Michael Saylor, you were forced to realise that all the store-of-value assets are defective and pushed you to focus on the only asset that is not. That does not make you immune to seeing the medium of exchange case. You will see how the housing market is huge when you watch it from one point of view and horrible from another. But if you experience pain driving you to keep your billions of dollars purchasing power, housing is a decent tool to keep it.
Your SoV obsession misses the mark—badly. The biggest aspect of Bitcoin is the medium of exchange. Even though the fiat system increasingly separates money’s functions, that doesn’t mean it should. I get that saying Bitcoin is a medium of exchange is kicking the hornet’s nest, and all the other currency lords will try to stop Bitcoin. It’d be great if they joined in instead of fighting it. That will give all the billionaires certainty that they can put money in it, but simply using Bitcoin just to store value is attacking it. That approach will turn it into digital gold 2.0, captured.
There’s no store of value without a medium of exchange! The medium of exchange comes first. You receive a transaction, then you store the Bitcoin. If the store of value were the main point, imagine announcing you lost your keys for your Bitcoin stack—you’d still store it perfectly, but without the medium of exchange function, the market will wipe out the fictional fiat value layered on top. That value is there exactly because it can move and still can be used as a medium of exchange.
An oxygen tank is vital for reserves, but breathing matters more. The store of value is secondary and relies on the ability to transact. Without that, the store of value means nothing. Michael, you learned this firsthand when your million-dollar holdings in Argentina were diluted by 90%. You struggled to preserve the value not because you did not see it coming but because you couldn’t use it as a medium of exchange. True, a poor store of value weakens the medium of exchange, but why does the latter take priority? Because the ability to exchange is what lets you respond.
By now, most people exposed to Bitcoin know the chart from Jesse Mayers that you popularized. You claim there’s no better idea than a $900 trillion clean store of value, then immediately call Bitcoin one of the world’s most liquid markets, running 24/7/365. Guess what? Liquidity means medium of exchange.
Now, let’s break down the Jesse chart, starting with the housing market. It’s valued at $330 trillion, but it’s such a poor medium of exchange that it only trades for $1.3 trillion annually. Regulations and taxes make trading real estate even tougher. Still, since it’s more than 100 times better as a store of value, billionaires prize it, increasingly dominating the market and pricing out younger generations.
A house might be valuable, but its worth grows not just from what it is but from its ties to nearby utilities. Build a road to it, and the value rises. Add a superstore or a gas station, or connect it to the electrical grid, and the value climbs again. The network creates opportunities for energy to flow into the area, boosting the chance to capture that energy as economic value, like money. So the exchanges that happen in the network are what increases the value of a house. But I see the flip side: if you’re a billionaire and everyone’s after your resources, you don’t want a big network around your house. You’d prioritize privacy instead. The house might lose value, but the goal shifts to raising the cost for others to reach you, reducing the chance to be attacked.
What about the bond market? Bonds are valued at $300 trillion as a store of value, with $140 trillion traded yearly plus $25 trillion in new bond issuance. That means the medium of exchange value is about 50% of its total value annually. It’s better than houses in that sense, but the numbers still show people primarily use it as a store of value.
Next up are equities. Valued at $115 trillion, they were traded for about $175 trillion. This shows their strength as a medium of exchange exceeds their store of value role. Take your MicroStrategy stock—you know it better than anyone. How much value did it store last year, and how much was exchanged through it?
The next two sections are interesting. The art industry’s yearly transactions are so minor that they don’t even register on the chart. Meanwhile, the cars and collectibles sector sees trading volumes of nearly $4 trillion annually. This highlights that they’re mostly seen as a store of value each year, but it also reveals how poorly the housing market performs as a medium of exchange—outdone even by the car market.
Ooooh gold! Gold bugs rave that it’s been around for over 5,000 years, calling it the ultimate store of value for whatever reason—yet it’s just 1.78% of the store of value market. This shows that once its medium of exchange role was stripped away, it became vulnerable to capture and manipulation. Sorry, gold bugs, that genie’s not going back in the lamp. Gold holds $16 trillion in value, and the gold bugs claim it could store the $120 trillion worth of money in it. They’re desperate to pump their bags, but the market disagrees, valuing the defective fiat money ten times higher than the shiny, lifeless rock. Is gold a better medium of exchange, then? It trades at $54 trillion yearly, boosted by derivatives, making its medium of exchange use 3.5 times its store of value role.
Money might not dominate as a store of value among assets, but it’s the leading medium of exchange by far. Other stores of value assets don’t even come close. What if the dollar, the top currency, became just a store of value? It would collapse the USD network, boosting the value of non-US assets as their networks step in to meet the demand. Over time, their store of value assets would rise while USD assets would plummet. Global money totals around $120 trillion, but look at the top central banks’ transaction volumes: Fedwire at ~$1,182 trillion, TARGET2 at ~$765 trillion, CHAPS at ~$145 trillion, and others (partial) at ~$500 trillion (a conservative estimate due to incomplete data). So, while the store of value is $120 trillion—per the Jesse chart—the medium of exchange utility of these networks is over 20 times greater, which is around ~$2.5 quadrillion. What would the medium of exchange value be if 2 billion unbanked people were included? How many more transactions would that spark? And what if microtransactions were possible?
Where does Bitcoin fit into all of this? The prevailing narrative urges holders never to sell, positioning Bitcoin solely as a store of value. Yet, the market tells a different story. In 2024, Bitcoin’s market cap hit $2 trillion, while the value exchanged on its first layer—the blockchain—reached $3.4 trillion. Factor in the Lightning Network (though its exact figures remain elusive), and the total likely approaches $4 trillion. This suggests that Bitcoin’s role as a medium of exchange is twice as significant as its store-of-value function. So, what happens if that long-standing “hold forever” propaganda narrative begins to fade?
Bonds and equities are financial “instruments” that pretend to be money because fiat currency is flawed. This creates a market that shuts out much of the population from safeguarding their wealth, further splitting money’s store of value role. But how inclusive are these instruments? Or are they just tools to siphon value from the fiat medium of exchange, channeling it to privileged individuals and billionaires and others alike with a need to hoard?
Globally, only 10-20% of people have exposure to bonds, mostly indirectly through pension or investment funds, not directly. For equities, 15-25% of the population has some access. That leaves at best 80% of humanity without these tools to protect themselves, making them vulnerable to exploitation. Splitting the store of value from the medium of exchange sets up a dynamic of extractors and the extracted. This amplifies the “cantillion effect”: those who can print the medium of exchange buy up store-of-value assets, sidelining 80% or more of people. It’s a feedback loop that weakens the system, widening the gap between haves and have-nots. The more you print, the more you disconnect money from its store-of-value role.
Another very big part of the whole system is the fees. There are fees for sending dollars via the banking system, and that is a service, but how much are the fees when you want to switch from the medium of exchange into the store-of-value instruments? A lot more. That is creating so much friction in the whole system, and it contributes to excluding the have-nots from storing their value. At this point, the medium of exchange turns more and more into the medium of extraction rather than for exchange. This is also a reason why the store of value case is more appealing in the fiat system.
Bitcoin is not pretending to be money like everything else; it is the first engineered money that doesn’t erode like a melting ice cube and doesn’t discriminate. It is the money of those who choose it. With no printer behind it, there’s no urge to swap it for a “better” store of value—there’s no second best. Even those without Bitcoin can use it to shape their lives into the lives they desire. Moving away from chasing money to store in something and instead building whatever enriches their lives on top of Bitcoin.
The biggest idea isn’t storing value—it’s moving it. But to move value, you first need to have some stored. Then again, to have some stored, someone needs to move some your way first. That’s why the rich prefer assets that don’t erode like a melting ice cube. Meanwhile, those starting their careers focus more on receiving value than storing what they don’t yet have.
Why does the store of value case draw so much attention? One reason could be the effort involved. With a store of value, you buy and hodl—no work needed to improve your life. With a medium of exchange, you must work to grow your savings, persuading others to pay for your goods or services in Bitcoin. Another factor: for most, their fiat portfolio still outweighs their Bitcoin one. Only when Bitcoin surpasses their fiat holdings will they consider enhancing their lives with it. That shift isn’t tough for much of the world’s population, who lack savings or assets anyway. This might explain why the current system resists letting them exit, pushing dependency by offering to custody their Bitcoin—trading one reliance for another.
Even ossification ties into the need for more mediums of exchange use. You, Michael, strongly support ossification, but if Bitcoin isn’t used to reach more people, you’re delaying it. Unlike you, America knew that to make the dollar the world’s reserve currency, they had to distribute it widely to lock in the network effect. They saw the network as the key to ossification, and it worked easily since printing and sharing bills cost little. With Bitcoin, its absolute scarcity requires balancing how much to spread versus store. Still, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t spend any at all.
The metaphor of storing fat in the body is key to long-term survival. True, but it overlooks the need for a steady food income to stay alive before storing fat. Without income, there’s nothing to store—so exchange comes first. Yet, for someone not worried about hunger, the focus shifts to storing food to prevent spoilage. I keep hammering this point to highlight your bias toward the store of value, which skews your judgment and misleads others.
At this stage of my Bitcoin journey, I’m certain of this: chasing money corrupts you. Bitcoin shifts that—it stops you from pursuing money endlessly and lets you use it for the life you want. What happens when you have enough of everything you desire? What then? With Bitcoin, that’s entirely possible, and every Bitcoiner should be ready with an answer for when it happens. Chasing money, though, is a bottomless pit you can’t fill. The Bible says the love of money is the root of all evil. I agree, but how does it play out? What is the mechanism? Chasing money—making it the top priority and making the other things lesser—is the mechanism.
You’re not building a Bitcoin standard—you’re stacking a deck. Like gold in the past, you’re the one this time hoarding Bitcoin from people and institutions, further entrenching the fiat standard. Saylor, you’re not attacking the dollar as some believe—you’re bolstering it by boosting your stock and its ecosystem. Instead, you’re speculatively hitting those who fund your Bitcoin buys. You’re not just hurting them; by strengthening the dollar, you’re amplifying the pain for other currency holders. Hoarding sats while the world watches? That’s not a cybercity—it’s a gated estate funded by their own money.
I wonder if people would want to invest their Bitcoin in your securities. How many would actually do it? I’m sure true Bitcoin maximalists wouldn’t trade their perfect store of value asset for a fiat “instrument.” Ask yourself: at this point, would you spend your Bitcoin to buy Apple stock? You did invest in them before, after all. It makes no sense—I’d give you Bitcoin just for you to turn it into some fiat thing, pay fiat fees, bolster fiat custodians and third parties, only so you can buy Bitcoin again on the other end.
In the end, I don’t have proof, but I’m fairly certain you already know everything I’m saying in this article/message. Though it’s written to you, Michael, it’s aimed at those who see you as the new Bitcoin Jesus, blindly following without questioning your actions. They make reckless bets in their own lives—bets that could wipe out their Bitcoin—lacking the financial safeguards and interest rates you have. Your messages, which they echo, don’t apply to most of humanity.
Bitcoin isn’t just another asset or financial tool—it’s borderless, permissionless money for the people. Treating it otherwise diminishes its true worth. Merely storing it won’t bring freedom. Letting sats flow builds the network. Letting sats flow fosters cooperation for a better future. Letting sats flow strengthens the ecosystem. Store some for tomorrow, but do not be the richest man in the grave—save them for plans that keep them moving later.
This is a guest post by Ivan Makedonski. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
