Michael Saylor, founder of Dialogue Micro Strategy: Bitcoin is not exclusive to the rich, anyone can buy it at any time

Interview and translation: Wu Shuo Blockchain

In this interview, Wu said that Colin and Michael Saylor, the founder of MicroStrategy, discussed the following questions: Will MicroStrategy keep acquiring Bitcoin; whether MicroStrategy has the risk of being liquidated; how to 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 think Asian companies are imitating micro-strategy? Will micro-strategy develop their own Bitcoin layer 2 network? How many bitcoins Michael personally holds, and why did he announce that he would Destroy private keys after death; still support the view that "bank custody is safer than self-custody"; how to view Trump's new policy and Bitcoin national reserves; whether Bitcoin has the risk of centralization in the United States; whether Bitcoin is too expensive, Only the rich and institutions buy it. How do you think that young people prefer memecoin; is Bitcoin a religion? What suggestions do you have for Chinese investors?

As of February 9, 2025, Strategy held 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 largest holdings of Bitcoin in the world.

Audio transcription is done by GPT and there may be errors. Listen to the full podcast.

Can you introduce yourself and MicroStrategy?

Michael Saylor: I started MicroStrategy in late 1989. We started as a business intelligence software company and went public in 1998. I also founded about a dozen other companies, including a listed company. I have always been interested in the history of science and how science affects economics. He studied at MIT, majoring in Aeronautical Engineering and History of Science. I wrote a book, Mobile Wave, which discusses how software can migrate to mobile devices and bring about change. I explored what happens when the software runs on a mobile device. In 2020, I discovered Bitcoin and our company became the first to include Bitcoin on the balance sheet. Today, we are the world's largest Bitcoin holders.

Will MicroStrategy keep buying Bitcoin? How many will it be acquired at most?

Michael Saylor: Yes, we will keep buying Bitcoin. We can be regarded as a real estate development company. Suppose if you were the first company to go public in Manhattan, you kept buying real estate in Manhattan and developing it, and that was 1750, you would have continued to do it for hundreds of years. So you are not selling, but 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 start other businesses. For example, we are now the largest convertible bond issuer in the U.S. market and have just launched our first convertible preferred stock. These two securities that are secured 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 if MicroStrategy's average purchase price of Bitcoin exceeds $150,000 in the future, this may be at risk. Do you agree with this view?

Michael Saylor: No, I don't agree. Most of the company's Bitcoin is acquired through equity. For example, we currently have $45 billion to $50 billion worth of Bitcoin, while our debt is only $3 billion, and these debts are already guaranteed by assets. So in fact, we have bitcoin as collateral that is 15 times as much as our debt. And our debts are not reckoned, with a term of more than four years. Therefore, there will be no problem with Bitcoin falling to $1 tomorrow. I mean, even if Bitcoin plummets by 98%, companies will not face liquidation risks. The company owns permanent capital.

What do you think of the price cycle of Bitcoin? Do you think there will be a bear market this year?

Michael Saylor: I don't pay much attention to cycles. I don't believe in the cycle. I think the concept of cycles comes from the first 10 to 15 years of 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 ETF have purchased more than $100 billion in Bitcoin over the past year, and they have purchased more than the total miners mine. So, when we went through the last halving, the amount of Bitcoin mined and sold became secondary, and what really dominated the market was the demand for Bitcoin, which has entered a different stage.

I think it's a bit distracting to focus too much on the cycle. People try to accurately grasp the market opportunity, but they always fail. If you have tried to seize the best time to buy Manhattan real estate in the past 300 years, you may end up advising yourself not to buy it. But in fact, you have been right at any price for the past 300 years. The same applies to Tokyo real estate. If you have tried to seize the best time to buy Apple stock over the past 40 years, the biggest mistake is not buying. What you have is a dominant digital currency network that will only keep rising. I think Bitcoin will rise by 29% per year on average over the next 21 years. By this benchmark, by 2045, the price per bitcoin will reach $13 million. Now the price you can buy is 1/100 of it. So, whether you buy for $95,000, $105,000, $92,000 or $108,000, is there really any difference? Traders don't get rich, they just participate in the market. Global wealthy people like Bernard Arnault, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk became rich because they bought a dominant digital monopoly asset and held it, rather than trading it frequently in the market.

Will MicroStrategy lend or stake Bitcoin to earn interest in the future?

Michael Saylor: I don't think it would. I think the smartest way is to issue securities that are collateralized with Bitcoin. When you lend Bitcoin to someone else, you take risks because they may not return it to you. But if you are issuing securities to the market, you still hold Bitcoin. There are correct risk management methods and wrong risk management methods.

Better to do this is to issue $1 billion in securities with $10 billion in bonds and pay 8% interest while investing at a 60% yield. Wouldn't this be better? You can hold your own assets while earning a 52% spread. If you can get 60% of your gains through the Bitcoin network, and the interest rate for borrowing funds is 8%, 10%, 12%, or something, then why not? This is much better than lending you $10 billion in Bitcoin in exchange for 4% interest. Why do I take $10 billion of risk to earn 4% instead of earning 40% at zero risk?

What do you think of some mining companies and Asian listed companies imitating micro-strategy?

Michael Saylor: I think the more participants joining the Bitcoin network, the higher the price of Bitcoin will be and the whole network will be stronger, so everyone will benefit. I expect that we will grow from the initial development of only a few companies adopting the Bitcoin standard to dozens or hundreds, and eventually thousands of companies will join.

You can choose to invest capital in bonds, and the after-tax yield may be only 2%-3%; or you can invest capital in Bitcoin and get 30%-60%, which is 10 times higher. I believe that in the long run, companies will make rational choices, and I think they will eventually start thinking about this issue. The more companies join the Bitcoin standard, the better for all those who hold Bitcoin and all those who adopt the Bitcoin standard. This is a virtuous cycle.

Will MicroStrategy develop its own Bitcoin Layer 2 network, or will it support the existing Bitcoin Layer 2 solution?

Michael Saylor: I think we will observe the market development first. You can think of MicroStrategy as already running on the third layer of Bitcoin. Layer 2 is an open protocol like Lightning, while Layer 3 is a platform like Binance, Coinbase, or MSTR, which are proprietary protocols. So, we already have a three-tier architecture with a daily transaction volume of billions of dollars. We also recently launched Strike, another three-tier protocol, with transactions of tens of millions per day, or even more than $50 million. These are security layers, or three-layer protocols, that are already very powerful and attract certain types of investors.

In the future, a second-tier solution like Lightning may be successful, but I think the current real $100 billion opportunity is in the third level.

How much Bitcoin do you personally hold? What is the average buying price? Do you hold other cryptocurrencies?

Michael Saylor: I don't hold any other cryptocurrencies. About four years ago, I publicly disclosed that I had 17,732 bitcoins, and the purchase price was slightly less than $10,000 per coin. I don't remember the exact number, but this information can be found in my public tweet. I've bought some more since then, but I've never sold them. Therefore, I am holding more bitcoins now than I did at that time, but how much has been increased, I have not disclosed publicly.

You mentioned that after your death, the Bitcoin private key will be destroyed. Why not leave it to your family or donate it?

Michael Saylor: I'm single and have no children. Regarding charity, I think if you have a lot of resources, you have to make sure that those 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. Isn't this fair? This is the most just way.

If you believe in Bitcoin and have invested a certain amount, then anyone who destroys the private key is actually supporting those who share the same beliefs as you. This is an immediate, irrevocable, and ever-effective donation. But if I donate the money to a charity, 100 years later, when I’m gone, the administrators of this institution might spend it on things I don’t 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, Rockefeller has been dead for a long time, and he himself may not agree with these uses. So, a man who has passed away for 100 years has been criticized for his money being used for something controversial. This is the risk of leaving wealth to a foundation or trust.

Of course, there are other ways. You can spend this wealth before you die, or set very strict rules of use. If you have family and want to leave Bitcoin to them, that might be a reasonable choice.

But I think Satoshi Nakamoto set a very admirable example. Satoshi Nakamoto owns 1 million bitcoins, but these bitcoins have never been used passively. In fact, he is equivalent to destroying the private key and disappearing forever. This is equivalent to giving 5% of the value of the Bitcoin network to everyone forever. I think this is a very meaningful thing.

You mentioned that banks may be safer than personal self-custody. Do you still think so now?

Michael Saylor: I think different people should be custodializing Bitcoin in different ways. Some people are very good at self-hosting, and they should manage it themselves. But some people do not have this ability. For example, would you let a 3-year-old child manage Bitcoin by himself? Or, what about an 80-year-old who is not even able to type or read the keyboard? If they are blind, can they safely host Bitcoin?

The answer is obvious, right? If you set up a trust fund for your unborn child, can they custody bitcoin by themselves? Who should be responsible for hosting? There are also companies that do not legally allow them to self-custody Bitcoin. This raises another question - do you really want your mayor to manage all Bitcoins on behalf of the city's citizens? What if the mayor robs himself? What if he was kidnapped or murdered?

In the early days of Bitcoin, many people realized the importance of self-custody, because the market was filled with "crypto-censored" 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 has very strict operating procedures, while many crypto exchanges may have only a few people managing it.

I don't think there is the only correct answer here. If you live in a war-torn area, such as Iraq or North Korea, and you don't host Bitcoin yourself, you're likely to lose it. But for many institutions and organizations, they cannot legally buy Bitcoin without a custodian. So, the rational view is that some people should self-host, some can manage by memorizing mnemonics, some can carve mnemonics on metal plates, some use hardware wallets, and some need to rely on Institutional trusteeship, whether it is a domestic institution or an overseas trustee.

So the key is what kind of subject you belong to - is it a city, charity, family, trust, or individual? The real question is, how long is your investment cycle? Is it 100 years? 1000 years? Or 1 year or 5 years? Will you die within 3 years? It ultimately depends on how uncertain your environment is. Do you live in Manhattan, or Ukraine or Afghanistan? Do you live in Africa? If so, which country is it in Africa? All of these factors will affect your choice.

It also depends on your physical and mental state. Some people can't even type, some people can't even see the words on their phones, and some people don't have mobile phones at all. In the crypto world, people often assume that everyone is a male in his 20s. If you are between 20 and 40, your views on the world may be very similar. But in reality, there are many people in the world who do not belong to this group - some are cancer patients, some are 85-year-olds, 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 the way Bitcoin is custodial, it will limit the growth of the network. I think the wisest thing to do is to be inclusive of subjects around the world, of all types, no matter what environment they are in. Anyone who buys Bitcoin-backed assets in any way is actually driving the development of the Bitcoin network. The ultimate goal is to continuously expand the Bitcoin network.

What impact do you think Trump 's election as president will have on the crypto industry? Do you think it will establish a national-level Bitcoin reserve?

Michael Saylor: I think Trump's election will be good news for the entire industry, both for the Bitcoin and crypto industries. What impact will be exactly remain to be seen. But if the White House, cabinet members, regulators, the Senate and the House all support the crypto industry, then political consensus will tend to drive technological progress, business development, freedom, sovereignty and capitalism.

I think this political consensus means that the government may introduce many constructive and positive policies to help the industry grow. As for the specific measures, we need 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 that?

Michael Saylor: No, I think it's obvious that Bitcoin is the most decentralized crypto asset in the world. Miners are distributed around the world, as are holders. Bitcoin has the most dispersed developers, the most dispersed holders, the most dispersed miners, the most dispersed business players, and the most diverse regulators and policy makers. At the same time, it is also the most well-known brand in the field of crypto.

Bitcoin is also the most stable, with little change in its protocol. For example, Ethereum also has a 10-year roadmap with more than 40 update plans, and Bitcoin does not have the so-called "roadmap".

Bitcoin has been completed, and it was basically finalized more than ten years ago. It can be said that Bitcoin was basically completed more than 10 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 on a global scale is Bitcoin. So, I don’t think Bitcoin is going towards centralization, but instead think it is constantly decentralizing and becoming increasingly scattered.

There are already hundreds of millions of people around the world holding Bitcoin, and no other crypto assets can be widely held, recognized and supported like Bitcoin.

Are 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: digital goods, digital securities, digital tokens, digital NFTs, digital ABTs (asset-backed tokens) and digital currencies.

Technically speaking, digital goods are assets that have no issuer and are supported by digital computing power. Bitcoin is the most powerful digital commodity. There may be a few similar digital products around the world -assets that have no issuers and are powered by computing, but 99% of the market share belongs to Bitcoin. Digital commodities are best suited as currency, storage means or digital capital. In this case, the strongest assets will eventually be monetized, while other assets will be demonetized.

For example, if you decide to make gold a monetized asset, silver, copper, palladium and paper money will eventually return to zero. Now, throughout the crypto ecosystem, Bitcoin is being monetized. All other assets that try to become digital goods will eventually return to zero relative to Bitcoin and should also return to zero. Because, why hold the second best thing? You only need one of the best and Bitcoin is the best.

If we talk about other types of assets, like stablecoins, they do have market demand. But at present, the regulatory environment is still unstable. If the United States establishes a clear stablecoin regulatory framework that allows U.S. companies or banks to issue digital currencies backed by dollar equivalents, the market could grow 10 times or even 100 times, and could eventually reach the $10 trillion scale.

But even so, the US dollar is still the world's strongest fiat currency. So, what is the second best currency? It's the euro. But what is the future of the euro? Return to zero. No one really wants other currencies. No one wants the yen, no one wants the euro, no one wants any fiat currency in Africa, Asia, or South America. If you communicate with Europeans, you will find that 99% of the demand for digital currencies in the European market is aimed at digital dollars, not digital euros. The euro is already the second most powerful currency in the world, but even so, the market is still more inclined toward the US dollar.

As for memecoin, they belong to digital tokens. There is currently no regulatory framework for digital tokens on the market, so they have no path to legalization. But if a complete digital asset regulatory framework is established in the future, such as the United States clearly stipulates that tokens are an asset supported by issuers, with digital purposes but no physical purposes, then memecoin may be included.

If the regulatory framework can be further refined, such as defining digital securities (backed by the issuer and supported by securities assets), ABT (backed by the issuer and supported by physical assets, such as an ounce of silver, a barrel of oil or a bar of gold), and NFT (non-fungible assets with digital use, supported by issuers), so 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 been established worldwide.

Currently, the only digital asset with a clear regulatory status is Bitcoin, which is defined as a digital commodity that is suitable for the field of digital capital. If you want to invest 1 billion, 10 billion or even 100 billion US dollars, you need regulatory clarity, and Bitcoin has a clear positioning in this regard. But we still lack regulatory clarity for digital currencies, tokens, NFTs, ABTs and securities, although there is indeed a demand for them in the market.

At present, in Washington, DC, a consensus has been basically reached that a digital asset regulatory framework should be established. But the problem is that Congress has not yet legislated or passed relevant bills. Therefore, we are now in a "gray zone" - the market has demand, and regulators also recognize the need to formulate rules, but the law has not yet been issued. In this case, there is no path to legalization, so as an institutional investor, I cannot make a clear judgment on it. If you are a listed company or an institutional investor and are using other people's funds, it may not be appropriate to invest huge amounts of money (such as $1 billion) to bet on these uncertain assets. You can only wait for the final decision of the law, and now we have no answer.

Some people think that Bitcoin is too expensive now and can only be afforded by the rich or institution. What do you think?

Michael Saylor: I think this is just a cognitive misunderstanding. Bitcoin is actually cheaper than houses, and people still buy houses, right? It's cheaper than a yacht, but people still buy yachts. It's cheaper than an expensive work of art. More importantly, you don’t need to buy a whole bitcoin, you can buy one hundred million bitcoin, that is, Satoshi, the price is less than a cent. You can buy Bitcoin for $20, or you can buy Bitcoin for $200, $200,000, $200,000, $2 million, or even $2 billion. The way Bitcoin is obtained is actually much fairer than buying real estate in Tokyo, Hong Kong or New York. You can't buy one hundred million of a building, but you can buy Yicong Bitcoin.

So, this idea is wrong. People just lack understanding, they make cognitive mistakes, which are sometimes misled by other projects or investment ideas. But if your goal is to make money or become rich, you must overcome these cognitive biases. Buying $100 in Bitcoin is a smarter choice than spending $100 in 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 less than that of Bitcoin. If you invest in a real estate development company for $100, you are just a limited partner, a small shareholder, and have no ownership of the real estate itself. But if you buy Bitcoin for $100, you are the complete owner. You can host it yourself, lend it to earn income, use it as a mortgage, and you can transfer it freely. So, if you want to choose between real estate and Bitcoin, let’s give an example. For example, in Hong Kong, is there any building 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 Hong Kong building, you can't take it out of Hong Kong, right? But Bitcoin is different, you can buy a little every week and last a lifetime. You can transfer Bitcoin outside Hong Kong or custody it yourself to completely separate it from Hong Kong's banking system. This is a truly powerful asset, far more advantageous than any other asset.

So, I think people should respect Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision. Thanks.

Many people have seen the PPT you made for Microsoft. Will you continue to do such things in the future and communicate with large companies?

Michael Saylor: Of course, I have been talking to various companies. As long as someone is really interested, I will have in-depth conversations with the CEO or board members. Most of the time, I would communicate with them privately through MicroStrategy videos. I publish those content publicly because I hope all listed companies can see it. For any listed company, the analysis logic is the same - 99.9% of their capital structure relies on bond financing, and they should turn to Bitcoin as an asset reserve.

I will communicate with different companies from time to time and continue to advocate for the Bitcoin standard. Just this weekend, I posted a great video from Jet King CFO. Jet King is the first Indian company to be listed on the Mumbai Stock Exchange and adopt the Bitcoin standard, and they have begun converting cash flow to Bitcoin. I think there are at least 100 companies in India that will go the same way, so I shared this video.

At MicroStrategy, we will publish a lot of Bitcoin-related data, such as BTC yield, BTC value-added status and BTC US dollar value-added status, and have established a special website to help companies understand financial management under the Bitcoin standard. Nowadays, many companies are imitating our practices, with their lawyers studying our financial reports and legal documents in order to find a suitable approach.

I see this as a continuous promotion campaign. There are 400 million companies around the world — 400 million! They should all be allocated based on the Bitcoin standard. Of course, you can't convince them one by one, so you have to make videos and publish content to let the information spread itself.

It is precisely because many people around the world who saw my podcast or the public documents from MicroStrategy that they began to understand the Bitcoin standards and were inspired. I've never seen them, but that doesn't prevent them from knowing us. Hopefully, in Hong Kong, some people will also see our podcasts in the future and start thinking about the Bitcoin standard, thus benefiting from it.

We are spreading a new economic concept, a new technology, and a new sense of network. I believe this will give people greater power.

You said that Bitcoin has matured, so will the Bitcoin protocol continue to develop? What do you think of the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem?

Michael Saylor: I think some improvements make sense. For example, miner nodes will be continuously optimized, ledger nodes will be improved, and hardware wallets and signature devices will be better.

The community has been having heated discussions about whether changes to the Bitcoin protocol are needed. I personally tend to be a relatively conservative position. I think we should be extremely cautious and thoughtful when advancing any changes. Most agreement adjustments or proposals may be "iatrogenic" - that is, they may cause more harm than benefits. This situation is similar to the legal formulation. People always try to regulate the economy through regulations, so they have formulated thousands of pages of laws in the hope of making the market more efficient. But in the end, it was discovered that if you implement millions of rent control regulations, the real estate market would be destroyed and renting a house would become more difficult.

Politicians and regulators always come up with all kinds of new ideas, but 99.9999% of proposals end up being bad. So, we should be highly skeptical of these changes. Of course, necessary new ideas may appear occasionally, and we can consider them carefully at that time. If the entire community has a broad consensus, I will support it. But in most cases, we do not need massive protocol upgrades.

Many new proposals are usually just to benefit a layer two solution or a layer three protocol, but they can harm the entire Bitcoin community. Therefore, I think we should be extremely conservative, cautious and skeptical about the changes in the agreement. To be honest, most proposals are more like "cancer" and do more harm than good for 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 tie your financial energy to your personal. This is the first time in human history that a mathematical and technological agreement has emerged that can bind capital (economic energy) to companies, individuals, and even states. We have never had anything like this before. This kind of change is like someone inventing language for the first time.

Imagine what would happen if I first introduced 0 to 9 numbers into the language system? What if I took these numbers away, and I didn't allow you to use numbers, or even express the concept of "14"? You will feel extremely limited, right? If I deprive fire, electricity, mathematics, or not let you speak, not let you express complete sentences, or even remove all nouns from language, your ability to express expression will be completely destroyed.

So, I see Bitcoin as an economic agreement that promotes prosperity. It is the first economic agreement in human history that is based on science, conforms to the principles of thermodynamics, is physically reliable and mathematically rigorous. So, Bitcoin is an ideology, but is it a religion? I'm not sure. It may be more inclined toward a secular ideology.

However, many people believe that elements such as mathematics, electricity and fire are crucial to human development. If you try to deprive these things, people may rise up and resist. I think the reason why Bitcoin can inspire people's great enthusiasm is because it is a protocol that drives economic prosperity.

Do you have anything to say to Chinese investors?

Michael Saylor: I think Bitcoin is becoming an emerging capital network around the world. This digital energy network expands at a rate of hundreds of millions of dollars a day and becomes increasingly powerful. It is supported by the world's most powerful computing power and relies on a decentralized network of millions of computers. Anyone around the world can access this energy network.

You can access this network by buying Bitcoin, holding Bitcoin, developing Bitcoin-based applications, and building homes, companies, cities and even countries based on Bitcoin. There are many ways to get involved. When I joined the Bitcoin network, its market value was only $200 billion, now it has exceeded $2 trillion, and will reach $20 trillion, $200 trillion, or even $400 trillion in the future. This network will continue to grow throughout our lifetimes.

Smart funds will eventually flow to Bitcoin. People will gradually abandon 20th-century assets—real estate, stocks, collectibles, fiat currencies and bonds—and they will trade past assets for future assets. They will switch from physical assets to digital assets, from insane currencies to sound currencies, from weak assets to stronger assets.

Some people may ask, "What if Bitcoin does not rise anymore?" But the question is like asking, "What if the water does not flow downward?"

What if time no longer moves forward? What if you drop something from the mountain, it will no longer fall? What if gravity suddenly fails? These things won't happen. If you understand the physics of the Bitcoin network, you will understand that all this is not random.

This conforms to the principle of thermodynamics. Why does fire burn? Why does it produce heat? This is not random. Why can electricity be used? Why can the water wheel operate? Why does the ice melt? Why does the water boil? These are not random phenomena, but many people don’t understand the principles. If you understand the physics of economic systems, you can build a machine.

You can build hydropower stations, airplanes, ships. Henry Ford looked at the flames, and maybe someone asked, "What if the fire goes out?" But the fire doesn't go out. The essence of an internal combustion engine is to ignite a flame in the machine and let it burn forever.

If you light a flame in a jet engine and let it take you across the Pacific for 15 hours by constantly feeding kerosene, someone might ask, "What if the fire goes out?" If the fire goes out, your plane will crash. But the point is, it won't go out. Why? Because the engineer designed the machine to ensure that the flames don't go out.

So, I want to say to everyone, you can design a better financial system. You can build an economic machine fueled by Bitcoin. MicroStrategy is like an "encrypted reactor", and Bitcoin is its fuel. This is not random. If you think it's just speculation, you don't really understand it at all.

Just like in ancient times, some people believed that flames were created by gods, and they were worried that if they angered the god of fire, the fire would be extinguished. But Henry Ford doesn't think so, he created the entire automobile industry so that everyone can own a car. Today, there are more than one billion cars worldwide.

You need to see the world like a physicist, a scientist, a mathematician. When you truly understand how things work, you will see that Bitcoin is a digital energy network. For the first time in human history, there is such a global digital energy network that you can access at any time. This is the path to prosperity.

You can escape 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 become an engineer. You can't just be afraid of being shocked, burned, or fear of the thunder of the gods. You have to control it, use it, and push the world forward.