Michael Saylor : "The Bitcoin Revolution Has Begun! Prices Will Skyrocket Wildly in 6 Months"

You really have to go place to place, door to door, evangelizing. My view on the crypto thing was in April 2024 we were headed toward one digital asset called Bitcoin. I said it publicly. What happened is Trump needed allies. The crypto people were going to zero, they formed this alliance, poured $250 million into the Trump campaign. The Bitcoin miners went along and tipped it. All of a sudden you got an approval of the ETH ETF instead of a denial. There was a hard jolt to be more crypto-friendly starting in April. Right now, I think we're going to get stablecoins — the ability to issue them. The question is how flexible or functional they will be, and that's the big debate. That's the number one priority. The other thing is we were on track to have no crypto exchanges and only an exchange that sold Bitcoin and nothing else. We're not going there. It's obvious that with the enforcement actions dropped, all these exchanges will trade a lot of coins. They've got a safe harbor for meme coins that have no utility — that's the joke. They could safely sell something worthless. The question really is how much you can put in a token, and that's indeterminate. I've talked to everybody on the hill. The president said he wants a digital asset framework within six months. The number one priority is stablecoin. The fights are between state banks, regional banks, etc. We'll end up with US-based companies issuing regulated, legitimate stablecoins with constraints, and then you'll have offshore Tether. There will be interesting dissonance there. I don't know how that plays out. Their second priority is digital assets. I think they'll wait until the last month, maybe the last week, maybe the last two days. At that point, David Sacks will get with the White House and they'll say, 'Sir, we think we have this.' The president will say, 'I think I want this and this.' They'll come out of the Oval Office and say this is what we have. They got six months.

Everybody's going to talk about what this means for the next six months. You've got two committees in the Senate, two in the House, six cabinet members, 10 different organizations in industry, Sack's people. They're all going to talk. It'll be indeterminate. Then as they get to that deadline, something's going to happen. The president will decide. Exactly how flexible the dividing line is between a security and a token will get carved in stone. I brought this up with the SEC and they were reluctant to go there. I think Atkins has to come in before they get more definitive. The process by which any token might be established as a commodity — that's the very big one. The point I made is Bitcoin is the commodity, and there's a systemic risk to designating anything else as a commodity. You won't have clarity until probably six months out. Then you'll get something imperfect — a 60 to 80% something outcome. It'll be more liberal than what we had 12 weeks ago, no doubt. Under the previous administration you got a lot of stuff you don't want and 20% chaos. Under this administration, you'll get a lot of stuff you want and 20% chaos. There's a big political process to educate the House and the Senate if you want it to bubble up from Congress. But there's also a top-down process where Trump will be signing an order. He'll look over to Howard Lutnick and say, 'Why did you put that into the sovereign wealth fund?' Howard will ask, 'How much, sir?' We gave him TikTok last week for $100 billion. Put half of that in. I think you could very well get something like that. I really don't know, and I don't think anybody knows. Let me make one more point: I don't think it matters to Bitcoin. What matters to Bitcoin is you get a permissive treasury that allows banks to enter this business. The number one thing for Bitcoin to go from where it is to $10 million a coin is you need banks in the US. If the banks in the US can hold it, buy it, sell it, and custody it, then it's going to spread everywhere in the world. If you're a corporate and you want to adopt it, the number one question is who do I trust to buy, sell, and hold it. Corporate adoption with hundreds of thousands of corporations can't happen until you have the big banks. The big banks will ultimately control 95% of the capital, maybe 98%. Coinbase obviously is a systemically important institution, and there are a few others — Anchorage, Fidelity. But if you think about the US dollar system, it's 40,000 banks all clearing through about seven banks, clearing through one note, holding one asset — the dollar — which is collapsing 7 to 10% a year. If you actually see Bitcoin adopted, you could get 40,000 banks trading peer-to-peer with each other, clearing in 40,000 factorial combinations, and they're capitalized on an asset appreciating 30% a year. I actually think the entire worldwide banking system is much more stable with Bitcoin. The node that matters a lot is the node that Coinbase runs, and then the node that Cash App uses and Fidelity uses. You'd be better off with 50,000 banks running 50,000 nodes clearing with each other. When the bank in Japan tries to move $1 billion to the Bank of England and the Bank of Switzerland, and their nodes don't sync up, you've got an extremely powerful force of conservatism in the entire network. I think that creates a check on nation-state power. The check on nation-state power is the Bank of China clearing with the Bank of Japan clearing with the Bank of England clearing with the Bank of the US.

Well, I look at peer-to-peer nodes. If your only peers are individuals, that's what you think. But if your peers become family, you think a bit differently. If your peers become companies — there are 400 million companies — I see a world where 400 million companies own Bitcoin. If your peers are cities, I see a world where 50,000 cities are capitalized on Bitcoin. I see 40,000 banks, 50 million institutions. You have the Red Cross appear here, the Mormon Church appear, the Catholic Church appear, and then the governments — Japan, Switzerland, America holding a trillion dollars of Bitcoin each. I actually think they all have a joint interest not to fight with each other. So I expand the idea of peer-to-peer. The ideal world is 8 billion people, 400 million companies, 100 million institutions, every government, every entity, everybody. In the ideal case, everybody runs their own node and holds their own keys. But in the real case, your four-year-old kid is not holding their own keys, and the guy with Alzheimer's in the hospital is not holding their own keys. There are entities like the Firemen's Union that has Bitcoin in trust for 50,000 firemen. How do you do that? Maybe the firemen want some bank to hold the key. The ethos of Bitcoin is sovereign money. Sovereignty for every family, every company, every country, everybody. It's sound money. Those two things were built into the network up front.

I like it. I'm in favor of it. I just think it's hard. It's a heavy lift. But I definitely think that your sovereignty is protected. Who are you afraid of? If you're an American citizen, you're afraid of the US government. What's the check or balance on the power of the US government? You really want China, Russia, and Europe to all hold Bitcoin, because if the US government were to propose a protocol change, you need another nation state as a check and balance. Ultimately, this is all about balance of power. We're safer to embrace the rich and the powerful and get them to join the network, because they have political power and they will protect us. If we resist or reject them, we're rejecting the people with the money and the power, and at some point they step on you. You can see that in lots of examples throughout history and everywhere in the world.