251 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 27 May \ parent \ on: Bitcoin is Forever Money with Michael Saylor - What Bitcoin Did bitcoin
I think it was a reasonable take. My summary of his view regarding this is "money with strings attached" vs "money with no strings attached":
The clip is just a glimpse of his view though. I think overall, he's just very conservative which makes sense as someone running a public company (he explains himself that way in-depth in the interview). He doesn't see scaling L1 as an urgent problem (via covenants for example) and would rather wait for a few more years to see what the free market comes up with.
He definitely has some "weird takes" like that the current and potentially future interests of some entities like companies, banks and governments don't seem to be considered by devs which are definitely controversial since they go against the "bitcoin ethos" but in the end, it always seems for him to come down to conservatism and how "big protocol" is similar to "big government".
Btw, imo, he answers too much with elaborate analogies which make him sound like a politician that evades questions but I think that's just how he is, lol. Maybe that's what you mean with "word salad", @Wumbo?
I know less than zero about bitcoin core development politics but what he said sounded reasonable on the surface. Like many charities, there can be a perversion of incentives over time and excessive funding without an explicit purpose in mind might create a "development industrial complex" where there is pressure to push updates for the sake of it. Extreme conservatism seems more prudent when there is now 1.3+ trillion at stake.
reply
"development industrial complex" where there is pressure to push updates for the sake of it
This reminds me of government and lawmaking. Never-ending legislative diarrhea, because if they tighten the sphincter the taxpayers may - God forbid - rightly conclude their jobs are redundant.
reply