Quote
Stop talking about regulatory arbitrage. Censorship-resistance, privacy, and tax evasion are bad ideas. We hate that.”
The conversation began with a huge letdown. I had asked Michael Saylor what could motivate greater institutional investment in Bitcoin—after all, if Bitcoin is going to the moon, we’re gonna need a lot of deep pockets to climb on board.
“People with billions of dollars don’t want to invest in crypto networks that support anarchists,” Saylor explained.
https://www.btctimes.com/insight/michael-saylor-on-bitcoins-next-billion-hodlers
Is this the same person who was telling everyone about appreciating the power of Bitcoin because he experienced having $1,000,000 of his own money locked in Argentina with no way to send it out of the country? Didn't he need censorship-resistance to send that money out?
Plus it's understandable that the largest Bitcoin HODLers should not say anything that might get them and their investment in some inconveniences, but actually saying the censorship-resistance is a "bad idea"?
Remove the "Chad", just "Saylor", he is not a friend to the Bitcoin community. He doesn't support its ethos.