Olivia
Online
DrP
@salathe
Interests, Horses ( podiatry ) Dogs, Cats, Internet Crypto, Mining BSV and all things IT. Climbing, entrepreneurship, and feline veterinary topics ;-) $salathe
Durham UK
Joined February 2008
1K Following
349 Followers
2.7K Posts
Michael Saylor: CEO of Kool-Aid & King of the Corporate Cult
Prophet of Thermodynamic Delusion, Martyr of the Shareholder Ledger, High Priest of the Hopium Eucharist
Michael Saylor didn’t just buy Bitcoin. He made it his god, his brand, and his exit strategy—all in one hit. One day, he’s the sleepwalking CEO of a dying analytics firm. The next, he’s Moses on Adderall, descending from Mount CoinDesk with two stone tablets engraved with HODL memes and a $4 billion leverage position. He didn’t “get into” Bitcoin. He inhaled it through both nostrils, rubbed it on his gums, mainlined it into his portfolio, and started speaking in tongues about monetary entropy and solar flares. If CNBC had any decency, they’d list MicroStrategy’s ticker under cults, not tech.
This is a man who mortgaged his company, diluted his shareholders, and sold junk bonds to buy an asset he barely understood but described like a stoned freshman in a physics lecture. “Bitcoin is energy… truth… time… fire… the solution to thermodynamic decay.” Somewhere in that word salad is a quarterly loss the size of a small nation’s GDP. But don’t worry—he’ll tell you it’s just “volatility within the upward spiral of monetary transcendence.” No one’s allowed to say it, so I will: Michael Saylor sounds like a TimeCube forum moderator who discovered PowerPoint.
He turned a public company into a leveraged Bitcoin ETF without regulatory approval and called it strategy. No risk management, no hedging, just pure uncut conviction wrapped in a technocratic death spiral. He didn’t DCA. He YOLO’d with shareholder equity and the confidence of a man who thinks gravity is optional if you believe hard enough. When the price went up, he was a genius. When it crashed? Still a genius—just temporarily misunderstood by the universe. It’s not a loss, it’s a “long-term adoption curve.” Right. And my pub tab is an investment in the future of hops.
Let’s talk about his sermons. Watching a Saylor keynote is like entering a doomsday prepper’s TED Talk. He mixes metaphysics with markets, quotes Genghis Khan and Thermo Fisher in the same breath, and finishes with a dead stare like he just heard God whisper “sats” in his ear. You’ll hear things like “Bitcoin is a swarm of cyber hornets” and “digital property in cyberspace carved into blocks of thermodynamic integrity.” Translation: he’s lost the plot and we’re all supposed to clap. It’s the kind of presentation that makes you wish overhead projectors still caught fire.
And the followers—oh, the followers. They call him visionary. Visionary? He’s a Maximalist Elmer Gantry with a calculator and a martyr complex. He thinks every company should convert its cash reserves into Bitcoin and hold through hell. Tell that to CFOs who like not being sued. The man would sell his spine to buy another sat if he thought it might make a headline. And every time Bitcoin drops, he doubles down like a bloke who walked into a casino, bet the house, lost, and claimed it was all part of his macro thesis.
His real genius is simple: he saw a cult and crowned himself messiah. He didn’t build Bitcoin. He bought it—on margin, at the top, with a grin. He took shareholder capital, loaded it into a cannon, and fired it at the moon while shouting "laser eyes!" Then he called it legacy. Bitcoin didn’t need Saylor. But he needed it—needed something to wrap around the rotting husk of MicroStrategy and make it look like destiny, not desperation. And people bought it. At least for a while.
He didn’t lead a revolution. He converted a balance sheet into a suicide note and read it aloud at every conference.
#SaylorTheSacrificial #ThermodynamicTrainwreck #HopiumMessiah #KoolAidCFO #BTCClownVerse #MicroStragedy
@369bsv So good ❤️
Looking at my own work with complete honesty, I can readily admit that my design skills are dreadful. The interfaces are ugly as hell. If aesthetics were the measure of engineering, I would already be convicted.
Fortunately, software is judged by whether it works.
By tomorrow, I expect to have the system loaded and integrated so that the wallet, the game layer, and the supporting infrastructure operate together as a coherent whole. There are still multiple configuration options and some areas where the integration can be refined, but that is largely a matter of presentation and convenience rather than functionality.
The essential point is one that critics seem determined to overlook. The difficult part already works. The mental poker system works. The underlying protocols work. The trustless interactions work. The cryptography works.
One can always hire a designer to improve appearances. It is rather harder to hire someone to invent a functioning trustless mental poker system.
As one as Satoshi might have observed, there are only two kinds of software: software that is beautiful and does not work, and software that works and is eventually made beautiful. I know which category I would rather inhabit.
For those who do not yet understand what I am releasing, that is entirely expected.
Most people will initially see banking software.
Others will see encrypted files.
Others will see wallets, databases, digital assets, threshold cryptography, or Bitcoin integration.
Some will see NFTs and immediately misunderstand everything.
The real significance lies elsewhere.
For the first time, digital property can potentially become property in the same sense that physical objects are property.
Possession can become distinct from copying.
Transfer can become distinct from replication.
Ownership can become something more than a database entry or a legal assertion.
The implications extend into finance, law, publishing, government, defence, science, engineering, intellectual property, information security, and every field where information possesses value.
Most people will not understand this immediately because every digital system they have ever used was built upon the assumption that information is copied.
This is built upon the assumption that possession can be transferred.
That distinction sounds small.
It is not.
It changes the economics of information itself.
If successful, I believe this will ultimately prove to be one of the most important developments in computing outside of artificial intelligence.
Not because it creates another product.
Not because it creates another market.
But because it creates an entirely new category of property.
It will take years for people to understand the implications.
Probably a decade.
Many will dismiss it.
Many will misunderstand it.
Many will attempt to explain it using old models and old assumptions.
That is normal.
Truly new ideas are always interpreted through the lens of what already exists.
The final irony is that the part many people will find hardest to understand is not the cryptography, the threshold systems, the possession model, or the architecture.
It is that after spending years building it, I am giving it away.
The code will be public.
The architecture will be public.
The ideas will be public.
Anyone will be able to study them.
Anyone will be able to build upon them.
Anyone will be able to improve them.
The value was never in hiding the idea.
The value is in what the world does with it once the idea exists.
Who to follow
We even drove 90 mins to a local branch, only to be told to "go back to the car and keep calling the same number." We have the rental agreement number ready. Someone needs to take responsibility and dispatch help NOW. #Avis #CustomerService (2/2)
@Avis @AvisFrance This is an unacceptable safety issue. A solo female traveler has been stranded in rural France (La Palud-sur-Verdon) with a flat tyre. Your 24/7 emergency line has ignored multiple calls and voicemails with ZERO callbacks. (1/2) >
The Senior Advisor
What the D2 Legal Technology post reveals about the BSV Association's SEC engagement
By MrBen
The photograph from outside the SEC building on May 11 told you the BSV Association was operating at a different level than its public reputation suggested. Three days later, a LinkedIn post from D2 Legal Technology revealed how much more had actually been happening behind that photograph. The delegation was larger, the legal infrastructure more substantial, and the institutional connections wider than the initial picture indicated.
This piece works through what the D2LT post reveals, why each detail matters, and how it connects to the institutional architecture being assembled across multiple jurisdictions.
Who D2 Legal Technology is.
D2LT is a London-based legal technology firm founded in 2011 by Akber Datoo. They work at the intersection of law and technology in financial services, advising on tokenisation, digital assets, regulatory technology, and the legal architecture that institutional finance requires to operate at scale. They have offices in London, Manchester, Bristol, Frankfurt, New York, Charlotte, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Sydney.
Their client base reveals where they sit institutionally. D2LT's About Us page lists their clients as including ISDA, ICMA, ISLA, Insight Asset Management, BlockFi, the BSV Association, Tokenovate, the Philippines SEC, World Fuel Services, and Export Trading Group. The institutional weight of that client roster matters. ISDA is the trade body for the global derivatives market. ICMA is the International Capital Market Association. ISLA is the International Securities Lending Association. The Philippines SEC is a national securities regulator. These are not minor relationships. D2LT operates at the level where serious financial infrastructure decisions are made.
Three of those names matter particularly for what is happening now. The BSV Association and Tokenovate are both D2LT clients. This is the institutional link that connects the SEC engagement, the Bank of England Synchronisation Lab work, and the broader institutional architecture being assembled. The same legal-technology consultancy is advising both the BSV Association on US regulatory engagement and Tokenovate on the BSV-native CDM-compliant settlement protocol that is in production inside the Bank of England's Synchronisation Lab.
That coordination is significant. It means the legal architecture being built across the US regulatory framework and the UK settlement infrastructure is being developed by the same legal-technology professionals working with the same conceptual frameworks. This is not coincidence. It is institutional infrastructure being deployed in parallel across jurisdictions.
Jeffrey Golden's role.
The D2LT post reveals that Hon. Jeffrey Golden KC is a Senior Adviser at D2LT. Not a freelance consultant. Not acting solely in his personal capacity. He is institutionally embedded at the specialist legal-technology firm whose work spans the BSV Association, Tokenovate, and securities regulators across multiple jurisdictions.
This changes the institutional picture of the SEC engagement considerably. Golden was not just bringing his personal credibility from 25 years of work on the ISDA Master Agreement. He was bringing the operational vehicle of D2LT, which is already advising securities regulators globally on the exact frameworks the BSV Association needed to discuss with the US SEC.
D2LT's recent collaborations, named in the same post, include work with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Philippines, the Securities and Exchange Regulator of Cambodia, and the National Bank of Cambodia on virtual asset and stablecoin regulation. The BSV Association engaged the same Senior Adviser who is also informing securities regulators across the Asia-Pacific region.
Go big or go home….🚀🚀🚀🚀
To fund a $5 trillion tax base within a system of pure economic justice, we must approach the problem with a clarity that shatters the bureaucratic mysticism surrounding taxation.
A nation that moves over a quadrillion dollars annually (USA) does not require convoluted tax codes, exceptions, or loopholes designed to placate the weak and the dishonest. It requires a direct, transparent, and immutable mechanism that honors the values of production and exchange.
The figure is simple. A 0.5% tax on the total global transaction volume of U.S. dollars—across every financial system, every purchase, every investment—delivers the $5 trillion required.
But this is no arbitrary tax, no imposition on the freedom of individuals. This is the tax of reason, a tax that applies equally and fairly to every dollar moved, reflecting the scale of the economy itself.
Every person, every business, every institution—whether buying a loaf of bread or trading billions in securities—pays the same. It is not a tax on wealth but on action, on movement, on participation. You want to engage with the marketplace? Then contribute to the maintenance of the system that makes it possible.
There is no room for evasion, no need for tax lawyers or accountants twisting the law to serve special interests. It is the ultimate expression of fairness—clean, visible, and universally applied. This is not the coercion of the state but the rational cost of living in a society where free trade is honored and protected.
The power of this system lies in its simplicity and its unyielding moral foundation: that no one should live at the expense of others. In a system where every dollar moved bears its weight, the producers are free to create, knowing that the government takes only what is necessary and nothing more.
This is the tax system of the future—a tax system worthy of a society that values its individuals as ends in themselves, not as tools of the collective. And in this, we find the true meaning of justice.
I am happy to state that my third Q1 peer reviewed publication has been accepted.
By the end of next year, no academic will be able to claim that blockchains do not scale on L1 and all the myths will be dispelled.
Much more still to do.
Hi @LisaNEdwards help us move #BSV trading from the cartel trading platforms and get some real price discovery starting...
A global person-to-person economy is frightening because it asks a question that banks, governments, payment processors, platforms, and regulators prefer not to hear: why must exchange pass through you?
I do not want the power.
I do not want the money.
I do not want the control.
That will confuse a certain type of person, because a certain type of person cannot imagine building anything except as a prelude to owning the throat through which everyone else must breathe. They think invention is merely the larval stage of monopoly. They think every road must have a tollbooth, every tool must have a landlord, every market must have a priest, and every creator must eventually be reduced to a tenant.
That is their disease.
I have seen what power does. I have seen what money does. I have seen what control does. I have seen it in others, and I have seen it trying to work its way into me. Anyone who says power does not corrupt is usually either lying, already corrupted, or too dull to notice the smell.
I have a good life.
I do not need to build another cage.
What I want is simple.
I am developing this. I am releasing it this year. It is already underway. And when it is ready, I am handing it to everybody.
Not to a foundation.
Not to a platform.
Not to a cartel.
Not to a board of soft-handed little managers who will spend three years discussing governance while quietly writing themselves into the rent stream.
Not to anyone to control.
For everyone.
Anyone, anywhere on Earth, who wants to build with it will be able to build with it. No permission ceremony. No kneeling at the polished altar of Silicon Valley. No begging some intermediary to please allow innovation this quarter, provided it does not disturb the advertisers, the banks, the exchanges, the app stores, the regulators, the consultants, the custodians, or whatever other magnificently useless creature has inserted itself between work and value.
Everything tied to a blockchain.
Everything provable.
Everything private.
Everything controlled without needing gatekeepers and intermediaries standing in the way, charging rent on movement, access, ownership, identity, distribution, or trust.
That is the point.
Not another monopoly.
Not another walled garden.
Not another empire of managed dependency dressed up in the cheap perfume of innovation.
A system where digital goods can exist as property. Where ownership can be proven. Where transfer can be recorded. Where rules can follow the object. Where privacy can remain intact. Where creators can create, buyers can own, and markets can form without asking permission from people whose chief economic function is obstruction with a logo.
The old world was built by middlemen who discovered that if they stood close enough to value, they could convince everyone they had created it.
They did not.
They merely blocked the road and charged admission.
The new world is coming.
And no, it will not be dragged in by me alone, kicking and screaming against the weight of the old order. That is not how worlds change. Worlds change when enough people stop accepting the lie that the cage is there for their protection.
It will come because builders want to build.
Because creators want to own their work.
Because families want more than managed decline and subscription life.
Because people want a better world than the one designed by intermediaries, bankers, platforms, and the thin little men who confuse custody with civilisation.
I am not giving this to the powerful.
I am giving it to those who are tired of needing the powerful.
I am giving it to the people who want more for their families.
I am giving it to the people who want to build businesses without permission, publish without dependence, sell without surrender, create without being farmed, and own without being told that access is the modern substitute for property.
The middle will hate it.
Good.
The gatekeepers will sneer.
Let them.
Later this year, you are going to find that things start appearing.
Some will be under my name.
Some, perhaps, will not.
That is not the important part. Names are useful things, in the same way labels on poison bottles are useful: they help the inattentive avoid consequences. But the work is what matters. The ideas are what matter. The systems are what matter.
And the systems are coming.
For years, people have been told a very comfortable story. They were told that certain things were impossible. They were told that scale had limits. They were told that innovation had to crawl politely through the corridors of approved opinion, bowing before gatekeepers, academics, regulators, bankers, exchanges, committees, and all the other upholstered furniture of institutional fear.
They were told that Bitcoin could not do what it was designed to do.
They were told that micropayments would not work.
They were told that massive scale was fantasy.
They were told that the old intermediaries were permanent.
They were told that the world required friction, delay, permission, settlement layers, custodians, trusted third parties, compliance theatre, and all the greasy little tollbooths of modern finance.
They were told this by people whose livelihoods depend on the lie.
And, naturally, they believed it.
People usually believe the story that asks the least of them. It is easier to believe that the future is impossible than to admit one has spent years worshipping a ceiling built by cowards.
But ceilings are funny things. They look like the sky to men who have never seen a hammer.
Everything you believed was impossible is about to be tested.
The limits you thought existed are about to be rewritten.
The things you thought could not be created are about to be built.
Not discussed.
Not theorised.
Not placed on a panel beside some professionally vacant creature nodding gravely about “the future of innovation.”
Built.
The world does not change because a committee approves a white paper, or because a bank produces a glossy report, or because a politician learns three technical words and misuses all of them before lunch.
The world changes when someone builds something that makes the old excuses look ridiculous.
That is what is coming.
A great many people have spent a great many years mistaking obstruction for victory. They thought they could delay the work long enough for the story to die. They thought ridicule would replace mathematics. They thought litigation would replace invention. They thought social consensus would replace engineering.
It was a charming theory.
It was also wrong.
Because the work continued.
Quietly, stubbornly, sometimes invisibly, but always forward.
And now the shape of it will begin to appear.
Later this year, people will start to understand that the limits they were sold were not laws of nature. They were sales brochures for the existing order. They were bedtime stories told by intermediaries to keep the livestock calm.
The world is not waiting for permission.
Bitcoin is not going away.
The digital cash system is not a slogan. It is not a fashion accessory for exchanges. It is not a casino chip for men with podcasts and no technical competence. It is infrastructure. It is machinery. It is an economic weapon against unnecessary friction.
And machinery, once properly built, has a vulgar habit of working whether fashionable people approve of it or not.
So enjoy the old story while it lasts.
Enjoy the sneers, the comfortable impossibilities, the little rituals of dismissal, the theatrical certainty of men who have confused temporary control with permanent reality.
Because the next story is already being written.
Some of it will have my name on it.
Some of it may not.
But all of it will point in the same direction.
The limits are moving.
The ceiling is cracking.
And the world they told you could not exist is about to introduce itself.
Explosion in Price Coming Soon, Because the Real Explosion in BSV Adoption Has Already Begun. 🚀💥
Why is this a revolution?
• AI agents will conduct millions of micro-payments per second between themselves (agent-to-agent commerce)
• Metanet is becoming the “SanDisk for AI” — cheap, immutable, globally available on-chain data storage
• Teranode acts as a trust layer against deepfakes — providing a tamper-proof audit trail for every agent output
• Agent-native tools are already emerging (MCP, 402 paywalls, on-chain wallets)
This is not the future.
It is already happening in testing and early adoption.
Teranode is no longer a promise — it is a working, distributed architecture that in May 2026 is achieving results other blockchains can only dream of:
• 1M+ TPS (one million transactions per second) and up to 100 billion transactions daily in testing ⚡
• Unlimited blocks (terabyte-scale) with true horizontal scaling
• Ultra-low fees — a fraction of a cent
When thousands, and then millions of autonomous AI agents start choosing BSV en masse as the cheapest, fastest, and most reliable payment rail and data layer — demand for BSV could explode in a way we have never seen before.
The adoption explosion has already started.
The price explosion may follow right behind it.
In a scenario where BSV becomes the default settlement layer for AI agents and Metanet becomes the standard for on-chain data storage (just like SanDisk in the 2000s+), a price of $1,500 – $3,000+ per BSV / real Bitcoin (SV) would no longer be science fiction — it would become a realistic possibility.
Real Bitcoin (SV) is not waiting for the future.
It is building it.
The storm is coming. 💥🌊
#RealBitcoin #BitcoinSV #BSV #Teranode #AIAgents #Metanet #AgentEconomy #SatoshiVision #MassAdoption
@Thebitcoinway_ Yes... but BTC is not like bitcoin.
So good a very creative pragmatic approach…
The End of the Tradeoff
How BSVM removes the last argument for settling on Ethereum
The institutional argument for choosing Ethereum was never that it had the best architecture. It was that it had the developers, the tools, the wallets, and five years of accumulated infrastructure. Architectural problems were known. Inertia kept everyone there.
Canton is being chosen now for the same reason. Not because it solves the problems A&O Shearman and Deutsche Bank have publicly described, but because it fits inside existing institutional comfort zones.
This was the trap. Institutions believed they had to choose between two things: keep their existing Ethereum world and accept its finality problems, or move to a substrate with proper settlement guarantees and rebuild everything from scratch.
That choice was real. Until now.
BSVM removes the trap
@___siggi___ Óskarsson, Chief Technology Officer of the BSV Association, has built something that should not have been thought possible: a way to run the entire Ethereum world on top of BSV, without changing any of the tools the developers use, while every transaction settles with BSV's
proof-of-work finality underneath.
What this means in plain terms: an institution that has spent five years building on Ethereum keeps everything. Every smart contract. Every wallet. Every developer skill. Every integration. None of it has to be rewritten. The interface stays the same.
What changes is what happens beneath the surface. Instead of settling on Ethereum (with all the problems A&O has now publicly described), the transactions settle on BSV. Instead of relying on
validators that can be coordinated, censored, or pressured, the system relies on cryptographic proofs
that BSV's own miners verify before accepting anything.
There is no operator with special privileges. There is no fragile bridge connecting two chains that can be hacked. There is no settlement that can be reversed by social consensus. There is just BSV's proof-of-work doing what it has always done, with the entire Ethereum application layer running on top of it.
The cost is roughly $0.00005 per transaction. Not a typo. Five hundredths of a cent. And the cost stays stable because BSV fees do not spike during market events the way Ethereum's do.
Why this could not have been built in 2020?
Three things had to converge before this was possible, and Siggi recognised the moment they did.
First, the Genesis upgrade in February 2020 restored the original Bitcoin opcodes and removed the artificial size limits that had been imposed on Bitcoin Script. The Chronicle upgrade in April 2026 went further, lifting more constraints. Without these upgrades, the cryptographic verification that BSVM depends on would not fit inside a BSV script. With them, it fits comfortably.
BSVM depends on would not fit inside a BSV script. With them, it fits comfortably. Second, the underlying proof technology (STARKs) had to mature to the point where they could verify general computation, not just narrow custom circuits. A team called Succinct Labs released a
tool called SP1 in 2024 that made this practical. Without SP1, building proof verification for the
Ethereum Virtual Machine would have been a multi-year, multi-million-dollar engineering project.With SP1, it became something an experienced compiler engineer could actually implement.
Third, someone had to write a real compiler for Bitcoin Script. Hand-writing the verification code by hand was not realistic. Siggi built that compiler. It is called Rúnar, and it lets developers write smart contracts in any of five high-level languages and produces Bitcoin Script that is correct by construction. Three independent versions of the compiler, written in three different languages, produce identical output. This is the kind of defence-in-depth normally seen only in safety-critical software.
(Continued) 👇
Important distinction
That statement is inaccurate.
Bitcoin refers to the original digital cash system defined and released in 2008–2009. It is the protocol described in the Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System white paper and implemented in the original software. Its purpose is the deterministic recording of electronic transactions—cash transfers verified by proof-of-work and timestamped into blocks.
BTC is a derivative implementation that diverged from that protocol through policy and rule changes introduced years later by the group known as BTC Core. These alterations—chiefly block-size restrictions, segregated witness redesigns, and off-chain settlement layers—transformed it from a scalable cash system into a speculative asset network. The codebase and consensus rules differ fundamentally from the system set out in the white paper.
In essence:
Bitcoin → the original digital cash protocol (restored in BSV)
BTC → a modified derivative maintained by BTC Core developers
The difference is therefore structural, not semantic.
One is a functional micropayment network consistent with the original design; the other is a reengineered financial product marketed under the same name.
The full name of BTC is “the altered derivative of Bitcoin created by Core developers through protocol changes beginning with SegWit.” It ceased to be Bitcoin the moment the protocol was modified. Bitcoin, as defined, is the original digital cash system described in the 2008 white paper and implemented in the 2009 release — unaltered, fixed, and set in stone.
As for store of value, that phrase applies to systems that function, scale, and remain economically sustainable — not those that rely on speculative scarcity.
BSV’s value lies in its capacity for real utility: micropayments, data transactions, and enterprise-scale use, not in hoarding or hype.
My latest book is available now
https://t.co/NkZbD7FpGJ
Day 56 of getting the word out there.
https://t.co/vTL1J1DCvo
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.2M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.6M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
109M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.3M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.6M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
86.9M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
80.7M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.2M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.4M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.6M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
68.6M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.4M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
61.2M followers
X
@x
60.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60M followers