Dialogue Strategy Founder: BTC will be 2 million dollars in 20 years

Original text organized & compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Guest: Michael Saylor, Executive Chairman and Co-Founder of Strategy

Host: George Mekhail, Managing Director of Bitcoin for Corporates

Podcast Source: Bitcoin For Corporations

Original Title: Michael Saylor: The Bitcoin Treasury Endgame - An Exclusive At-Home Interview

Release Date: September 30, 2025

Key Takeaways

An exclusive in-depth interview with Michael Saylor, discussing how Bitcoin is becoming the core of the global credit market and shaping the future economy.

In the interview, Michael shared his vision for the future of Bitcoin: it will disrupt traditional capital models, redefine corporate balance sheets, and become the cornerstone of the 21st-century economic system. From the rise of Bitcoin asset management companies to the development of Bitcoin-based credit instruments, this conversation paints a comprehensive picture of the future blueprint for currency, banking, and economic sovereignty.

Highlights

• The value of Bitcoin is expected to grow by an average of 29% per year over the next 20 years, reaching $2.1 million in 21 years.
• Cryptocurrency exchanges may adopt Bitcoin reserve strategies more aggressively.
• The optimal strategy for investing in Bitcoin is direct investment. Corporate participation does not crowd out individuals; rather, it makes those who believed in Bitcoin early on even wealthier.
• In the global capital markets, Bitcoin is the optimal capital asset choice for companies. One day, every company will become a Bitcoin treasury company.
• For Bitcoin to be widely accepted globally, companies, banks, exchanges, operators, cities, states, and even federal governments need to participate. We do not want anyone to be excluded.
• I believe that 95% of decision-makers in finance still do not truly understand the concepts of digital energy, digital capital, and digital currency. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. If everyone agrees on an investment opportunity, it won't yield huge returns.
• The concept of Bitcoin as digital gold or digital capital is new. If we accept Bitcoin as digital gold, it can also be viewed as a form of digital capital. Any credit instrument backed by Bitcoin can be seen as digital credit.
• Bitcoin reserve companies compete with traditional credit and equity instruments in the capital markets. They leverage Bitcoin as a base currency to create higher-quality equity and credit instruments.
• The ideal choice for Strategy is to become a pure Bitcoin reserve company, focusing on issuing equity and high-quality Bitcoin credit instruments.
• In the future, the Bitcoin network will evolve into a multi-trillion-dollar ecosystem, with the total amount of digital credit potentially reaching $10 trillion, $20 trillion, or even $100 trillion.
• The banking network, credit system, and equity capital markets of the 20th century will undergo a complete transformation. Bitcoin will become the cornerstone of 21st-century digital credit, digital equity, digital banking, digital capital, and the digital economy, while Bitcoin reserve companies will play the role of engines driving the development of this network.
• Our goal is to make this future so desirable that no one wants to be excluded. Ultimately, everyone will need to choose between being "smart, fast, powerful, and wealthy" and "stupid, slow, poor, and weak."
• After the Genius Act, the Clarity Act is expected to become the next key legislative topic. This act may further clarify the legality of tokenized assets.

Bitcoin is Hope

George Mekhail:

I’m glad to have a conversation with Michael Saylor today. You once said, "Bitcoin is hope." Can you share what this "hope" vision entails? In what specific ways does Bitcoin represent "hope"? How will the lives of ordinary people change under the Bitcoin standard?

Michael Saylor:

Looking back at human history, technology has been key to improving human life. One of the earliest technologies—fire—can be seen as a symbol of hope. Without fire, humanity might have frozen or starved. As technology progressed, we entered the Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Steel Age.

The invention of the wheel was also significant. Later, Rockefeller commercialized and standardized oil, giving humanity mechanical power for the first time. Today, a small trawler engine has 70 horsepower, equivalent to the strength of 700 people, while a large auxiliary ship can reach 1,000 horsepower. This technology allows humanity to utilize energy more efficiently, improving lives.

Bitcoin is hope because it represents digital energy. It is a technology that can transmit energy in cyberspace and embodies digital property, digital capital, and digital gold. More profoundly, Bitcoin is a tool for transmitting energy across time and space, capable of supporting 8 billion people globally, millions of businesses and institutions, governments, and local authorities.

If fire is hope because it frees you from the cold; if electricity is hope because it allows you to move freely in skyscrapers; then Bitcoin is hope because it is a form of digital energy. It can transmit energy at the speed of light from one end of the Earth to the other, solving problems for individuals or businesses. This technology represents a new phase of humanity's mastery over energy, significantly enhancing the quality of life.

George Mekhail:

As this transformation occurs, we are gradually moving toward the Bitcoin standard, or what some call "super monetization." What signs do you see indicating that this trend is being realized?

Michael Saylor:

What we are really talking about is the integration of digital energy into civilization. So, what do you want to see? I think we can start with the basic application of digital energy as capital. Currently, there is a rising trend of publicly traded companies recapitalizing with Bitcoin.

Our company was the first to do this in 2020, followed by two or three others, then ten, twenty, and now over 180 companies have adopted Bitcoin as a capital reserve. I expect that as we move from one hundred to one thousand, then to ten thousand, and eventually to a hundred thousand, you will know that the world is accepting Bitcoin. As someone said, one day every company will become a Bitcoin treasury company.

Thus, companies recapitalizing with Bitcoin are a measure of adoption. I think another measure of adoption is integrating Bitcoin support into software applications. Currently, you have applications running on iPhone or Android, like Cache App, that support Bitcoin, as well as wallets that support Bitcoin. But I look forward to the day when Apple integrates it into the iPhone, Google integrates it into the Android operating system, and Microsoft integrates it into the Windows operating system.

This will either be at the core of every consumer device operating system or at the core of the hardware itself. People are beginning to integrate Bitcoin support into all hardware devices spreading worldwide. I think this will be another very important sign.

George Mekhail:

You mentioned that five years ago you just entered the Bitcoin space. At that time, hardly anyone knew of your existence in this industry. Now, as you said, you have become a leading figure among Bitcoin treasury companies. We have spoken with many executives planning to implement Bitcoin strategies from 14 different countries. Many have mentioned that they want to become the Saylor of their respective countries. How do you view your role in this field? Do you see yourself as a leader of this movement?

Michael Saylor:

I believe we have a responsibility to set a good example for others while supporting and helping other participants in the market. We have tried many new things, conducted various experiments, and worked hard to share our experiences. Since entering the Bitcoin space, we have been sponsoring Bitcoin business conferences and publishing operational manuals. We have open-sourced our methods and made our securities filings public, detailing our actions and the lessons learned. I believe we have an obligation to point out what works and what doesn't.

What inspires me about this movement is that the Bitcoin ecosystem is different from many traditional industries. In traditional industries, it is often a winner-takes-all scenario, like Walmart defeating most retailers, Amazon putting thousands of retailers out of business, and Apple replacing many device manufacturers. In the Bitcoin ecosystem, everyone has a chance to win.

This is because we share the same value system, and everyone acts around Bitcoin as the foundational asset. The total supply of Bitcoin is limited to 21 million, and everyone relies on the same Bitcoin network. Therefore, the growth of Bitcoin treasury companies and the success of any company holding Bitcoin will positively impact the entire Bitcoin network and other companies.

I feel very gratified to see this industry continue to grow. We are doing our best to play our part while also seeing other companies make many outstanding contributions. Every day, new companies are trying different strategies, and I think we are all learning in the process. If certain strategies prove effective, they will be adopted by more people; if certain methods do not work, we will avoid repeating mistakes. Thus, this movement is more like a collaborative effort, with everyone contributing to the collective advancement of the industry.

Questions About Bitcoin and the Process of Social Acceptance

George Mekhail:

I want to talk about FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) and some criticisms. Some people may be skeptical of your work in the Bitcoin space, and some even refer to them as "haters." Do you feel there are any criticisms or misunderstandings directed at you that stand out?

Michael Saylor:

I think when an airplane flies at supersonic speeds, it creates shock waves and sonic booms. This is because the speed of the airplane exceeds the speed at which sound travels through air, causing air molecules to be unable to transmit information in time, resulting in turbulence and noise. Similarly, the growth rate of Bitcoin has exceeded society's ability to adapt.

Since 2011, Bitcoin has gone through multiple misunderstandings and skepticism: in 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021, without exception. When we entered the Bitcoin space in 2020, we also faced many criticisms. At that time, our stock was only $10 per share, and when it rose to $100, the criticism continued; when the stock price fell back to $20, the criticism did not diminish. Even when we held $2 billion worth of Bitcoin, there were still critics saying we lost $1 billion. And when we made $10 billion, those critics disappeared, only to be replaced by a new wave of skeptics. Every time the price of Bitcoin rises, it triggers a new wave of criticism and misunderstanding.

Even if Bitcoin rises to $100,000, $1 million, or even $2 million in the future, this misunderstanding and skepticism will not disappear; there will always be new FUD emerging. Those who once mocked our losses will vanish, but new voices will question, "Is it reasonable to buy Bitcoin now? Will it drop lower?" This is a typical social phenomenon; new ideas always take time to be accepted.

Historically, many paradigm shifts have gone through a long acceptance process. For example, the popularization of electricity took decades; John D. Rockefeller was considered crazy for 30 years until he became the richest man in the world; and nuclear energy was misunderstood for nearly 50 years until recently, when people began to realize its importance for AI data centers. Digital energy like Bitcoin will face similar skepticism and resistance.

It took people 30 years to go from thinking John D. Rockefeller was crazy to ultimately acknowledging him as the richest man in the world. When he became the richest man, people thought his legend was over, but with the invention of the automobile, his wealth grew tenfold. This shows that society typically takes a long time to accept new paradigm shifts. However, when we look back at the developments of the past few decades, we see how natural these changes were, such as the use of fire, the popularization of electricity, the invention of the wheel, the development of oil, and even the application of nuclear energy.

Take nuclear energy as an example; it has been viewed as a dangerous technology for the past 50 years, until recent years when people began to realize its importance. Especially in the era of rapid AI development, nuclear energy is seen as key to powering AI data centers. If we do not develop nuclear energy, we may hinder technological progress and even slow down our advancement in intelligence. Although nuclear energy is a clean, sustainable, and almost inexhaustible energy source, it took humanity 60 years to gradually accept it.

Therefore, I am not surprised that digital energy will encounter similar skepticism and criticism. Many people may not understand its potential at all. As physicist Max Planck said: "Scientific progress occurs one funeral at a time." What he meant is that the guardians of old ideas usually do not accept new thoughts; only when a new generation of decision-makers emerges, or the old generation steps aside, will society gradually embrace new ideas.

Sometimes, society needs to experience some dramatic events or shocks to accept new things. For example, those who do not believe in airplanes will only acknowledge their existence when an airplane flies over their city and drops bombs overhead; those who do not believe in nuclear energy will only realize its power after nuclear weapons are detonated. Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and the global economic turmoil revealed the fragility of the monetary system and prompted us to rethink the potential of digital currencies and digital energy.

Even so, I believe that 95% of decision-makers in finance still do not truly understand the concepts of digital energy, digital capital, and digital currency. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. If everyone agrees on an investment opportunity, it won't yield huge returns. In fact, to achieve a 10x or even 100x increase in assets, the key lies in discovering those opportunities that are overlooked by the majority.

Take the investments during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 as an example; at that time, almost everyone thought buying Amazon stock was the best choice because it was obviously a necessity during the pandemic. However, it turned out to be one of the worst investments in the past five years. This tells us that a widely recognized investment opportunity often loses its potential for high returns.

George Mekhail:

Do you think there will be a tipping point that will lead more people to start accepting Bitcoin, as you just mentioned? It sounds like you have observed this trend. Or, those skeptics may have started questioning five years ago, but now their views are gradually being proven wrong. However, what you just mentioned is more about the traditional financial system. So, what do you think about skepticism within the Bitcoin community? Does this skepticism surprise you, or is there something particularly noteworthy about it?**

Michael Saylor:

The Bitcoin community is indeed a very influential group with a variety of viewpoints. Some even consider Bitcoin to be "the currency of the enemy." In fact, before Bitcoin was born, the entire community was filled with skepticism; one could say that Bitcoin itself was born in an atmosphere of doubt.

This skepticism is deeply rooted in the culture and spirit of Bitcoin, forming an attitude of questioning everything. For example, "kill your heroes," emphasizing not to trust anyone but to verify everything yourself. The core idea of Bitcoin is "do not trust anyone or any institution." If you try to answer the question: how to design a protocol that does not require trust in anyone, any company, or any government? You will find that this is indeed a very interesting challenge. I think this skepticism has its significance.

However, at times, this skepticism can also be a form of counterproductive idealism. In fact, we do need to trust some things in life. For example, you need to trust the companies that manufacture airplanes, the companies that make cars, and even your dentist. After all, you can't perform an appendectomy on yourself, right? So, at times, we do need a certain level of trust.

I believe a more mature view of Bitcoin is not to completely reject trust in anything, but to recognize that the core value of Bitcoin lies in the choices it gives people. You can choose to trust someone or some institution, and you can withdraw that trust at any time. For example, if you do not trust a certain government, you can transfer your Bitcoin to another country; if you trust a certain custodian, you can store your Bitcoin with them, and once you lose trust, you can transfer your Bitcoin elsewhere. Even in the case where you choose to self-custody your Bitcoin, if one day you feel you are unable to manage it, you can transfer custody to other family members. This flexibility is the core strength of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin provides this choice because its birth itself stems from distrust of the traditional financial system. This distrust, questioning spirit, and critical attitude are important components of Bitcoin culture. However, the potential of the technology itself can only be fully realized through collaboration. Whether it is trusting a custodian, hardware manufacturer, or other service providers, this collaboration will ultimately enable you to achieve greater possibilities. The uniqueness of Bitcoin lies in the fact that you can withdraw that trust at any time, thereby protecting your property rights.

This choice is also a powerful deterrent. Take gold as an example; one of the significant reasons for its failure is the difficulty of custody. Looking back at the 1920s, when major countries around the world were on the gold standard, Germany, France, the UK, and the US held large gold reserves, but most of the gold was concentrated in London and New York. For instance, France's gold was stored in the UK or the US, and Germany's gold was stored in the US. There is a famous story about the president of the German central bank, Schock, visiting New York and meeting with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Strong. Ben Strong wanted to show him Germany's gold, so he took him to the basement of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, but they could not find the gold.

This story illustrates the difficulty of gold custody and highlights the advantages of Bitcoin. As a digital asset, Bitcoin is not only easy to store but also gives individuals and institutions more choice and flexibility. For this reason, Bitcoin can become a more decentralized and reliable store of value than gold.

The implication of this story is that the difficulty of gold custody is so high that even a country like Germany cannot find its gold, let alone ordinary people and businesses. This is one of the reasons why gold ultimately failed—its custody process is slow and complex, leading to individuals' and businesses' property rights being controlled by central institutions. Imagine if the entire world relied on gold as a basis for credit, but all the gold was stored in London and New York, especially New York; this centralized model does not allow the 40 million companies and 400 million people globally to truly own gold.

In contrast, Bitcoin is an asset that can be genuinely controlled by individuals and businesses. While I advise idealists not to blindly trust banks or companies, it is undeniable that during the gold era, the difficulty of gold custody was so high that no company could independently store its gold, and even banks could not do so. If we enter a world with 40,000 banks as Bitcoin custodians, this will be a significant improvement from the highly centralized world of only six to eight gold custodians in the past.

Therefore, I believe that the core value of Bitcoin lies in the freedom of choice it gives people. I do not oppose banks accepting Bitcoin. In fact, if every country in the world is willing to accept Bitcoin and become custodians of Bitcoin, we will achieve a global system where Bitcoin is jointly held by 150 countries. This system will be more decentralized than the gold standard and can last for hundreds of years. Even in the most conservative scenario, if only banks and governments can hold Bitcoin, its degree of decentralization will be 100 to 1,000 times higher than the gold standard. If companies also participate, this number will rise to 10,000 times. And in a world where millions or even tens of millions of individuals can self-custody Bitcoin, the degree of decentralization will increase by hundreds or thousands of times.

Thus, I prefer to focus on the fact that even in the worst-case scenario, today's decentralized monetary system is far more robust in terms of integrity and fairness than the gold standard of 100 years ago, or even the best periods in history. This progress is remarkable, providing a fairer and more efficient foundation for the future financial system.

The Role of Governments and Institutions: Drivers of Bitcoin Globalization

George Mekhail:

Recently, the US government acquired a 10% stake in Intel, sparking widespread discussion in the community. Do you think there is a connection between this equity strategy and the government's goal of becoming a global Bitcoin superpower?

Michael Saylor:

I believe there is no connection between the two. When the government expresses a desire to become a global Bitcoin superpower, their goal is to promote the adoption of Bitcoin through policies and support measures. They want the banking system to fully support Bitcoin, such as providing loans, yields, and credit services; they want to promote the trading and circulation of Bitcoin; they want tech giants like Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft to support Bitcoin. They also want more publicly traded companies to buy Bitcoin, increase the number of institutional custodial services, and establish favorable tax and securities regulations for Bitcoin. Additionally, they hope that American financial companies, such as BlackRock and Coinbase, can lead the world in the adoption of digital assets and Bitcoin.

George Mekhail:

However, some criticize that if companies hold large amounts of Bitcoin, it could negatively impact ordinary people. How can we avoid marginalizing small users?

Michael Saylor:

Actually, it won't. When our company started participating, the price of Bitcoin was $9,000 each, and now it has risen to $115,000. This increase is primarily because our company purchased 3% of Bitcoin, while institutions like Blackstone bought about 4%. Even so, 93% of Bitcoin is still held by individuals, with a total value close to $2 trillion. This means that individuals who held Bitcoin before corporate participation have already profited $1.8 trillion. Therefore, corporate participation not only does not marginalize individuals but rather makes those who believed in Bitcoin early on even wealthier.

Individuals can freely decide how to use this wealth. For our company, if we can hold 5% of the Bitcoin network, the price of Bitcoin could rise to $1 million each. If the holding percentage is higher, the price could even reach $10 million each. When we reach a 7% holding percentage, if companies like Blackstone follow us, the price of Bitcoin will further increase, while the remaining 85% of Bitcoin is still held by individuals.

In fact, companies are a crucial driving force in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Every company, every large purchase injects momentum into the Bitcoin network. Without corporate participation, the price of Bitcoin might hover around $5,000. Worse still, if companies choose to support other networks, like Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, or Ethereum, the value of Bitcoin could further decline or even gradually disappear. Subsequently, these companies might lobby governments to change laws to support other networks, thereby completely marginalizing Bitcoin.

This is essentially a "war of protocols," a competition to determine the future of currency. To win this war, institutional capital support is needed, and companies must participate because government policies have a decisive impact on the flow of funds. Governments can restrict the flow of funds into a certain network through policies, or they can promote the influx of funds through supportive policies. Therefore, the participation of companies and institutions is crucial for the future of Bitcoin.

Thus, I believe that the role of companies in the Bitcoin ecosystem is vital. They can protect individuals from the risks of Bitcoin assets being confiscated, networks shutting down, or facing high taxes through hiring lobbyists, conducting marketing, and advocating for the Bitcoin network. Companies are the first line of defense for Bitcoin, while miners are the technical defense, using energy and computing power to ensure network security. Bitcoin treasury companies are the economic defense, maintaining network stability through capital support. Bitcoin exchanges are another technical defense, responsible for developing mobile applications and websites to promote the circulation of Bitcoin. We hope these key participants, including exchanges, treasury companies, and miners, can thrive globally and have ample capital support.

Therefore, I believe that there is no conflict of interest between companies and individuals. This is not a zero-sum game. If Bitcoin is to be widely accepted globally, companies, banks, exchanges, operators, cities, states, and even federal governments need to participate. We do not want anyone to be excluded.

Finally, I want to use a metaphor to illustrate: Bitcoin is like English. If you can speak English and find that the most powerful people in the world are also using English, would you feel unhappy about it? If the banks that control global wealth also provide services in English, would you feel that they are depriving you of your language? Obviously not. On the contrary, we want those who are wealthy, powerful, and influential to use our language and adopt our protocol. If their actions could potentially harm you, you can also learn their language to identify and respond. Bitcoin is essentially a protocol. Ultimately, we hope everyone can use this protocol because it will make the world better, and you will benefit from it.

Bitcoin Treasury Companies Driving Ecosystem Development

George Mekhail:

Let's talk about Bitcoin treasury companies and their wave in adopting Bitcoin. Although we discussed earlier that competition is not a zero-sum game, we still see some regional rivalries trying to gain a foothold in this field. What would you say to those companies involved in this capital competition? What advice do you have for them?

Michael Saylor:

Let's start with the basic concepts of the industry. Bitcoin is the monetary foundation of the crypto economy; it is digital gold. If we look back at history 3,000 years ago, such as reading Xenophon's "Anabasis," the Athenians and Spartans did not trust each other, and neither trusted the Persians, but these mutually hostile groups had one commonality: they all fought for gold. Why gold? Because around 600 BC, gold was widely regarded as valuable currency. Despite their differences in faith and culture, they reached a consensus on the value of gold.

From the 17th century to most of the 20th century, the world economy revolved around gold. Countries issued bonds backed by gold, and all credit instruments were based on gold. These credit instruments have gone through cycles of moving from the gold standard to detaching from it and then returning to it. This gold-backed credit system lasted from the 18th century to the 20th century, until the dollar detached from the gold standard in 1971. For centuries, gold has been at the core of credit instruments until Satoshi Nakamoto invented Bitcoin. Initially, there was controversy over the nature of Bitcoin, but by 2025, the world will have reached a consensus: Bitcoin is digital gold.

In discussions on CNBC, people generally agree that Bitcoin is the monetary foundation of the crypto economy, digital gold. While other cryptocurrencies may be seen as digital silver, digital copper, or digital silicon, the history of Western civilization is not built on copper or silver. The experiment of gold as currency was successful, while the attempts with silver did not last. Today, we are transitioning from a metal currency network to a cryptocurrency monetary network.

So, what exactly are Bitcoin treasury companies? Here, we need to understand two important paradigm shifts: first, the concept of Bitcoin as digital gold or digital capital is entirely new. In fact, it is only in the past nine months that the world has gradually formed this consensus. This also means that we can now issue credit instruments based on digital gold, or digital credit. Second, if we accept Bitcoin as digital gold, then it can also be viewed as a form of digital capital. Any credit instrument backed by Bitcoin can be seen as digital credit.

From a broader perspective, the true potential of Bitcoin treasury companies lies in their ability to fundamentally change the existing equity and credit markets. Suppose I establish a company focused on Bitcoin investment, holding $1 billion in Bitcoin assets; then I have $1 billion in digital capital. I can issue digital credit based on this capital. This is similar to traditional gold banks. If I own $1 billion in gold, I can issue $100 million in gold-backed credit notes. Then I might think, why not issue $500 million or even $1 billion in gold notes? This leverage effect will fundamentally change the capital markets. So, from this logic, you will soon find that the collateral ratio for gold notes may reach 5:1, meaning $5 of gold-backed credit notes correspond to only $1 of actual gold. This method of issuing credit is the foundation of the modern banking system. The strongest form of credit is one-to-one backing. This means that theoretically, $1 billion of Bitcoin can be used to issue $1 billion of fully one-to-one backed Bitcoin credit notes.

So, what does this model replace? It is actually replacing the existing credit system, such as loans backed by retail residential or commercial real estate, corporate credit based on company cash flow, or fiat credit relying on government promises to print more money. These traditional credit instruments dominated the 20th century, totaling trillions of dollars.

When we understand how Bitcoin treasury companies operate, we find their business logic very appealing: accumulating large amounts of Bitcoin capital through equity financing, then issuing credit instruments based on this Bitcoin. These instruments can be credit tools similar to bonds, convertible bonds, preferred stocks, or even variable floating preferred stocks. In other words, companies can issue various forms of credit based on Bitcoin as "digital gold."

By issuing these credit instruments, companies effectively create leverage for capital. More importantly, as capital is leveraged, the equity of the company will transform into "digital equity," which may outperform Bitcoin itself. So, who are these Bitcoin treasury companies competing against? In fact, they are not competing with each other, but with traditional credit and equity instruments in the capital markets. They leverage Bitcoin as a base currency to create higher-quality equity and credit instruments. In this context, we can foresee the rapid growth of these companies. If these companies can understand and apply this model, they will gain a significant competitive advantage.

The market offers tremendous growth opportunities for those giant companies. Take Meta Planet as an example; it could not only become the most valuable hotel company globally but also the most valuable company in Japan. Although they are much smaller than us, that does not matter. The key is that they are not competing with us; they are competing with the equity market in Japan and the credit market based on the yen. This is a unique capital market environment.

Currently, these capital markets are waiting for the emergence of a giant enterprise, and those giant companies focused on digital credit issuance may achieve 100x growth. Therefore, we are not competing with other Bitcoin treasury companies but promoting and advocating the concept of digital credit. Our goal is to drive the digital transformation of the credit market. If we can capture 1% of the market share, it means we can sell $1 trillion in digital credit, and just 1% success can have a huge impact.

It is worth mentioning that there are a dozen companies in the US also promoting digital credit, which is beneficial for us. We have 100 million retail investors, yet many people in the Bitcoin community are not even aware of products like Stretch (Stretch is a floating-rate perpetual preferred stock launched by Strategy to provide a cash-like tool for investors seeking indirect Bitcoin exposure and stable returns). If we could offer a Bitcoin-backed bank account with a 10% yield, it would undoubtedly attract more investors. Moreover, another 100 companies could replicate this model.

You might ask, will this squeeze our market space? Actually, it won't. What we are describing is a higher-quality banking system. Instead of choosing the 2% or 3% yield offered by traditional fiat banks, it is better to choose the 10% yield provided by Bitcoin treasury companies.

History can also illustrate this point. In 1920, there were about 25,000 banks in the US, while today there are only 5,000. So, in the future, there may be 5,000 Bitcoin treasury companies in the US. Will this not impact us? It will not negatively affect other companies until 50% of the global credit system shifts to a Bitcoin-based credit system. When the total amount of credit backed by Bitcoin reaches $100 trillion, the total scale of the Bitcoin ecosystem will also reach trillions of dollars. This is not only a transformation of an industry but also a significant leap for an ecosystem, from which many companies will benefit.

So, who will be the ultimate losers? The answer is those companies that still adhere to the 20th-century credit issuance model. The credit products they issue lack sufficient collateral, have poor liquidity, and low yields. These companies will gradually lose market share because why would investors choose low-quality credit with poor liquidity and a yield of only 4% instead of investing in credit products with good liquidity, yields of two or three times, and a collateral ratio of 10 times?

Therefore, these outdated credit issuers will be eliminated by the market. Many of them are even small institutions that people have never heard of, like the 4,000 regional banks in the past over-the-counter market. The market share of these weak credit issuers will gradually decrease, but this will not happen overnight; it is a process that will take 10 years or even decades to complete.

In the Bitcoin ecosystem, it is not easy to get into trouble. However, if you engage in excessive leverage with short-term, high-interest margin loans, problems may still arise. If you also use your assets as collateral, this extreme leverage can indeed pose significant risks. However, I believe that publicly listed Bitcoin treasury companies are unlikely to take such extreme actions because the market will not allow them to achieve such high leverage.

Therefore, as long as Bitcoin treasury companies choose prudent financing methods, such as issuing long-term convertible bonds, preferred stocks, or even longer-term junk bonds, while holding Bitcoin as a core asset, their financial situation will remain stable.

In a crypto winter, Bitcoin miners are often the most affected. This is because they typically borrow short-term loans at high interest rates of 15% for 12 or 18 months, and this capital is not used to buy Bitcoin but to purchase mining machines. The value of mining machines depreciates by 20% to 30% each year. If you use short-term loans to buy rapidly depreciating assets, financial problems are almost inevitable. In contrast, if you borrow mid-term or long-term loans to purchase assets that appreciate by 30% to 60% each year, your financial situation will be more stable.

Therefore, as a publicly listed Bitcoin treasury company, if you want to truly get into trouble, you need to make very irresponsible decisions. Of course, a few companies may experience financial instability due to foolish actions, but overall, Bitcoin treasury companies can be categorized into three types:

The first type focuses on digital credit issuance, such as companies like Meta Planet. These companies focus on issuing equity and pure credit products and may achieve 100x or even 1,000x growth, becoming the next "MAG 7" stocks (the fastest-growing top companies by market capitalization). Their market value could grow from $1 billion to $10 billion or even reach $1 trillion.

The second type consists of strong Bitcoin participants. While they may not be the absolute leaders in the market, they play an important role in the Bitcoin ecosystem. These companies typically engage in various businesses and are expected to achieve 10x or 20x growth. Although their performance may not be as dazzling as that of the "MAG 7," it will still be outstanding. They may purchase large amounts of Bitcoin while conducting some business. Although they are not entirely focused on Bitcoin, they can still perform well.

There are also some companies that will purchase a small amount of Bitcoin while operating other businesses. Over time, the other businesses of these companies may stabilize, while the value growth of Bitcoin will support the company's market value. Therefore, these companies may not incur losses, but since they are not 100% focused on Bitcoin, their growth may only be around 2 to 4 times. The key to all this lies in the beliefs of the management team and the choice of business model.

If you ask what kind of company I want to become, the ideal choice is to become a pure Bitcoin treasury company, focusing on issuing equity and high-quality Bitcoin credit instruments. You should strive to secure a place in major markets such as the UK, France, Brazil, Norway, Japan, the US, Canada, Germany, and Italy. Local companies usually have advantages in taxation, regulation, marketing, and culture in their home markets.

In these capital markets, you can offer the highest-yielding credit products, while these markets are filled with low-yield or even negative-yield products. For example, in Switzerland, the yield on short-term funds is negative. We took five years to grow from $600 million to $120 billion (depending on specific market capitalization), but we went through 20 different credit issuances during this process and paid many costs. If you start from scratch today, you can skip the first four years of exploration. My suggested strategy is: first raise equity capital, purchase Bitcoin, invest all funds into Bitcoin, and then issue short-term Bitcoin-backed credit instruments. This approach can eliminate volatility and risk while providing investors with a yield that is 500 basis points (i.e., 5%) higher than the market's risk-free rate.

You can establish a company focused on a single credit tool and equity tool, achieving rapid growth by continuously repeating this model. Theoretically, you could accomplish what we have done in a shorter time, possibly in half or even a third of the time. The key to all this lies in whether the company's leaders have enough charisma and credibility, and whether the brand is trustworthy and focused.

The Bitcoin-Driven Credit Market Revolution

George Mekhail:

Is the ultimate goal you describe to establish a more complete banking system? Is this part of your strategic direction? Currently, such products already exist, and people can invest in them, which are very high-quality assets for the market. But the question is, do we just need to educate the public to make them aware of the existence of these products? Or do we need to take more measures to promote their development?

Michael Saylor:

Yes, I believe the ultimate goal is to accumulate $1 trillion worth of Bitcoin and grow at a rate of 21% per year. Then, we will accelerate growth by issuing more credit products. Ultimately, we hope to have $1 trillion in Bitcoin collateral, growing at a rate of 30% per year, while issuing $100 billion in credit tools each year, with an annual growth rate of 20% to 30%. The yields on these credit products will be 200 to 400 basis points higher than traditional real estate mortgages, corporate bonds, or fiat-backed credit instruments.

In this way, we can reactivate the credit market rather than let Swiss investors continue to accept the status quo of zero yields. Suppose half of the credit market in Switzerland achieves digitization; then the yield that was originally zero could rise to 200 to 300 basis points. This increase can not only raise the risk-free rate but also alleviate financial repression, thereby improving the health of the traditional credit market. At the same time, this provides Bitcoin investors with higher returns, such as a 3% return.

A similar situation applies to the yen market. Ultimately, the yield on trillions of dollars in assets will no longer be 50 basis points but will reach an average level of 300 to 400 basis points. Through these changes, the credit market will regain health and integrity. This process requires cooperation among Bitcoin treasury companies.

In the future, the Bitcoin network will evolve into a multi-trillion-dollar ecosystem, with the total amount of digital credit potentially reaching $10 trillion, $20 trillion, or even $100 trillion. If there is $100 trillion in digital credit backed by $200 trillion in digital capital, this system will no longer be a traditional fractional banking system but will achieve a model of 2x over-collateralization. This model is even superior to the top AAA-rated corporate bonds in the US, as the latter typically only have 2.5x over-collateralization.

Therefore, all these credit products will reach AAA investment grade, with higher yields and stronger transparency. I believe the ultimate goal is to reactivate and transform the credit market through Bitcoin, digital gold, and digital capital. At the same time, the equity market will benefit from this, revitalizing it. For example, companies like Meta Planet will be included in equity indices. Over time, all companies in the S&P 500 may hold Bitcoin. When these companies incorporate Bitcoin into their asset portfolios, the S&P index will contain a large number of Bitcoin components, and the value of Bitcoin will grow at a rate of 21% per year.

In the future, companies will become healthier, and credit risk will significantly decrease. At that time, the yield on savings accounts will rise sharply. I believe that the banking network, credit system, and equity capital markets of the 20th century will undergo a complete transformation. Bitcoin will become the cornerstone of 21st-century digital credit, digital equity, digital banking, digital capital, and the digital economy, while Bitcoin treasury companies will play the role of engines driving the development of this network.

We are in an era full of innovation, similar to the "Cambrian explosion" phenomenon occurring globally, with various new ideas emerging, and South America and North America have different approaches to Bitcoin applications. In the future, Bitcoin will gradually appear on the balance sheets of insurance companies, banks, and tech companies. If we reimagine insurance with Bitcoin as the core driver, it will fundamentally change the insurance industry, providing users with better protection. Similarly, if bank accounts are driven by Bitcoin rather than fiat, when you open a money market account, you might receive a yield of 10.2% (i.e., 1,020 basis points).

With the transformation of the banking and insurance industries, and tech giants like Apple and Google promoting Bitcoin through their global channels, we will witness a digital transformation. This transformation will make the economy smarter and more efficient, increasing productivity by 10 times or even 100 times. Those who successfully integrate into this digital economy will enjoy rapid growth and wealth accumulation, while regions or countries that are excluded may fall behind and become isolated. Our goal is to make this future so desirable that no one wants to be excluded. Ultimately, everyone will need to choose between being "smart, fast, powerful, and wealthy" and "stupid, slow, poor, and weak."

George Mekhail:

So, do you anticipate that in future strategies, Bitcoin credit will be extended to institutions, sovereign nations, or other pressure-type organizations?

Michael Saylor:

We are not expanding credit through loans but through issuing credit instruments. If a country wants to achieve a 10% yield, they will choose to purchase our credit instruments rather than traditional products with only a 3% yield. Our goal is to create credit, not to lend credit. We hope to issue not just $10 billion in credit but $100 billion, or even $1 trillion, trillions of dollars in credit. All of this credit will be backed by digital capital.

Future Trends, Opportunities, and Market Potential for Bitcoin Treasury Companies

George Mekhail:

We just discussed different types of Bitcoin treasury companies, such as those focused on Bitcoin and those with significant operational businesses. Have you observed any trends among them, or what expectations do you have for the future? In your view, what factors are key? In which areas should companies explore more to achieve success?

Michael Saylor:

I believe that cryptocurrency exchanges may adopt Bitcoin reserve strategies more aggressively, which presents a great opportunity for them. For example, Gemini, Coinbase, and others have become platforms for publicly traded companies and may engage in some interesting attempts in this area in the future.

Additionally, I think insurance companies, especially publicly traded insurance companies, may gradually accept digital capital. They have large amounts of capital to invest, so they are fully capable of changing their operational methods by adjusting their balance sheets. Some financial institutions, such as Apollo, BlackRock, and Blackstone, are also representatives of innovation. These companies, as publicly traded entities, have the opportunity to incorporate Bitcoin into their balance sheets. For instance, BlackRock just launched the most successful ETF in history, and they might consider holding some Bitcoin as an asset, which would be a good opportunity for them.

I also believe that more and more innovative credit or equity instruments will be developed by participants familiar with the crypto economy. If these large companies do not take action, then some smaller startups will seize the opportunity to enter the market. For example, Coinbase filled the gap left by traditional banks unwilling to custody Bitcoin. If insurance companies or cryptocurrency exchanges are unwilling to adopt Bitcoin, then startups like Strike may rise rapidly and capture market share. Especially those startups that are publicly listed and can raise large amounts of capital, if they can integrate this capital into wallets or credit products, will have significant growth potential.

George Mekhail:

As the market develops, the dynamics of game theory become increasingly interesting. How do you view the future, especially when Bitcoin treasury companies face significant market pullbacks? Will there be opportunities for consolidation or mergers? In this case, will Bitcoin treasury companies become the ultimate acquirers?

Michael Saylor:

My view is that the value of Bitcoin is expected to grow by an average of 29% per year over the next 21 years, reaching $2.1 million in 21 years. Therefore, I expect the risk-free growth rate of Bitcoin to be 29% per year. This means that even if I do nothing, I can achieve a 29% risk-free return. For any investment idea based on the Bitcoin network, as long as its expected return exceeds 29%, plus a certain risk premium and other premiums, it is worth a try.

Even considering the issue of "diversification discount," it is still necessary to be aware of this when running a publicly listed company. If my company relies entirely on Bitcoin as the sole source of risk and return, then the business model will be very simple. By visiting our website, investors can view real-time data on Bitcoin's volatility, annualized returns, and prices, and quickly calculate risk and credit spreads. The data updates every 15 seconds, making the entire process simple and transparent.

If we choose to acquire another company, for example, a company that has been undervalued by 40%, investors may need to spend a lot of time determining whether this deal is reasonable, and it may take 10 years to verify whether their decision was correct. In this case, the originally transparent business becomes complicated and opaque, leading to a discount in investors' assessments of the company's value.

Therefore, the optimal strategy for investing in Bitcoin is direct investment. Suppose you are a publicly listed company with $1 billion in capital; you can choose to purchase $1 billion worth of Bitcoin at a one-time revenue price, and this asset has an average annual growth rate of 55%. In contrast, any investment project with an annual growth rate below 30% will seem unattractive.

In my view, Bitcoin is the ideal acquisition target. It is the leading digital currency network globally, with an expected annual growth rate of 30% over the next 20 years, and it carries almost no risk. In this case, why choose other investment directions? Other directions may not only increase uncertainty but also introduce "diversification discounts." The assets of diversified companies are often traded at prices below their net asset value because the market believes their diversified investments dilute the core business, and this dilution can divert the company's focus.

Therefore, while there is indeed the possibility of acquiring Bitcoin treasury companies that are trading below their net asset value, this does not suit us. There are many companies in the market focused on acquisitions, such as private equity investors and diversified companies. Their business models allow them to acquire other companies rather than focus on Bitcoin investment.

If you are a staunch supporter of fiat currency or any other investment philosophy, you may find that some companies' business valuations are lower than the book value of the Bitcoin they hold. In this case, you might choose to acquire these companies to obtain their operating businesses for free while also benefiting from the value of Bitcoin. This strategy makes some sense.

For example, you could acquire a loss-making retail company that holds a large amount of Bitcoin. Another company might achieve profitability by cutting costs, optimizing operations, and divesting Bitcoin because they see the value of Bitcoin but do not want to engage in the retail industry. If a company's overall valuation is lower than the value of the Bitcoin it holds, this usually means the market views its operating business as a burden. In contrast, I prefer to invest directly in Bitcoin, which is a globally leading digital asset growing at 29% per year. My investors also support this transparent and efficient investment approach rather than wasting funds on acquiring problematic businesses.

For pure Bitcoin companies, acquiring other Bitcoin treasury companies is not attractive. But for private equity investors or diversified companies, such transactions may align with their business logic. Ultimately, whether to engage in such transactions depends on the company's cost of capital and strategic goals. If you believe that Bitcoin's average annual growth rate over the next 20 years will be 29%, then direct investment in Bitcoin is clearly the better choice. For those companies with lower capital costs, acquiring Bitcoin-related assets remains an attractive strategy.

George Mekhail:

So, does this strategy of purchasing Bitcoin apply to all capital markets? Are there still some undeveloped markets? For example, we have not seen any substantial progress in Africa. What do you think are the most promising markets currently? Are there overlooked opportunities?

Michael Saylor:

In the global capital markets, Bitcoin is the optimal capital asset choice for companies. In some countries, like Cuba or North Korea, although laws may prohibit the use of Bitcoin, from an economic perspective, Bitcoin remains a better choice. Particularly in Venezuela, Nigeria, and much of Africa, the appeal of Bitcoin is especially evident, as its annual growth rate reaches 55% and may continue to grow at nearly 30%.

In contrast, many other capital assets are either collapsing or pegged to the dollar. In Africa, local currencies and credit systems generally face depreciation pressure. Therefore, every company should leverage Bitcoin.

The next question is, where can investors in a publicly listed company obtain the greatest returns? How can they achieve 10x or even 100x returns in equity investments? The answer often lies in those mature but financially suppressed capital markets. For example, Switzerland and Japan have vast capital markets, with funding measured in trillions of dollars, but the risk-free rates in these markets are extremely low; for instance, the yield on a one-month government bond may be close to zero or only 50 basis points, while Bitcoin can provide an annual yield of up to 55%.

Therefore, theoretically, any pure Bitcoin company in these markets, in any European market, has a risk-to-basis point relationship, and Switzerland and Japan are excellent markets. If the risk-free rate in the US drops to 200 basis points, this will be a significant boon for Bitcoin treasury companies in the US. Because in this case, companies can offer investors a 7% dividend yield while capturing 90% of long-term gains and 100% of short-term gains. This business model has immense profit potential.

The Future of Asset Tokenization

George Mekhail:

I want to talk about the topic of "tokenizing the world," which seems to be a timeless trend. How do you think this trend will develop within the Bitcoin ecosystem? What might be the next asset to be tokenized?

Michael Saylor:

The core idea is to enable everything to move at the speed of light. So, why not tokenize the dollar? It is even possible to tokenize Bitcoin on the Lightning Network or tokenize various assets in other ways. Now, everyone wants the transfer speed of Bitcoin to be faster, for example, from seconds to milliseconds. To achieve this, tokenization can be done on Bitcoin's third-layer protocol. Moreover, almost all stocks and bonds can be tokenized. For instance, BlackRock has already tokenized US Treasury bonds and some of its financial instruments.

If stocks like Apple or Microsoft were tokenized, then anyone could hold Apple stock even on a Saturday afternoon in India. Tokenization can make capital markets more efficient, fair, fast, intelligent, and powerful. At the same time, it gives users the ability to self-custody or partially self-custody. If this tokenization is done on a decentralized network, then stocks and securities may become more like bearer securities—whoever holds them owns them.

Now, I think there is a general consensus that assets should be tokenized. People from the SEC, like Atkins, from the CFTC, like Contez, and from the Treasury, like Scott Best, all support this view. They believe that the US should lead the world in digital assets, which means promoting the tokenization of all assets.

Currently, the US has only one relevant law, the Genius Act, which includes some content related to the tokenization of the dollar but does not fully grant comprehensive usage rights for tokenized assets. Existing laws still impose many restrictions on tokenization. For example, only banks can provide yield services for tokenized dollars. Nevertheless, some legal progress is pushing the tokenization process forward. After the Genius Act, the Clarity Act is expected to become the next key legislative topic. This act may further clarify the legality of tokenized assets.

However, the Clarity Act has not yet fully accepted the concept of "digital securities." Therefore, even if this act passes, whether the tokenization of stocks, bonds, and other real-world assets will be legally recognized remains uncertain. This legal ambiguity leads to uncertainty in the direction of technological development.

For example, if the law clearly allows for asset tokenization and rapid transfer, then Apple could fully tokenize every share of stock through its Apple Pay network. However, because the law does not clearly stipulate this, if Apple allows these tokenized securities to be transferred between sanctioned individuals, it may bear legal liability, and this uncertainty could delay Apple's tokenization process.

This indicates that decentralized networks or quasi-decentralized networks have significant advantages in the field of tokenization because they can achieve asset tokenization in the absence of clear regulations. Therefore, I believe we are gradually moving toward a world that recognizes digital securities and digital tokens, a trend that has also been acknowledged by the SEC and CFTC. Although this goal has not yet been fully realized, it can be anticipated that it will gradually advance in the future through rule-making.

As for whether tokenized stocks, bonds, or other crypto tokens can be fully legalized, I still cannot be certain. I believe we are in a transitional phase, and industry leaders may take the lead in promoting the application of these technologies, gradually making them de facto industry standards.

Once these factual standards are established, a large amount of capital will flow into these areas. Perhaps by 2028, these tokenized assets will be formally incorporated into the legal framework, or perhaps they will not, and there may be some controversy surrounding this. I cannot provide a definitive conclusion on this. But I can say for sure that Bitcoin, as a digital commodity, has a very clear value storage function, and digital credit can be issued based on Bitcoin. Furthermore, there is already a certain degree of legal clarity in some areas, such as companies being able to create stablecoins that do not pay interest, while banks may tokenize deposits.

As for other areas, there remains a lot of uncertainty; it can be said to still be a "Wild West" world. In this environment, despite the risks and uncertainties, the current political atmosphere is relatively free and open, with the White House, SEC, Treasury, and CFTC all holding supportive attitudes. The situation two years ago was entirely different; the regulatory environment was more conservative, filled with skepticism and resistance, and political support was very limited.