Wu's latest podcast: Will MicroStrategy continue to acquire Bitcoin?

Source: Wu Says Blockchain

In this interview, Colin from Wu Says discusses the following questions with Michael Saylor, the founder of MicroStrategy: Will MicroStrategy continue to acquire Bitcoin? Is there a risk of MicroStrategy being liquidated? How does he view the cyclicality of cryptocurrencies and the potential upcoming bear market? Will MicroStrategy lend or stake Bitcoin in the future to earn interest? How does he view Asian companies imitating MicroStrategy? Will MicroStrategy develop its own Bitcoin Layer 2 network? How much Bitcoin does Michael personally hold, and why did he announce plans to destroy his private keys after death? Does he still support the view that "bank custody is safer than self-custody"? How does he view Trump's new policies and Bitcoin as a national reserve? Is there a risk of Bitcoin becoming centralized in the U.S.? Is Bitcoin too expensive, only affordable for the rich and institutions, and how does he view young people's preference for memecoins? Is Bitcoin a religion? What advice does he have for Chinese investors?

As of February 9, 2025, MicroStrategy holds 478,740 BTC, with a total acquisition cost of $31 billion and an average price of $65,033, making it the entity with the largest Bitcoin holdings in the world.

The audio transcription was completed by GPT and may contain errors. Please listen to the full podcast:

Xiaoyuzhou:

https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/episodes/67b02f39606e5c594095f4d0

YouTube:

https://youtu.be/llrDZPjR3KE

Can you introduce yourself and MicroStrategy?

Michael Saylor: I founded MicroStrategy at the end of 1989. We initially started as a business intelligence software company and went public in 1998. I have also founded about a dozen other companies, including a public company. I have always been interested in the history of science and how it impacts economics. I studied at MIT, majoring in aerospace engineering and the history of science. I wrote a book called "The Mobile Wave," discussing how software migrated to mobile devices and brought about transformation. I explored what happens when software runs on mobile devices. In 2020, I discovered Bitcoin, and subsequently, our company became the first to incorporate Bitcoin into its balance sheet. Today, we are the largest holders of Bitcoin in the world.

Will MicroStrategy continue to acquire Bitcoin? How much will it acquire at most?

Michael Saylor: Yes, we will continue to acquire Bitcoin. You can think of us as a real estate development company. Suppose you were the first company to go public in Manhattan, constantly acquiring and developing real estate there, and it was 1750; you would continue doing this for hundreds of years. So, you are not selling; you are continuously buying. We will continue to develop Bitcoin, viewing it as "digital Manhattan"—a digital asset. We will keep acquiring Bitcoin and then use it as collateral to launch other businesses. For example, we are now the largest issuer of convertible bonds in the U.S. market and have just launched our first convertible preferred stock. These two types of securities collateralized by Bitcoin are unique in the market. As the price of Bitcoin rises, we will continue to do similar things while also seeing new opportunities.

Some say that if MicroStrategy's average purchase price for Bitcoin exceeds $150,000 in the future, it may face risks. Do you agree with this view?

Michael Saylor: No, I do not agree. Most of the Bitcoin we own was acquired through equity. For example, we currently hold Bitcoin worth $45 billion to $50 billion, while our debt is only $3 billion, and all of that debt is already secured by assets. So, in reality, the Bitcoin we own as collateral is 15 times our debt. Moreover, our debt is non-recourse and has a term of over four years. Therefore, if Bitcoin drops to $1 tomorrow, there would be no problem at all. I mean, even if Bitcoin crashes by 98%, the company would not face liquidation risk. The company possesses permanent capital.

What do you think about the price cycles 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 concept of cycles. I think the idea of cycles comes from the first 10 to 15 years of the crypto world. Now, we have entered an era of institutional investment, where most of the capital in the market comes from large institutions, and it enters in the form of equity. For example, BlackRock and ETFs have purchased over $100 billion worth of Bitcoin in the past year, and the amount of Bitcoin they purchased exceeds the total mined by miners. So, when we went through the last halving, the amount of Bitcoin mined and sold became secondary; what truly dominates the market is the demand for Bitcoin, which has entered a different phase.

I think being overly focused on cycles is somewhat distracting. People try to time the market perfectly but always fail. If you tried to time the best moment to buy Manhattan real estate over the past 300 years, you might end up convincing yourself not to buy. But in fact, buying at any price over the past 300 years would have been the right decision. The same applies to Tokyo real estate. If you tried to time the best moment to buy Apple stock over the past 40 years, the biggest mistake would have been not buying. What you have is a dominant digital currency network that will only continue to rise. I believe Bitcoin will rise by an average of 29% per year over the next 21 years. By that standard, by 2045, the price of each Bitcoin will reach $13 million. The price you can buy it for now is 1/100 of that. So, does it really make a difference whether you buy at $95,000, $105,000, $92,000, or $108,000? Traders do not become wealthy; they just participate in the market. Global billionaires like Bernard Arnault, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk became wealthy because they bought a dominant digital monopoly asset and held onto it rather than frequently trading in the market.

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

Michael Saylor: I don't think we will do that. I believe the smartest approach is to issue securities collateralized by Bitcoin. When you lend Bitcoin to someone else, you take on risk because they may not return it. But if you are issuing securities to the market, you still hold the Bitcoin. There are correct and incorrect ways to manage risk.

A better approach would be to use $10 billion worth of Bitcoin as collateral to issue $1 billion in securities and pay 8% interest while investing at a 60% yield. Wouldn't that be better? You can hold your own assets while earning a 52% spread. If you can achieve a 60% return through the Bitcoin network while borrowing at an interest rate of 8%, 10%, 12%, or another value, why not do it? This is much better than lending out $10 billion worth of Bitcoin for a 4% interest return. Why would I take the risk of $10 billion for a 4% return instead of earning a 40% return with zero risk?

What do you think about some mining companies and Asian listed companies imitating MicroStrategy?

Michael Saylor: I believe that the more participants join the Bitcoin network, the higher the price of Bitcoin will be, and the stronger the entire network will become, benefiting everyone. I expect that we will evolve from having only a few companies adopting the Bitcoin standard to dozens, hundreds, and eventually thousands of companies joining.

You can choose to invest capital in bonds, where the after-tax yield may only be 2%-3%; or you can invest capital in Bitcoin and achieve a 30%-60% return, which is a tenfold return. I believe that, in the long run, companies will make rational choices, and I think they will eventually start considering this issue. The more companies that adopt the Bitcoin standard, the better it will be for all Bitcoin holders and all companies adopting the Bitcoin standard. This is a virtuous cycle.

Will MicroStrategy develop its own Bitcoin Layer 2 network, or support existing Bitcoin Layer 2 solutions?

Michael Saylor: I think we will first observe market developments. You can view MicroStrategy as operating on the third layer of Bitcoin. The second layer consists of open protocols like Lightning, while the third layer includes platforms like Binance, Coinbase, or MSTR, which are proprietary protocols. So, we already have a three-layer architecture with daily transaction volumes reaching billions of dollars. We recently launched Strike, another third-layer protocol, with daily transaction volumes reaching tens of millions, even exceeding $50 million. These are secure layers, or third-layer protocols, that are already very strong and attract certain types of investors.

In the future, second-layer solutions like Lightning may succeed, but I believe the real billion-dollar opportunity currently lies in the third layer.

How much Bitcoin do you personally hold? What is your average purchase price? Do you hold any other cryptocurrencies?

Michael Saylor: I do not hold any other cryptocurrencies. About four years ago, I publicly disclosed that I held 17,732 Bitcoins, with an average purchase price slightly below $10,000 each. I don't remember the exact number, but this information can be found in my public tweets. Since then, I have bought some more, but I have never sold any. Therefore, I currently hold more Bitcoin than I did back then, but I have not publicly disclosed how much it has increased.

You mentioned that after your death, the Bitcoin private keys would be destroyed. Why not leave them to your family or donate them?

Michael Saylor: I am single and have no children. Regarding charity, I believe that if you have a large amount of resources, you must ensure that these resources are ultimately used for the right things. If you directly destroy the private keys, it is essentially proportionally donating those Bitcoins to everyone in the Bitcoin network. Isn't that fair? This is the most equitable way.

If you believe in Bitcoin and have invested a certain amount, then anyone who destroys their private keys is actually supporting those who share the same beliefs as you. This is an immediate, irrevocable, and permanent donation. But if I donate this money to a charity, 100 years later, when I am no longer around, the managers of that organization might spend it on things I do not endorse. 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 might not even agree with those uses. So, a person who has been dead for 100 years is criticized because their money is used for some controversial purposes. This is the risk of leaving wealth to foundations or trusts.

Of course, there are other ways. You can spend that wealth while you are alive or set very strict usage rules. If you have family and want to leave Bitcoin to them, that might also be a reasonable choice.

But I think Satoshi set a very admirable example. Satoshi has 1 million Bitcoins, but those Bitcoins have never been moved. In effect, he destroyed the private keys and disappeared forever. This is equivalent to permanently contributing 5% of the value of the Bitcoin network to everyone. I think this is a very meaningful thing.

You mentioned that banks might be safer than individual self-custody. Do you still believe that?

Michael Saylor: I believe that different people should adopt different ways to custody Bitcoin. Some people are very good at self-custody, and they should manage it themselves. But there are also some people who do not have that capability. For example, would you let a 3-year-old child manage Bitcoin on their own? Or an 80-year-old who cannot even type or read the keyboard? If they are blind, can they safely custody Bitcoin?

The answer is obvious, right? If you set up a trust fund for an unborn child, can they manage Bitcoin themselves? Who should be responsible for custody? There are also some companies that are legally not allowed to self-custody Bitcoin. This raises another question—do you really want your mayor to manage all the Bitcoin on behalf of the city's residents? What if the mayor embezzles? What if they are kidnapped or murdered?

In the early days of Bitcoin, many people recognized the importance of self-custody because the market was filled with "crypto cowboys" and short-term operating platforms. But the difference between Mt. Gox and JP Morgan is enormous. A large bank has thousands of cybersecurity and compliance experts and very strict operational processes, while many crypto exchanges may only have a few people managing them.

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer here. If you live in a war-torn area, like Iraq or North Korea, and you do not self-custody Bitcoin, you are likely to lose it. But for many institutions and organizations, they cannot legally purchase Bitcoin without a custodian. So, the rational view is that some people should self-custody, some can manage through mnemonic phrases, some can engrave their phrases on metal plates, some use hardware wallets, and some need to rely on institutional custody, whether domestic or overseas.

So the key is what type of entity you belong to—are you a city, a charity, a family, a trust, or an individual? The real question is, what is your investment horizon? Is it 100 years? 1,000 years? Or is it 1 year, 5 years? Will you die in 3 years? It ultimately depends on how uncertain your environment is. Are you living in Manhattan, or Ukraine or Afghanistan? Are you living in Africa? If so, which country in Africa? All these factors will influence your choices.

It also depends on your physical and mental condition. Some people cannot even type, some cannot see the text on their phones, and some do not even have a phone. In the crypto world, people often assume everyone is a 20-something male. If you are between 20 and 40, your view of the world may be quite similar. But in reality, there are many people who do not belong to this group—some are cancer patients, some are 85-year-old seniors, and some are in completely different environments. Therefore, everyone needs to make decisions based on their own circumstances.

If you are too dogmatic or stubborn about how to custody Bitcoin, it may actually limit the growth of the network. I believe the wisest approach is to be inclusive of all types of entities worldwide, regardless of their environment. Anyone who purchases Bitcoin-supported assets in any way is actually contributing to the development of the Bitcoin network. The ultimate goal is to continuously expand the Bitcoin network.

What impact do you think Trump's election would have on the crypto industry? Do you think he would establish a national Bitcoin reserve?

Michael Saylor: I believe Trump's election would be positive news for the entire industry, including Bitcoin and the crypto sector. What specific impact it will have remains to be seen. But if the White House, cabinet members, regulatory agencies, the Senate, and the House of Representatives all support the crypto industry, then the political consensus will lean towards promoting technological advancement, business development, freedom, sovereignty, and capitalism.

I believe this political consensus means that the government may introduce many constructive and positive policies to help the industry grow. As for what specific measures will be taken, we will have to wait and see.

There is another viewpoint that Bitcoin or the entire cryptocurrency industry may become more centralized in the U.S. Do you agree with this statement?

Michael Saylor: No, I think it is clear that Bitcoin is the most decentralized crypto asset globally. Miners are distributed all over the world, and so are holders. Bitcoin has the most decentralized developer community, the most decentralized holder community, the most decentralized miner community, the most decentralized business participants, and the most diverse regulators and policymakers. At the same time, it is also the most well-known brand in the crypto space.

Bitcoin is also the most stable; its protocol has changed very little. For example, Ethereum has a 10-year roadmap with over 40 updates planned, while Bitcoin has no so-called "roadmap."

Bitcoin is complete; it was essentially finalized over a decade ago. You could say that Bitcoin was essentially complete when it was born on January 3, 2009. An ideal protocol should be widely distributed, mathematically complete, logically sound, and gain global consensus. Currently, the only asset recognized globally as logically complete is Bitcoin. So, I do not believe Bitcoin is becoming centralized; rather, I think it is continuously decentralizing and becoming more distributed.

Hundreds of millions of people globally hold Bitcoin, and no other crypto asset is as widely held, recognized, and supported as Bitcoin.

Are other cryptocurrencies worth considering? What do you think of memecoins now?

Michael Saylor: I believe that if you look at digital assets, you can categorize them: digital commodities, digital securities, digital tokens, digital NFTs, digital ABTs (asset-backed tokens), and digital currencies.

Technically, digital commodities are assets without issuers, supported by digital computing power. Bitcoin is the most powerful digital commodity. There may be a few similar digital commodities globally—assets without issuers supported by computing power—but 99% of the market share belongs to Bitcoin. Digital commodities are best suited as currency, a store of value, or digital capital. In this case, the strongest asset will ultimately be monetized, while other assets will be demonetized.

For example, if you decide to make gold a monetized asset, then silver, copper, palladium, and paper currency will ultimately go to zero. Currently, within the entire crypto ecosystem, Bitcoin is being monetized. All other assets attempting to become digital commodities will ultimately go to zero relative to Bitcoin and should go to zero. Because why hold the second-best thing? You only need the best, and Bitcoin is the best.

If we talk about other types of assets, like stablecoins, they do have market demand. However, the regulatory environment is still unstable. If the U.S. establishes a clear regulatory framework for stablecoins, allowing U.S. companies or banks to issue digital currencies backed by dollar equivalents, then this market could grow 10 times or even 100 times, potentially reaching a scale of $10 trillion.

But even so, the dollar remains the strongest fiat currency globally. So, what is the second-best currency? The euro. But what is the future of the euro? It will go to zero. No one really wants other currencies. No one wants yen, no one wants euros, and no one wants any fiat currency from Africa, Asia, or South America. If you talk to Europeans, you will find that 99% of the demand for digital currencies in the European market is for digital dollars, not digital euros. The euro is already the second-strongest currency in the world, but even so, the market still leans towards the dollar.

As for memecoins, they belong to digital tokens. Currently, there is no regulatory framework for digital tokens, so they do not have a path to legalization. But if a complete regulatory framework for digital assets is established in the future, such as the U.S. clearly defining tokens as assets supported by issuers with digital uses but no physical uses, then memecoins might be included.

If the regulatory framework can be further refined, such as defining digital securities (supported by issuers and backed by securities assets), ABTs (supported by issuers and backed by physical assets like an ounce of silver, a barrel of oil, or a gold bar), and NFTs (assets with digital uses supported by issuers), then the market could issue millions of assets in a standardized way and ensure their compliance. The problem is that such a complete digital asset framework has not yet been established globally.

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

Currently, there is a general consensus in Washington, D.C. that a regulatory framework for digital assets should be established. But the problem is that Congress has not yet legislated or passed relevant bills. Therefore, we are now in a "gray area"—the market has demand, and regulators recognize the need to establish rules, but the laws have not yet been enacted. In this situation, there is no path to legalization, so as an institutional investor, I cannot make a clear judgment on it. If you are a public company or institutional investor using other people's money, it may not be appropriate to invest large sums of money (like $1 billion) in these uncertain assets. You can only wait for the final legal decision, and we do not have an answer yet.

Some people believe Bitcoin is now too expensive, only affordable for the rich or institutions. What do you think?

Michael Saylor: I think this is just a cognitive misconception. Bitcoin is actually cheaper than a house, yet people still buy houses, right? It is cheaper than a yacht, but people still buy yachts. It is cheaper than an expensive piece of art. More importantly, you do not need to buy a whole Bitcoin; you can purchase one hundred millionth of a Bitcoin—also known as one Satoshi—for less than a penny. You can spend $20 on Bitcoin, or you can spend $200, $2,000, $200,000, $2 million, or even $2 billion on Bitcoin. The way to acquire Bitcoin is actually much fairer than buying real estate in Tokyo, Hong Kong, or New York. You cannot buy one hundred millionth of a building, but you can buy one Satoshi of Bitcoin.

So, this idea is wrong. People simply lack understanding; they have cognitive errors, sometimes misled by other projects or investment ideas. But if your goal is to make money or become wealthy, you must overcome these cognitive biases. Buying $100 worth of Bitcoin is a smarter choice than buying $100 worth of stocks because Bitcoin is a digital asset, while stocks and real estate investment trusts (REITs) are just securities.

From an asset ownership perspective, stock ownership is far inferior to Bitcoin. If you invest $100 in a real estate development company, you are just a limited partner, a small shareholder, with no ownership of the real estate itself. But if you buy $100 worth of Bitcoin, you are the complete owner. You can self-custody it, lend it out to earn returns, use it as collateral for loans, and transfer it freely. So, if you have to choose between real estate and Bitcoin, let’s take an example: is there any building in Hong Kong that you can buy for $50? Impossible, right? So, Bitcoin is a better investment and much fairer than buying real estate in Hong Kong.

Moreover, if you buy a building in Hong Kong, you cannot take it out of Hong Kong, right? But Bitcoin is different; you can buy a little bit every week for your entire life. You can transfer Bitcoin outside of Hong Kong or self-custody it, completely separating it from the Hong Kong banking system. That is a truly powerful asset, far superior to any other asset.

So, I believe people should respect Satoshi's vision. Thank you.

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 communicating with various companies. As long as someone is genuinely interested, I will have in-depth discussions with their CEOs or board members. Most of the time, I communicate privately with them through MicroStrategy's videos. The reason I publicly release that content is that I want all public companies to see it. The analytical logic is the same for any public company—they rely on bonds for 99.9% of their capital structure, and they should turn to Bitcoin as an asset reserve.

I periodically communicate with different companies and continuously advocate for the Bitcoin standard. Just this past weekend, I released an excellent video from the CFO of Jet King. Jet King is the first company in India to go public on the Bombay Stock Exchange and adopt the Bitcoin standard; they have already begun converting cash flow into Bitcoin. I believe at least 100 more companies in India will follow the same path, so I shared that video.

At MicroStrategy, we publish a lot of data related to Bitcoin, such as BTC returns, BTC appreciation, and BTC dollar appreciation, and we have established a dedicated website to help companies understand financial management under the Bitcoin standard. Now, many companies are imitating our approach; their lawyers are studying our financial reports and legal documents to find suitable methods for themselves.

I see this as an ongoing promotional campaign. There are 400 million companies globally—400 million! They should all allocate assets based on the Bitcoin standard. Of course, you cannot persuade them one by one, so you must create videos and publish content to allow the information to spread organically.

Many people have come to understand the Bitcoin standard and been inspired because they saw my podcast or MicroStrategy's public documents. I have never met them, but that does not prevent them from recognizing us. I hope that in the future, someone in Hong Kong will also see our podcast and start thinking about the Bitcoin standard, thereby benefiting from it.

We are spreading a new economic idea, new technology, and a new network consciousness. I believe this will empower people more.

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

Michael Saylor: I believe that improvements in certain aspects are meaningful. For example, miner nodes will continue to optimize, ledger nodes will improve, and hardware wallets and signing devices will get better.

There has been intense discussion in the community about whether changes to the Bitcoin protocol are necessary. Personally, I lean towards a relatively conservative position. I believe that we should be extremely cautious and thoughtful when advancing any changes. Most protocol adjustments or proposals may be "iatrogenic"—meaning that the harm they bring may outweigh the benefits. This situation is similar to lawmaking. People always try to regulate the economy through legislation, resulting in thousands of pages of laws in hopes of making the market more efficient. But ultimately, they find that if you implement millions of rent control regulations, the real estate market will be destroyed, and renting becomes even more difficult.

Politicians and regulators always propose various new ideas, but 99.9999% of proposals end up being bad. Therefore, we should be highly skeptical of these changes. Of course, there may occasionally be necessary new ideas, and we can consider them cautiously at that time. If there is a broad consensus in the community, I would support it. But in most cases, we do not need massive protocol upgrades.

Many new proposals often benefit a specific Layer 2 solution or a particular Layer 3 protocol but harm the interests of the entire Bitcoin community. Therefore, I believe we should maintain an extremely conservative, cautious, and skeptical attitude towards protocol changes. Frankly, most proposals resemble a "cancer," bringing more harm than good to 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 closely bind economic energy with individuals. In human history, this is the first time a mathematical and technological protocol has emerged that can bind capital (economic energy) to companies, individuals, and even nations. We have never had anything like this before. This transformation is akin to someone inventing language for the first time.

Imagine what would happen if I introduced the numbers 0 to 9 into the language system for the first time. What if I took those numbers away, forbidding you from using them, or even forbidding you from expressing the concept of "14"? You would feel extremely constrained, right? If I deprived you of fire, electricity, mathematics, or forbade you from speaking or expressing complete sentences, or even removed all nouns from the language, your ability to express yourself would be utterly destroyed.

So, I see Bitcoin as an economic protocol that promotes prosperity. It is the first economic protocol in human history based on science, thermodynamic principles, physically reliable, and mathematically rigorous. So, Bitcoin is an ideology, but is it a religion? I am not sure. It may lean more towards a secular ideology.

However, many people believe that elements like mathematics, electricity, and fire are crucial to human development. If you try to deprive people of these things, they may rise up in resistance. I believe the reason Bitcoin can inspire such great enthusiasm is that it is a protocol that drives economic prosperity.

What would you like to say to Chinese investors?

Michael Saylor: I believe Bitcoin is becoming a globally emerging capital network. This digital energy network is expanding at a rate of hundreds of millions of dollars every day, becoming stronger and stronger. It is supported by the most powerful computing capabilities globally, relying on a decentralized network of millions of computers. Anyone in the world can access this energy network.

You can access this network by purchasing Bitcoin, holding Bitcoin, developing applications based on Bitcoin, or building homes, companies, cities, or even countries based on Bitcoin. There are many ways to participate. When I joined the Bitcoin network, its market cap was only $200 billion, and now it has surpassed $2 trillion, and it will reach $20 trillion, $200 trillion, or even $400 trillion in the future. This network will continue to grow during our lifetime.

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

Some may ask, "What if Bitcoin stops rising?" But that question is like asking, "What if water stops flowing downward?"

What if time stops moving forward? What if you drop something from a mountain, and it no longer falls? What if gravity suddenly fails? These things will not happen. If you understand the physical principles of the Bitcoin network, you will realize that none of this is random.

This aligns with thermodynamic principles. Why does fire burn? Why does it produce heat? It is not random. Why can electricity be harnessed? Why do water wheels work? Why does ice melt? Why does water boil? These are not random phenomena; many people simply do not understand the principles behind them. If you understand the physical principles of economic systems, you can build a machine.

You can build hydroelectric power stations, airplanes, and ships. Henry Ford looked at flames, and perhaps someone asked, "What if the fire goes out?" But the fire will not go out. The essence of an internal combustion engine is to ignite a flame inside a machine and let it burn forever.

If you ignite a flame in a jet engine and continuously input kerosene to carry you across the Pacific for 15 hours, someone might ask, "What if the fire goes out?" If the fire goes out, your plane will crash. But the key is, it will not go out. Why? Because engineers designed the machine to ensure the flame does not extinguish.

So, I want to tell everyone that you can design a better financial system. You can build an economic machine fueled by Bitcoin. MicroStrategy is like a "crypto reactor," with Bitcoin as its fuel. This is not random. If you think this is just speculation, then you do not truly understand it.

Just like in ancient times, some believed flames were created by deities and worried that if they angered the fire god, the fire would go out. But Henry Ford did not think that way; he created the entire automobile industry, allowing everyone to own a car. Today, there are over a billion cars globally.

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

You can evade it or complain about it, but if you want to create a better world, if you want to become wealthy, if you want to change the future for 10 billion people, you need to become an engineer. You cannot just be afraid of being electrocuted, burned by fire, or terrified of divine thunder; you must take control of it, harness it, and drive the world forward.