[doggosphere]

Its fascinating to me people take what he says literally, probably because they need to argue against proponents of the things they hate.

If you ever watch any of his interviews he rationally examines monetary policy and his reasons for liking Bitcoin. He is an MIT graduate in (Aeronautics?) Engineering, and makes analogies to closed energy systems.

He's not just saying "buy bitcoin". He's doing it himself. He's actually borrowed billions of dollars against his company to make such bets. That's skin in the game. That's conviction, as real as it gets. Still, someone people will try to say he's manipulating the market, he's only doing this to pump and dump. Maybe, but his company's is public, and so his balance sheets are public. What bigger bet could you possibly make then borrowing billions of dollars you don't have?

What he's describing what his literal path, and what he's actually done, and how he got obsessed with Bitcoin. If you think he's advising people to invest money they don't have, then I'm afraid you aren't actually paying attention to the conversation.

[DonHopkins]

Hang on, full stop.

You're the same guy who was just denying he said what he actually did say, who didn't bother to do his own most basic simple research, and is falsely accusing OTHER people of making stuff up, which you were actually doing (and are still doing now).

NOW you're telling us he doesn't mean what he says he means, because you think you have some special insight into what he really meant, that contradicts his words you were just denying he said. Are you really expecting us to take you seriously?

So what is it? Do you believe he said it or not? Why did you think he didn't say it? Why did you think people who quoted him were making stuff up? Do you still stand by that?

So do you admit you were wrong, or not? What have you done to readjust your world view now that you realize you were wrong? Are you just digging in deeper?

You weren't just not "actually paying attention to the conversation", you're denying that the conversation took place, and then when I quoted it to you, you switched to gaslighting us about how he didn't actually mean what he literally said, now that your initial strategy of denying that he said it has fallen apart.

Do you think WE are not paying any attention to your side of the conversation, and forgot what you just said a few hours ago? Pick a lane, buddy.

"Lol he never said mortgage homes. You’re making that up." -doggosphere

"GO MORTGAGE YOUR HOUSE AND BUY BITCOIN WITH IT" -Michael Saylor

[doggosphere]

lol, I've listened to tons of Saylor interviews.

Do I have to to search through them all to give you soundbites of him saying less extreme advice like "invest an amount your comfortable with" (which is an actual quote.) Does the context of his speech even matter, or are you playing the social media game of clipping soundbites? Because that doesn't sound like you're actually giving anything else he says credit, you're providing no intellectual capital to this conversation. You're playing politics and news opinions.

Example: Here's his idea of thermodynamics applied to monetary energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH2-wqyx3_Q

The point is what are you trying to achieve by putting these one off quotes on blast? As if in the hundreds of interviews he's had, this is the most relevant and significant quote.

You're trying to cast dispersion on the popular characters behind Bitcoin because you hate Bitcoin, correct?

Edit to include the quote in above video:

"Okay, look, it's totally strange to have a financial instrument, which is scarce and capped, because you can print more tech stocks, you can print more bonds, you can mine more gold, you can issue more fiat currency. On the other hand, in the engineering world, when you're designing pneumatic systems or hydraulic systems, nobody ever built a pneumatic system with a leak, a hydraulic system with a leak. Your swimming pool doesn't even work with a leak, right? Everybody knows if there's a leak in the fuselage of the airplane, it's not going to fly, it's going to explode. So, you don't have a leak in a nuclear reactor. Do you ever try to go across the ocean and a ship with a leak?

Okay, the idea of a closed system is basic to every freshman in engineering. I'm an MIT engineer. We talk about something called adiabatic lapse. An adiabatic system is no leak. A closed system is when you have mass in the system that can either leave or can be added, and all you can do is inject energy. So, Bitcoin is the classic textbook closed system. There's 21 million coins, virtual bars of gold in the system. You can't remove any, you can't add any. There's no inflation.

On the other hand, what you can do is you can heat it up. If you're buying Bitcoin above the 4-year or the 200-week moving average, you're heating up the system. If you're buying it below the 200-week moving average, you're cooling down the system. The entire thing's like a massive monetary battery, a capacitor. It's storing energy. What we've done is created a system where I can take $100 million of monetary energy, I can put it into the Bitcoin network. It'll sit there for as long as you can imagine, and there's no power loss. That's the genius of it.

If I told you I was going to inject another million Bitcoin or two or three million Bitcoin, I'm bleeding off, I'm diluting the energy. So, when I describe it as a closed system, what I'm saying is for the first time in the history of man, we created a monetary energy network that will store the energy over time with no power loss. We've never had a money. We've never had a thing that could do that. Gold didn't do that. Copper, silver doesn't do that. Fiat doesn't do that. Stocks and bonds don't do that. So, it's really an engineering breakthrough.

But hey, he said the literal words "mortgage your house", so we'll just repeat those words out of context to show that he must be a sleazeball scumbag right.