MicroStrategy's Michael Saylor recently shared his insights on corporations adopting Bitcoin, indicating it shouldn't stir apprehension. Discussing on the Coin Stories podcast with Natalie Brunell, Saylor highlighted the inevitable rise of corporate engagement in the Bitcoin landscape.
He acknowledged the natural inclination of Bitcoin aficionados towards having absolute control over their cryptocurrency. However, Saylor pointed out that such a stance might not always suit the varying intentions people have for using Bitcoin. In his words, “Bitcoin is set to permeate every facet of our lives.” As it becomes deeply rooted in societal structures, its application will vary, with no singular approach catering to all.
Detailing the modalities of how people might engage with Bitcoin. He identified three primary reasons driving the inclination towards custodians: technical necessities, political considerations, and innate human tendencies.
From the political angle, situations might arise where third-party reliance is unavoidable. As he mentioned, powerful political entities like New York City or countries like Iceland will always exert an influence, necessitating custodians.
Technologically, with the surge in mobile crypto transactions, relying on third parties, like Bank of America or Apple, will become inevitable. Saylor described Bitcoin as the foundational layer. While the second layer, like lightning, would enhance transaction speeds, the third-layer entities will cater to functionality demands.
Furthermore, Saylor addressed innate reasons, positing that certain individuals might find it in their best interest to delegate the safeguarding of their assets. He cited instances such as an elderly individual dealing with cognitive challenges or someone ensuring future assets for an unborn grandchild.
Saylor believes that the market will ultimately dictate the perfect balance for Bitcoin engagement. In his perspective, the myriad ways through which individuals interact with Bitcoin is a testament to its versatility and adaptability.
Comment 0