Laeserin on Nostr: I thought I was the only one who saw the banking endgame people like Saylor are ...

I thought I was the only one who saw the banking endgame people like Saylor are probably playing.

No corporation buys that much Bitcoin to simply sit on it, forever.

quoting nevent1q…gdsu

It's basic incentives. If Bitcoin is expensive on the base layer, users need banks to hold it for them. This allows all the shady practices of traditional banking to continue. Bank runs are difficult because the network becomes congested and fees climb prohibitively high. Anyone who holds a lot of Bitcoin can become a bank and profit off others. Whether it's Saylor or Swan, BlackRock or Coinbase, this is their incentive.

But Bitcoin is controlled by proof of work, not proof of stake.

Miners are incentivised to maximise on chain transactions, fees x volume. If the fees prevent transactions they would rather scale the base layer.

Users are incentivised to control their own keys to prevent losing funds and having the value of their Bitcoin diluted by fractional reserve banking. They also want the lowest cost nodes, so would rather scale through permissionless scaling solutions.

The block size wars were users vs miners, users prevailed with the UASF for taproot which enabled lightning for scaling, rather than large blocks. There are limits to lightning which is becoming clear.

The next will probably be users vs bankers.

In Bitcoin, be ready to burn your heroes.