; if you need to withdraw funds, you can sell it in the secondary market to redeem the principal.

This is more like a quasi-money market tool supported by Bitcoin collateral. Of course, it does not yet achieve the low volatility of a true money market fund, but its goal is to compete at the short end of the interest rate curve under the endorsement of Bitcoin.

You promise not to sell Bitcoin, so where does the dividend funding supported by Bitcoin come from?

Michael Saylor: We currently have about $6 billion in these preferred shares. We pay about $600 million in dividends each year. The company's enterprise value is about $120 billion, and we sell about $20 billion of common stock each year. So you can understand it this way: we basically sell the first $600 million of common stock to pay dividends; and from the remaining $20 billion, we use all of it to buy more Bitcoin.

In other words, we are raising funds in the equity capital market at a very fast pace. Only about 5% of the equity capital raised is earmarked for paying dividends, while the rest is used to increase our Bitcoin holdings. In case of certain reasons that prevent us from selling stock anymore, we already hold a large amount of Bitcoin and can issue credit-type instruments or sell derivatives to cope.

For example, we can sell Bitcoin derivatives—hedged short Bitcoin futures, or sell out-of-the-money call options. Additionally, there is a strategy called "basis trading," where you use your held spot Bitcoin as collateral to sell futures to hedge the spot, thus earning basis income. Therefore, the main way the company pays dividends is actually through the continuous sale of common stock; secondary methods include selling derivatives on Bitcoin. Moreover, the credit market is also open to us, and we can occasionally enter different credit markets for financing.

Natalie Brunell: Is the goal to have these tools rated by mainstream rating agencies? What does that mean?

Michael Saylor: Yes. Our current goal is to build the company into the first Bitcoin treasury company to obtain an investment-grade rating, and more broadly, the first investment-grade crypto company; while also having all types of tools we issue rated by rating agencies, which requires a lot of meetings and communication, but I am confident about achieving this in the end.

Why has it still not been included in the S&P 500 to date?

Michael Saylor: The S&P 500 has a set of inclusion standards, and we only met these standards this quarter. We have not met the criteria for the past five years. You must be profitable and meet a series of conditions. I believe it is only after we adopted fair value accounting that we became qualified. The second quarter of 2025 is the first quarter we will be eligible. We do not expect to be included in the S&P 500 the first time we qualify. Tesla was also not included when it first qualified.

We are considered a disruptive new company, and this is also a disruptive new asset class. For a traditional committee that tends to avoid risk and has to make decisions for billions, hundreds of billions, or even trillions of dollars in capital flows, it is entirely reasonable to wait a few more quarters. They are likely to say, "Let's see how the second quarter goes. If this business continues to show sustainability in two to five quarters…"

To be honest, if someone adopts a new idea after four quarters of performance, that would already be seen as quite innovative and aggressive. Many times, people wait three to five years to acknowledge something. So I do not expect to be included in the first quarter. I believe that after several quarters, when we establish a performance record that can be validated by the industry, we will be included. In fact, S&P has already included Coinbase and Robinhood in its constituents. I do not believe they are rejecting the crypto asset class or Bitcoin and digital assets. It is just that exchanges have been around for hundreds of years, and their history is longer and easier to understand.

The so-called "Bitcoin Treasury company" is an emerging new species, very revolutionary. I define the starting point of the entire Treasury company industry as November 5, 2024. Now we have gone through about three quarters, and it is very clear that this is a legitimate, compliant, and independent new type of company. From the market, we can see that the number of companies in the industry has grown from 60 to 185 in 12 months, and the industry is in a high-growth mode.

Natalie Brunell: We have indeed grown to nearly 200, but as you have seen, the premium on net asset value (NAV) is converging, and some consolidation is occurring. Can you talk about the market reaction outside the Bitcoin circle? Do they view Bitcoin Treasury companies as future "institutional-grade" allocations? How do they value these companies? Do you still see a slow adoption rate? Will there be any catalysts to change this?

Michael Saylor: I believe the market is still in the learning phase. Just now, I spoke with 25 investors, and I would ask them: How familiar are you with this? For example, "Tell us about Bitcoin; will Bitcoin be banned?"—we indeed have to start from scratch: Bitcoin was not comprehensively banned in 2023. Then we have to go through the entire crypto industry, explain various credit tools, and then explain equity. Overall, most market participants are still catching up.

To put it another way: it is like it is now 1870, and people have just started refining crude oil, with a batch of new companies emerging around "what can oil do." Then, someone proposes the idea of acrylic or polycarbonate (Lexan), and various petrochemical materials and products like polyester, spandex, and nylon emerge. Some talk about kerosene, some advocate for using diesel or gasoline, and others discuss asphalt. All investors sit together and ask: is this a good idea? How big will this industry be? They are still pondering "how large the kerosene business can be in 180 countries." By the way, the first generation of kerosene applications was for lighting fixtures—first for lighting, then for engine fuel, later for heating oil, then for aviation fuel, and now even rocket fuel.

Therefore, I believe this industry is still in its very early stages, with various companies learning how to articulate what they are doing and deciding their business models; investors are trying to understand these models and the industry; regulatory agencies are also dynamically evolving rules—everything is happening in real-time. This is a "digital gold rush." In the decade from 2025 to 2035, many different business models, products, and companies will emerge, generating a lot of money, making many mistakes, and also creating much wealth—this is the noise and chaos of the market.

In the context of public opinion and societal division, what kind of "peaceful" coordination mechanism can Bitcoin provide?

Natalie Brunell: Many people have felt heavy-hearted over the past week. This country seems more divided than ever, with people attacking and tearing each other apart online. Do you have anything to say? Because you clearly find a lot of hope in Bitcoin, and you always emphasize how it empowers individuals. Nothing can benefit both the rich and the poor like Bitcoin. I think we need a message of hope right now, especially in the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk incident.

Michael Saylor: The message I want to convey is that our consensus is far greater than what mainstream media would have you believe. Take the Bitcoin community, for example; there are often two factions within the community. When I go online, the discourse can be very intense, colorful, and emotionally charged; people can be swept up in emotions and lash out at me; one faction of developers may be furious with another faction of developers. Ironically, we actually agree on 99.9% of the issues.

When you dig a little deeper, you will find that incendiary content spreads more easily; rumors travel faster than the truth; extreme positions spread more rapidly in the online space, on X, and in the broader ecosystem. I even notice that even during the most successful periods of the company, the online release of hateful and toxic information is often the highest. I will follow the trail and look at the accounts that post negative, hateful, and accusatory content.

What I often see is that this is not a real person at all—never interacted with anyone, has only a few hundred followers, and shares no common interests with me. Upon a closer look, you realize: this is a bot account. Much of the toxic and incendiary behavior online is actually guerrilla marketing: for example, those shorting my company's stock will pay a digital marketing company to generate bots to post a large volume of malicious, sarcastic, and cynical content, creating a false appearance of "protest." The same goes for the political realm: many "emotional mobilizations" are actually paid astroturfers, with someone paying people to protest or post. Then mainstream media focuses on these paid protesters or fake bots, telling the camera that "public sentiment online is surging" or "there is a strong public outcry in a certain place," broadcasting to millions, creating an appearance of social disorder and public grievance. Unfortunately, when you continuously amplify false protests, a very small number of people will be incited to commit violence, turning the false into reality and resulting in tragedy.

What I want to say to everyone is that perhaps this is the warning brought to us by that tragedy—the "Kirk incident": there are indeed some malfunctioning mechanisms in society that specialize in "creating division," thriving on amplifying splits. As long as we take action against these "amplifiers of division" and turn them off, people can actually come together again—shutting down the toxic amplifiers.

Another point is to learn to discern: if you read 37 negative comments, you might think everyone hates you. I often feel online that everyone hates everything I do; but in the real world, I have never encountered anyone who expressed dissatisfaction to my face. You might ask: why do people offline seem quite happy while those online are so unhappy? The reason lies in the lens of selection. There is a saying: "Only the bleeding gets the headlines."

Natalie Brunell: Yes, I understand the news industry too well.

Michael Saylor: So the lens is always looking for "social unrest." But my point is that much of the unrest is "bought." Some create unrest in cyberspace and also in reality; then unhealthy media amplify and spread it. The public has actually grown weary and increasingly vigilant—this growing distrust of these systems is society's immune mechanism kicking in. Overall, this will catalyze more positive behaviors and constructive public engagement. I am very confident and optimistic: over time, we will move towards a healthier world and a healthier political community. But the premise is: do not take everything you are told at face value, do not believe everything you read, and learn to think independently.

At the same time, when you find a large number of toxic bot accounts amplifying negativity in your timeline, do not engage with them. Just like when you see 52 hired protesters on the street corner, do not go up and argue with them—they are "mercenaries" doing a paid job, and you cannot convince them; they are paid to hold that viewpoint. We have seen many similar scenes in the crypto industry: when Greenpeace and the Sierra Club claim "Bitcoin is not environmentally friendly," you cannot convince them—this is not born from sincere discussion or feedback, but from paid protests. I hope society can examine the consequences of paid protests and then take a step back to think.

Natalie Brunell: Ultimately, Bitcoin is more like a peaceful revolution: it may deprive the power structures that profit from the "attention business" of their funding sources and shift value towards a more peaceful and beneficial system for the public. This is basically the inspiration I got from your "Bitcoin brings hope" perspective.

Michael Saylor: This is what we have always said: Bitcoin is a means of peace, fairness, and a way for us to resolve differences. As more people adopt it, peace will spread, fairness will spread, truth will spread, and toxicity will recede.