Interview with Strategy Founder: In 20 Years, BTC Will Be $2 Million, DAT Company Will Reshape the Trillion-Dollar Credit Market
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Interview with Strategy Founder: In 20 Years, BTC Will Be $2 Million, DAT Company Will Reshape the Trillion-Dollar Credit Market
One day, every company will become a Bitcoin treasury company.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsCompiled & Translated: TechFlow
Guest: Michael Saylor, Executive Chairman and Co-Founder of Strategy
Host: George Mekhail, Managing Director at Bitcoin for Corporates
Podcast Source: Bitcoin For Corporations
Original Title: Michael Saylor: The Bitcoin Treasury Endgame - An Exclusive At-Home Interview
Air Date: September 30, 2025
Key Takeaways
An exclusive in-depth interview with Michael Saylor exploring how Bitcoin will become central to the global credit market and shape the future economy.
In this conversation, Michael shares his vision for Bitcoin’s future: it will disrupt traditional capital models, redefine corporate balance sheets, and serve as the cornerstone of the 21st-century economic system. From the rise of Bitcoin asset management firms to the development of Bitcoin-backed credit instruments, this dialogue paints a comprehensive picture of the future of money, banking, and economic sovereignty.
Highlights Summary
-
Bitcoin's value will grow at an average annual rate of 29% over the next 20 years, reaching $2.1 million in 21 years.
-
Crypto exchanges may more actively adopt Bitcoin reserve strategies.
-
The optimal strategy for investing in Bitcoin is direct investment. Corporate participation does not crowd out individuals; instead, it makes early believers wealthier.
-
Bitcoin is the best capital asset choice globally for corporations. One day, every company will become a Bitcoin treasury company.
-
If Bitcoin is to be widely accepted worldwide, companies, banks, exchanges, operators, cities, states, and even federal governments must participate. We do not want anyone excluded.
-
I believe that currently, 95% of financial decision-makers still don't truly understand digital energy, digital capital, and digital currency. But this isn’t necessarily bad. If everyone agreed on an investment opportunity, it wouldn’t yield massive returns.
-
The concept of Bitcoin as digital gold or digital capital is entirely new. If we accept Bitcoin as digital gold, then it can also be seen as digital capital. Any credit instrument backed by Bitcoin can be viewed as digital credit.
-
Bitcoin treasury companies compete against traditional credit and equity instruments in capital markets. They use Bitcoin as leverage or monetary foundation to create superior equity and credit products.
-
Strategy’s ideal path is to become a pure Bitcoin treasury company focused on issuing equity and high-quality Bitcoin-backed credit instruments.
-
In the future, the Bitcoin network will evolve into a multi-trillion-dollar ecosystem where total digital credit could reach $10 trillion, $20 trillion, or even $100 trillion.
-
The 20th-century banking networks, credit systems, and equity capital markets will undergo a complete transformation. Bitcoin will become the core foundation of 21st-century digital credit, digital equity, digital banking, digital capital, and the digital economy, while Bitcoin treasury companies will act as engines driving this evolution.
-
Our goal is to make this future so attractive that no one wants to be left out. Ultimately, everyone must choose between being “smart, fast, strong, and rich” versus “stupid, slow, poor, and weak.”
-
Following the "Genius Act," the "Clarity Act" is expected to become the next major legislative focus. This bill may further define the legality of tokenized assets.
Bitcoin Is Hope
George Mekhail:
It's great to have Michael Saylor here today. You've said 'Bitcoin is hope'—can you share what that 'hope' looks like? Where exactly does this 'hope' manifest? And how would life change for ordinary people under a Bitcoin standard?
Michael Saylor:
Looking back at human history, technology has been key to improving lives. One of the earliest technologies—fire—was symbolic of hope. Without fire, humans might have frozen or starved. Then came technological progress through the Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Steel Age.
The invention of the wheel was equally 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 700 people—and auxiliary vessels can reach 1,000 horsepower. This technology allows us to harness energy more efficiently and improve living standards.
Bitcoin is hope because it represents digital energy—a technology capable of transmitting energy across cyberspace. It embodies digital property, digital capital, and digital gold. More deeply, Bitcoin is a tool for transferring energy across time and space, supporting 8 billion people, millions of businesses and institutions, governments, and local authorities worldwide.
If fire was hope because it kept you warm; if electricity was hope because it lets you ride elevators in skyscrapers; then Bitcoin is hope because it is digital energy. It can transfer energy at light speed from one end of Earth to another, solving individual or corporate problems. This technology marks a new stage in humanity's mastery of energy and will greatly enhance quality of life.
George Mekhail:
As this transformation unfolds, we're gradually moving toward a Bitcoin standard—or what some call 'hyper-monetization.' What signs do you see indicating this trend is materializing?
Michael Saylor:
We’re really talking about the integration of digital energy into civilization. So what should we look for? We can start with basic applications of digital energy as capital. Currently, there’s a rising trend of public companies recapitalizing with Bitcoin.
Our company was the first to do so in 2020, followed by two or three others, then ten, twenty, and now over 180 companies using Bitcoin as treasury reserves. I expect that when we go from hundreds to thousands, then tens of thousands, you’ll know the world has embraced Bitcoin. As someone once said, one day, every company will become a Bitcoin treasury company.
Thus, the number of companies recapitalizing with Bitcoin is a metric of adoption. Another adoption metric is integrating Bitcoin support into software applications. Right now, you have apps on iPhone or Android—like Cache App—that support Bitcoin, along with Bitcoin wallets. But I anticipate a day when Apple integrates it into the iPhone, Google into Android OS, and Microsoft into Windows.
Either it becomes core to every consumer device operating system, or embedded in hardware itself. People begin integrating Bitcoin support into all devices spreading globally. I think this will be another very important signal.
George Mekhail:
You mentioned five years ago you were just entering the Bitcoin space—back then almost no one knew you existed in this industry. Now, as you say, you’ve become a leader among Bitcoin treasury companies. We’ve spoken with executives from 14 different countries planning Bitcoin strategies. Many say they want to be the Saylor of their country. How do you view your role in this field? Do you consider yourself a leader of this movement?
Michael Saylor:
I believe we have a responsibility to set a good example for others and to support and help other participants in the market. We’ve tried many new things, conducted various experiments, and worked hard to share our experience. Since entering Bitcoin, we’ve sponsored enterprise Bitcoin conferences and released operational manuals. We’ve open-sourced our methodology and publicly disclosed our securities filings detailing our actions and lessons learned. I believe we have an obligation to point out what works and what doesn’t.
One thing inspiring about this movement is that the Bitcoin ecosystem differs from many traditional industries. In traditional sectors, it’s often winner-takes-all: Walmart defeated most retailers, Amazon put thousands out of business, Apple replaced many device makers. But in Bitcoin, everyone can win.
This is because we share the same value system and all operate around Bitcoin as the base asset. Bitcoin supply is capped at 21 million coins, and everyone relies on the same Bitcoin network. Therefore, the growth of Bitcoin treasury companies and the success of any Bitcoin-holding company positively impact the entire Bitcoin network and other companies.
It’s very gratifying to see this industry grow stronger. We strive to do our part, while seeing other companies make outstanding contributions. Every day, new companies try different strategies, and I think we’re all learning. If certain strategies prove effective, they get adopted more widely; if not, we avoid repeating mistakes. Thus, this movement resembles a team effort, with everyone contributing to collective progress.
Doubt, Criticism, and Social Acceptance of Bitcoin
George Mekhail:
Let’s talk about FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) and criticism. Some may be skeptical of your work in Bitcoin, even calling them 'haters.' Are there particular criticisms or misunderstandings about you that stand out?
Michael Saylor:
I think when an airplane flies supersonically, it creates shockwaves and sonic booms. This happens because the plane moves faster than sound can propagate through air, causing molecules to fail to transmit information in time, resulting in turbulence and noise. Similarly, Bitcoin’s growth rate has exceeded society’s ability to adapt.
Since 2011, Bitcoin has faced repeated misunderstandings and skepticism—in 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021—without exception. When we entered Bitcoin in 2020, we faced much criticism too. Our stock was only $10 per share then, and critics remained vocal when it rose to $100; when it fell back to $20, criticism didn’t subside. Even when we held $2 billion worth of Bitcoin, some claimed we lost $1 billion. But when we made $10 billion, those critics vanished—only to be replaced by new skeptics. Each Bitcoin price increase triggers fresh waves of criticism and misunderstanding.
Even if Bitcoin reaches $100,000, $1 million, or $2 million, these misunderstandings and doubts won’t disappear—new FUD will always emerge. Those who mocked our losses will fade away, but new voices will question: “Is buying Bitcoin reasonable now? Won’t it drop lower?” This is a typical social phenomenon—new ideas always take time to be accepted.
Historically, many paradigm shifts took decades to gain acceptance. Electricity took decades to spread; John D. Rockefeller was considered crazy for 30 years until he became the world’s richest man; nuclear energy was misunderstood for nearly 50 years until recently recognized as vital for AI data centers. Digital energy like Bitcoin will face similar skepticism and resistance.
It took 30 years for people to shift from thinking John D. Rockefeller was insane to acknowledging him as the wealthiest man. When he topped the list, people thought his story ended—but with the invention of automobiles, his wealth grew tenfold. This shows society usually takes a long time to accept new paradigms. Yet, looking back, these changes seem natural—fire, electricity, wheels, oil, even nuclear power.
Nuclear energy, for example, was seen as dangerous for 50 years. Only recently did people recognize its importance—especially in the era of rapidly advancing AI, where it’s seen as essential for powering AI data centers. Without nuclear energy, technological progress might stall, slowing our journey toward intelligence. Despite being clean, sustainable, and nearly inexhaustible, humanity took 60 years to gradually accept it.
Therefore, I’m not surprised that digital energy faces similar skepticism and criticism. Many may simply fail to grasp its potential. As physicist Max Planck said: “Science advances one funeral at a time.” He meant guardians of old ideas rarely accept new ones; only when a new generation of decision-makers emerges—or the old guard departs—does society gradually embrace innovation.
Sometimes society needs dramatic events or shocks to accept new things. Those who didn’t believe in airplanes only acknowledged them when planes flew over their cities and dropped bombs; those who doubted nuclear energy realized its power only after nuclear weapons detonated. Similarly, the 2020 pandemic and global economic turmoil revealed the fragility of the monetary system and prompted rethinking of digital currencies and digital energy.
Still, I believe 95% of financial decision-makers today still don’t truly understand digital energy, digital capital, and digital currency. But this isn’t necessarily bad. If everyone agreed on an investment opportunity, it wouldn’t generate huge returns. To achieve 10x or 100x gains, the key is finding opportunities overlooked by the majority.
Take investments during the 2020 pandemic: nearly everyone thought buying Amazon stock was best since it clearly met pandemic demands. Yet, it turned out to be one of the worst investments over the past five years. This shows that widely accepted opportunities often lack high-return potential.
George Mekhail:
Do you think there will be a tipping point where more people start accepting Bitcoin, as you just described? It sounds like you’ve observed such a trend. Or perhaps doubters started questioning five years ago, but their views are increasingly proven wrong. However, what you just discussed focuses mostly on traditional finance. What about skepticism within the Bitcoin community? Does it surprise you, or is there anything distinctive about it?
Michael Saylor:
The Bitcoin community is indeed influential, with diverse viewpoints. Some even call Bitcoin “the enemy’s currency.” In fact, skepticism surrounded the community even before Bitcoin existed—it was born amid doubt.
This skepticism is deeply rooted in Bitcoin’s culture and ethos, forming an attitude of questioning everything. Phrases like “kill your heroes” emphasize not trusting anyone but verifying everything yourself. Bitcoin’s core principle is “don’t trust anyone or any institution.” If you ask: how do you design a protocol that requires no trust in any person, company, or government? You realize it’s a fascinating challenge. I think this skepticism serves a purpose.
But sometimes, this skepticism can become counterproductive idealism. In life, we do need to trust certain things—airplane manufacturers, car makers, even your dentist. After all, you can’t perform your own appendectomy, right? So sometimes, we need some level of trust.
I think a more mature view of Bitcoin isn’t rejecting trust entirely, but recognizing its core value lies in granting people choice. You can choose to trust someone or an institution, and withdraw that trust anytime. For example, if you don’t trust a national government, you can move your Bitcoin elsewhere; if you trust a custodian, you can deposit Bitcoin with them, and if trust fades, move it elsewhere. Even if self-custodying, if you later feel unable to manage it, you can transfer custody to family members. This flexibility is Bitcoin’s core strength.
Bitcoin enables this choice because it originated from distrust in traditional finance. That distrust, skepticism, and critical thinking are integral to Bitcoin culture. Yet, technology’s full potential can only be unlocked through cooperation. Whether trusting a custodian, hardware maker, or service provider, collaboration ultimately expands possibilities. Bitcoin’s uniqueness lies in letting you withdraw trust anytime to protect your property rights.
This choice also acts as a powerful deterrent. Take gold—its failure stemmed partly from extreme storage difficulty. Looking back at the 1920s, major nations operated under the gold standard—Germany, France, Britain, and the U.S. held large gold reserves, but most were concentrated in London and New York. France stored gold in Britain or the U.S., Germany in the U.S. There’s a famous story: German central banker Schacht visited New York and met Fed Chair Ben Strong. Strong wanted to show him Germany’s gold, so he led him to the basement of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—but they couldn’t find it.
This illustrates gold’s storage challenges and highlights Bitcoin’s advantages. As a digital asset, Bitcoin is easier to store and grants individuals and institutions greater choice and flexibility. Hence, Bitcoin can be a more decentralized and reliable store of value than gold.
The moral: gold storage is so difficult that even a nation like Germany couldn’t locate its gold—let alone ordinary citizens and businesses. This is one reason gold ultimately failed—storage was too slow and complex, leaving property rights controlled by central institutions. Imagine if the entire world relied on gold as credit backing, yet all gold was stored in London and New York—especially New York. Such centralization wouldn’t let 40 million companies and 400 million people truly own gold.
In contrast, Bitcoin is an asset individuals and businesses can genuinely control. While I advise idealists not to blindly trust banks or companies, it’s undeniable that in the gold era, storage was so difficult that no company could independently safeguard its gold—not even banks. If we enter a world with 40,000 banks acting as Bitcoin custodians, it’d be a massive leap from the highly centralized world of just six to eight gold custodians.
Therefore, I believe Bitcoin’s core value lies in granting freedom of choice. I don’t oppose banks adopting Bitcoin. In fact, if every nation willingly accepted Bitcoin and became its custodian, we’d have a global system where 150 nations jointly safeguard Bitcoin. Such a system would be far more decentralized than the gold standard and could last centuries. Even conservatively, if only banks and governments held Bitcoin, decentralization would exceed the gold standard by 100–1,000x. With corporate participation, it jumps to 10,000x. In a world where millions or tens of millions self-custody Bitcoin, decentralization increases hundreds or thousands of times.
So I prefer focusing on this fact: even in the worst-case scenario, today’s decentralized monetary system is vastly stronger in integrity and fairness than the gold standard 100 years ago—even stronger than any historical peak. This progress is remarkable and provides a fairer, more efficient foundation for future finance.
Government and Institutional Roles: Driving Bitcoin Globalization
George Mekhail:
Recently, the U.S. government acquired a 10% stake in Intel, sparking broad discussion. Do you see any connection between such equity strategies and the goal of becoming a global Bitcoin superpower?
Michael Saylor:
I don’t think they’re related at all. When the government says it wants to be a global Bitcoin superpower, it means promoting Bitcoin through policy and support. They want the banking system to fully support Bitcoin—offering loans, yields, and credit services; pushing Bitcoin trading and circulation; encouraging tech giants like Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft to support Bitcoin. They want more public companies to buy Bitcoin, more institutional custodians, favorable tax and securities regulations. They want U.S. financial firms—like BlackRock, Coinbase—to lead global adoption of digital assets and Bitcoin.
George Mekhail:
However, some criticize that if companies hold large amounts of Bitcoin, could it harm ordinary people? How to avoid excluding small users?
Michael Saylor:
Actually, no. When our company started, Bitcoin was $9,000 each; now it’s $115,000. This rise mainly occurred because our company bought 3% of Bitcoin, and institutions like BlackRock bought about 4%. Still, 93% remains in individual hands—worth nearly $2 trillion. Individuals holding Bitcoin before corporate involvement have already gained $1.8 trillion. So corporate participation hasn’t crowded out individuals—it’s made early believers richer.
Individuals freely decide how to use this wealth. For our company, if we hold 5% of the Bitcoin network, its price might reach $1 million each. With higher holdings, it could hit $10 million. At 7%, if firms like BlackRock follow, prices rise further, yet 85% stays with individuals.
Companies are vital drivers of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Each company, each large purchase, injects momentum into the Bitcoin network. Without corporate involvement, Bitcoin might stagnate around $5,000. Worse, if companies supported other networks—like Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, or Ethereum—Bitcoin’s value could decline further and eventually vanish. Then, these companies might lobby governments to change laws favoring other networks, completely sidelining Bitcoin.
This is a “protocol war”—a battle determining the future of money. Winning requires institutional capital and corporate participation, as government policies decisively influence fund flows. Governments can restrict funds to certain networks or promote inflows via supportive policies. Thus, corporate and institutional involvement is crucial for Bitcoin’s future.
Therefore, I believe companies play a critical role in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Through lobbying, marketing, and defending the Bitcoin network, they protect individuals from risks like asset seizure, network shutdowns, or excessive taxation. Companies are the first line of defense, miners the technical line securing the network with energy and hash power. Bitcoin treasury companies are the economic line stabilizing the network with capital. Exchanges are another technical line developing apps and websites to drive Bitcoin circulation. We hope these key players—exchanges, treasury firms, miners—flourish globally with ample capital.
Thus, I believe there’s no conflict between companies and individuals. This isn’t a zero-sum game. If Bitcoin is to be widely adopted globally, companies, banks, exchanges, operators, cities, states, and federal governments must all participate. We don’t want anyone excluded.
Finally, let me use an analogy: Bitcoin is like English. If you speak English and discover the world’s most powerful people also use it, would you resent them? If wealthy banks offer English services, do you feel they’ve stolen your language? Of course not. Instead, we want the rich, powerful, and influential to use our language, adopt our protocol. If their actions threaten you, you can understand their language to identify and respond. Bitcoin is essentially a protocol. Ultimately, we want everyone to use this protocol because it will make the world better—and you’ll benefit too.
Bitcoin Treasury Companies Driving Ecosystem Growth
George Mekhail:
Let’s discuss Bitcoin treasury companies and the wave of adoption. Though we’ve said competition isn’t zero-sum, we still see regional races to gain advantage. Regarding this capital competition, what would you tell companies involved? Any advice?
Michael Saylor:
Let’s start with basic industry concepts. Bitcoin is the monetary base of the crypto economy—it’s digital gold. Looking back 3,000 years—say, reading Xenophon’s Anabasis—the Athenians and Spartans distrusted each other, both distrusted Persia, yet these hostile groups shared one thing: they fought for gold. Why gold? Around 600 BC, gold was widely seen as valuable currency. Despite cultural and religious differences, they agreed on gold’s value.
From the 17th to most of the 20th century, the global economy revolved around gold. Nations issued gold-backed bonds and credit instruments based on gold. These credit tools cycled between gold standards and off-gold periods until 1971, when the dollar left the gold standard. For centuries, gold underpinned credit—until Satoshi invented Bitcoin. Initially, debates arose over Bitcoin’s nature, but by 2025, global consensus emerged: Bitcoin is digital gold.
On CNBC discussions, Bitcoin is widely seen as the monetary base of the crypto economy, as digital gold. While other cryptos may be digital silver, copper, or silicon, Western civilization wasn’t built on copper or silver. Gold-based monetary experiments succeeded; silver attempts didn’t last. Now, we’re transitioning from metal-based monetary networks to cryptographic ones.
What are Bitcoin treasury companies, then? Here, two key paradigm shifts matter: First, the idea of Bitcoin as digital gold or digital capital is entirely new. Only in the past nine months has global consensus slowly formed. This means we can now issue credit instruments—digital credit—based on digital gold. Second, if we accept Bitcoin as digital gold, it can also be seen as digital capital. Any credit instrument backed by Bitcoin is digital credit.
At a macro level, Bitcoin treasury companies’ real potential lies in transforming existing equity and credit markets. Suppose I launch a firm focused on Bitcoin investment, holding $1 billion in Bitcoin assets—I now possess $1 billion in digital capital. I can issue digital credit against this capital. Like traditional gold banks: if I hold $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? This leverage would transform capital markets. Soon, gold note collateral ratios might reach 5:1—one dollar of gold backing five dollars of credit notes. This credit issuance is the basis of modern banking. The strongest credit form achieves 1:1 backing—so theoretically, $1 billion in Bitcoin can issue fully 1:1 backed Bitcoin credit notes worth $1 billion.
So what does this replace? It substitutes existing credit systems, like retail/residential or commercial real estate mortgage lending, corporate credit based on cash flow, or fiat credit relying on government promises to print money. These traditional tools dominated 20th-century capital markets, totaling tens of trillions of dollars.
Understanding Bitcoin treasury companies reveals a compelling business logic: accumulate massive Bitcoin capital via equity financing, then issue credit instruments against it. These can be bond-like instruments, convertible bonds, preferred shares, or variable floating preferred shares. In short, companies can issue diverse credit forms based on Bitcoin as “digital gold.”
By issuing these instruments, companies create leverage for capital. More importantly, as capital is leveraged, corporate equity transforms into “digital equity,” potentially outperforming Bitcoin itself. So who do Bitcoin treasury companies compete against? Not each other, but traditional credit and equity instruments in capital markets. They use Bitcoin as leverage or monetary base to create superior equity and credit tools. Given this, rapid growth is foreseeable. Firms understanding and applying this model will gain massive competitive advantage.
Huge growth space exists for giant firms. Take Meta Planet—they could become not only the world’s most valuable hotel company but Japan’s most valuable firm. Though smaller than us, that doesn’t matter. Crucially, they aren’t competing with us but with Japan’s equity market and yen-based credit market—a unique capital environment.
These capital markets await giant entrants. Mega-firms focused on digital credit issuance might achieve 100x growth. So we’re not competing with other Bitcoin treasury firms—we’re promoting and advocating digital credit. Our goal is digitizing credit markets. Capturing just 1% market share means selling $1 trillion in digital credit—just 1% success brings massive impact.
Note: a dozen U.S. firms also promote digital credit—this helps us. We have 100 million retail investors, yet many in the Bitcoin community don’t even know products like Stretch (a floating-rate perpetual preferred share by Strategy offering cash-like exposure to indirect Bitcoin and stable yield). If we offer a Bitcoin-backed bank account with 10% yield, it attracts more investors. And 100 other firms can replicate this.
You might ask: won’t this squeeze our market? No. We’re describing a superior banking system. Why settle for 2–3% yield from traditional fiat banks when Bitcoin treasury firms offer 10%?
History supports this. In 1920, the U.S. had ~25,000 banks; today only 5,000 remain. Future U.S. might host 5,000 Bitcoin treasury firms. This won’t hurt us or others—until 50% of global credit shifts to Bitcoin-based systems. When Bitcoin-backed credit totals $100 trillion, the Bitcoin ecosystem will reach multi-trillion scale. This isn’t just industry change—it’s an ecosystem leap benefiting many firms.
Who loses? Those stuck in 20th-century credit issuance models. Their credit products lack sufficient collateral, suffer poor liquidity, and offer low yields. They’ll lose market share—why pick illiquid, 4%-yield junk credit over liquid, double-or-triple-yield, 10x-collateralized alternatives?
Thus, these outdated credit issuers will be phased out. Many are obscure small entities—like 4,000 regional OTC banks. Their market share will shrink gradually—not overnight, but over 10–20 years.
In the Bitcoin ecosystem, it’s hard to get into trouble unless you engage in reckless, short-term, high-interest margin loans with extreme leverage. Using your own assets as collateral adds huge risk. But I don’t think public Bitcoin treasury firms will take such extremes—markets won’t allow them such high leverage.
Thus, as long as Bitcoin treasury firms choose prudent financing—issuing long-term convertibles, preferred shares, or longer-dated junk bonds—while holding Bitcoin as core assets, their finances stay stable.
During crypto winters, Bitcoin miners suffer most. They typically borrow short-term (12–18 months) at 15% interest—not to buy Bitcoin, but mining rigs. Miners depreciate 20–30% annually. Financing fast-depreciating assets with short-term debt almost guarantees financial trouble. Conversely, borrowing mid-to-long term to buy assets appreciating 30–60% annually leads to stability.
So for a public Bitcoin treasury firm to truly get into trouble, it needs extremely irresponsible decisions. A few firms might destabilize due to foolishness, but overall, Bitcoin treasury firms fall into three categories:
First are firms focused on digital credit issuance, like Meta Planet. These specialize in equity and pure credit products, potentially growing 100x or 1,000x—becoming the next “MAG 7” stocks (top-tier market cap growers). Market caps could rise from $1B to $10B, even $1T.
Second are strong Bitcoin participants. Not absolute market leaders, but vital ecosystem players. Often diversified, expecting 10x–20x growth. Though less flashy than “MAG 7,” performance remains excellent. They buy large Bitcoin amounts while running businesses. Not fully Bitcoin-focused, but still perform well.
Others buy small Bitcoin amounts while operating other businesses. Over time, non-Bitcoin operations stabilize, while Bitcoin value growth supports market cap. These firms won’t lose money, but without 100% Bitcoin focus, growth may only reach 2–4x. Key factors: management conviction and business model choice.
If you ask what kind of company I’d want to be? Ideal choice: a pure Bitcoin treasury firm focused on issuing equity and high-quality Bitcoin credit instruments. Aim to establish presence in major markets—UK, France, Brazil, Norway, Japan, US, Canada, Germany, Italy. Local firms enjoy tax, regulatory, marketing, and cultural advantages domestically.
In these markets, you can offer highest-yield credit products amid low- or negative-yielding alternatives. In Switzerland, short-term yields are negative. We grew from $600M to $120B (market cap dependent) over five years, undergoing 20 credit issuances at great cost. If starting today, you could skip the first four years of trial. Recommended strategy: raise equity capital, buy Bitcoin, invest all funds into Bitcoin, then issue short-term Bitcoin-backed credit instruments. This eliminates volatility and risk while offering investors 500 basis points (i.e., 5%) above market risk-free rate.
You can build a firm focused on single credit and equity tools, rapidly scaling by repeating this model. Theoretically, you could achieve our results faster—perhaps half or a third of the time. Success hinges on leadership charisma, credibility, and brand trustworthiness.
The Credit Market Revolution Driven by Bitcoin
George Mekhail:
Is your ultimate goal, as you describe it, to build a better banking system? Is that part of your strategic direction? Currently, such products exist—people can invest, and they’re high-quality assets for markets. But is the issue merely educating the public about their existence? Or do we need more proactive measures to advance them?
Michael Saylor:
Yes, I think the ultimate goal is accumulating $1 trillion in Bitcoin, growing at 21% annually. Then accelerate growth by issuing more credit products. Ultimately, we aim to hold $1 trillion in Bitcoin collateral, growing 30% yearly, while issuing $100B in credit tools annually, growing 20–30% per year. These credit products will yield 200–400 basis points above traditional real estate mortgages, corporate bonds, or fiat-backed credit tools.
This reactivates credit markets instead of leaving Swiss investors with zero yields. If half of Switzerland’s credit market goes digital, zero yields could rise to 200–300 basis points. This boosts risk-free rates, alleviates financial repression, improves traditional credit health, and gives Bitcoin investors higher returns—say, 3%.
Similar dynamics apply to the yen market. Eventually, multi-trillion-dollar assets yielding 50 basis points could average 300–400 basis points. These changes restore credit market health and integrity. This process requires cooperation among Bitcoin treasury firms.
In the future, the Bitcoin network will evolve into a multi-trillion-dollar ecosystem where total digital credit may reach $10 trillion, $20 trillion, or even $100 trillion. With $100 trillion in digital credit backed by $200 trillion in digital capital, this won’t be fractional banking but 2x over-collateralization. This surpasses even top U.S. AAA corporate bonds, which typically have 2.5x over-collateralization.
Thus, all these credit products will be AAA-rated with higher yields and greater transparency. My ultimate goal is revitalizing and transforming credit markets via Bitcoin, digital gold, and digital capital. Equity markets will also benefit and regain vitality. Firms like Meta Planet could join equity indices. Over time, all S&P 500 companies might hold Bitcoin. When they do, the index will contain substantial Bitcoin exposure, appreciating 21% annually.
Future companies will be healthier with significantly reduced credit risk. Savings account yields will surge. I believe 20th-century banking networks, credit systems, and equity capital markets will undergo complete transformation. Bitcoin will become the core foundation of 21st-century digital credit, digital equity, digital banking, digital capital, and the digital economy, while Bitcoin treasury companies will act as engines driving this evolution.
We’re in an innovative era—akin to a “Cambrian explosion”—happening globally with endless new ideas. South and North America apply Bitcoin differently. In the future, Bitcoin will appear on insurers’, banks’, and tech firms’ balance sheets. Reimagining insurance with Bitcoin as core power will transform the sector, offering better protection. Likewise, if bank accounts run on Bitcoin instead of fiat, opening a money market account might yield 10.2% (1,020 basis points).
With transformations in banking, insurance, and tech giants like Apple and Google promoting Bitcoin via global channels, we’ll enter a digital transition. This will make economies smarter, more efficient, boosting productivity 10x or 100x. Those integrating into this digital economy will enjoy rapid growth and wealth accumulation, while excluded regions or nations may fall behind and isolate themselves. Our goal is to make this future so desirable that no one wants to be left out. Ultimately, everyone must choose between being “smart, fast, strong, and rich” versus “stupid, slow, poor, and weak.”
George Mekhail:
Do you expect future strategies to extend Bitcoin credit to institutions, sovereign nations, or other pressure organizations?
Michael Saylor:
We don’t expand credit via loans but by issuing credit instruments. If a nation wants 10% yield, it’ll buy our credit instruments over 3%-yielding traditional products. Our goal is creating credit, not borrowing it. We aim to issue not $10B, but $100B, $1T, or even multi-trillion-dollar credit—all 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—pure Bitcoin firms and those with significant operating businesses. Have you noticed trends or have expectations for the future? What factors are key? Where should companies explore more to succeed?
Michael Saylor:
I think crypto exchanges may more actively adopt Bitcoin reserve strategies—this is a great opportunity for them. Platforms like Gemini, Coinbase—already public—might pursue interesting initiatives in this space.
Also, I believe insurers, especially public insurers, may gradually accept digital capital. They hold vast capital for investment and can easily adjust balance sheets to change operations. Some financial institutions—Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone—are innovators. As public firms, they can add Bitcoin to their balance sheets. BlackRock just launched the most successful ETF in history—perhaps they’ll consider holding some Bitcoin. That’s a solid opportunity.
I also believe more innovative credit or equity tools will be developed by crypto-economy-savvy participants. If big firms don’t act, smaller startups will seize the chance. For example, Coinbase filled the gap when traditional banks refused Bitcoin custody. If insurers or crypto exchanges resist Bitcoin, startups like Strike may quickly rise and capture market share. Especially public startups raising large capital—if they integrate it into wallets or credit products—they’ll have strong growth potential.
George Mekhail:
As markets evolve, game theory dynamics grow more intriguing. How do you see the future—especially when Bitcoin treasury firms face major market pullbacks? Will consolidation or mergers emerge? Could Bitcoin treasury firms become ultimate acquirers?
Michael Saylor:
My view: Bitcoin’s value will grow at an average annual rate of 29% over the next 21 years, reaching $2.1 million in 21 years. So I expect Bitcoin’s risk-free growth rate at 29% annually. This means, doing nothing, I earn 29% risk-free. For any Bitcoin-network-based idea, if expected return exceeds 29% plus risk and other premiums, it’s worth trying.
Even considering “diversification discount,” running a public company requires awareness. If my firm relies solely on Bitcoin for risk and return, the business model is simple. Investors can visit our site, view Bitcoin’s volatility, annualized yield, price in real-time, instantly calculate risk and credit spreads. Data refreshes every 15 seconds—simple, transparent.
If we acquire another firm—say, one undervalued by 40%—investors spend immense time judging deal validity, possibly needing 10 years to verify. This turns transparent operations opaque, leading to valuation discounts.
Therefore, for Bitcoin investment, the optimal strategy is direct investment. Suppose you’re a public firm with $1B capital—you can buy $1B in Bitcoin at one-time revenue cost, with 55% average annual growth. Any project growing below 30% annually appears unattractive.
To me, Bitcoin is the ideal acquisition target. It’s the leading global digital currency network, projected 30% annual growth over 20 years, nearly risk-free. Why pursue other directions? They add uncertainty and “diversification discount.” Conglomerates often trade below net asset value because markets see diversification diluting core business—this dilution distracts focus.
So while acquiring Bitcoin treasury firms trading below net asset value is possible, it’s not for us. Many firms focus on M&A—private equity investors, conglomerates. Their models allow acquiring firms rather than focusing on Bitcoin investment.
If you’re a fiat believer or advocate other philosophies, you might find firms whose business valuations sit below their Bitcoin book value. Then you might acquire them to get operations free while gaining Bitcoin value. That logic holds.
For instance, acquire a loss-making retailer holding large Bitcoin. Another firm might cut costs, optimize operations, spin off Bitcoin to profit—seeing Bitcoin’s value but not wanting retail. If a firm’s total valuation falls below its Bitcoin holdings, markets likely see operations as burdensome. I prefer direct Bitcoin investment—a leading global digital asset growing 29% annually. My investors support this transparent, efficient approach—not wasting funds on problematic acquisitions.
For pure Bitcoin firms, acquiring other Bitcoin treasury companies isn’t appealing. But for private equity or conglomerates, such deals fit their logic. Ultimately, such transactions depend on capital cost and strategic goals. If you believe Bitcoin grows 29% annually over 20 years, direct investment is clearly superior. For low-cost-capital firms, acquiring Bitcoin-related assets remains attractive.
George Mekhail:
Is the Bitcoin-purchasing strategy applicable across all capital markets? Are there untapped markets? For example, Africa shows no real progress. Which markets hold the most potential now? Any overlooked opportunities?
Michael Saylor:
In global capital markets, Bitcoin is the optimal capital asset choice for corporations. In some countries—Cuba or North Korea—laws may ban Bitcoin, but economically, it’s still better. Especially in Venezuela, Nigeria, and much of Africa, Bitcoin’s appeal is clear—55% annual growth, possibly sustained near 30%.
Compared to other capital assets collapsing or pegged to the dollar. In Africa, local currencies and credit systems face depreciation. So every company should use Bitcoin
The next question: where can public company investors earn the highest returns? How achieve 10x or 100x in equity investment? Answers lie in mature but financially repressed markets—Switzerland and Japan. They have massive capital markets, multi-trillion-dollar scales, but near-zero risk-free rates—e.g., one-month T-bills at zero or 50 basis points—versus Bitcoin’s 55% annualized return.
Thus, theoretically, any pure Bitcoin firm in these markets—any European market—risk and basis-point correlated, Switzerland and Japan are ideal. If U.S. risk-free rates drop to 200 basis points, that’s a major tailwind for U.S. Bitcoin treasury firms. Then, firms can offer 7% dividend yields while capturing 90% long-term and 100% short-term gains—an extremely profitable model.
The Future of Asset Tokenization
George Mekhail:
Let’s discuss “tokenizing the world”—a lasting trend. How do you see this evolving in the Bitcoin ecosystem? What asset might be tokenized next?
Michael Saylor:
The core idea is enabling everything to move at light speed. So why not tokenize the dollar? Or Bitcoin on Lightning Network, or other assets. Now, everyone wants faster Bitcoin transfers—from seconds to milliseconds. To achieve this, tokenization on Bitcoin’s Layer 3 protocols helps. Almost all stocks and bonds can be tokenized. BlackRock already tokenized U.S. Treasuries and some financial instruments.
If Apple or Microsoft stocks were tokenized, anyone could hold Apple stock in India on a Saturday afternoon. Tokenization makes capital markets more efficient, fair, fast, smart, and powerful. It grants users self-custody or partial self-custody. If done on decentralized networks, stocks and securities may become bearer instruments—who holds it, owns it.
Now, general consensus accepts asset tokenization. SEC’s Atkins, CFTC’s Contez, and Treasury’s Scott Best all support it. They believe the U.S. should lead in digital assets—meaning pushing tokenization of all assets.
Currently, only one relevant law exists—the “Genius Act”—covering partial dollar tokenization but not granting full usage rights. Existing laws impose restrictions—e.g., only banks can offer yield on tokenized dollars. Still, legal progress pushes tokenization forward. After the Genius Act, the Clarity Act may become the next legislative priority. It might further define the legality of tokenized assets.
Yet, the Clarity Act doesn’t fully accept “digital securities.” So even if passed, legal recognition of tokenized stocks, bonds, and real-world assets remains uncertain. This legal ambiguity creates technical uncertainty.
For example, if laws clearly allowed asset tokenization and fast transfers, Apple could tokenize every stock via Apple Pay. But without clarity—if Apple allows transfers between sanctioned individuals using tokenized securities—legal liability remains unclear, possibly delaying Apple’s efforts.
This shows decentralized or semi-decentralized networks have clear advantages in tokenization—they can enable it despite regulatory uncertainty. Thus, I believe we’re moving toward a world recognizing digital securities and digital tokens, a trend supported by SEC and CFTC. Though not fully achieved, rulemaking will likely advance this step by step.
Whether tokenized stocks, bonds, or other crypto tokens gain full legal status remains uncertain. I think we’re in transition—industry leaders may pioneer these technologies, making them de facto standards.
Once these de facto standards emerge, massive capital will flow in. Perhaps by 2028, tokenized assets enter legal frameworks—or maybe not, possibly sparking debate. I can’t conclude definitively. But I am sure: Bitcoin, as a digital commodity, has clear value-storage function and can back digital credit. Also, some areas already have legal clarity—firms can create non-interest-bearing stablecoins, banks may tokenize deposits.
Other areas remain uncertain—still a “Wild West.” Yet despite risks, current political climate is relatively free and open. The White House, SEC, Treasury, and CFTC all express support. Two years ago, it was different—regulation was more conservative, skeptical, resistant, with minimal political backing.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
深潮TechFlow
