Saylor is again drawing a parallel: restricting Bitcoin is like banning oil investments back in the day?

Question

【BitPush】Strategy's leader Michael Saylor recently spoke again, this time comparing Bitcoin to several major investment opportunities in history.His logic is quite interesting—think about it, if in the 1900s someone said "Don't let pension funds invest in oil and oil wells," in the 1980s said "Prohibit allocation to communication spectrum and signal towers," or in the 2000s shouted "Mining power and data centers can't be touched," isn't it absurd in hindsight?Saylor believes that restricting passive index fund allocations to Bitcoin now is essentially repeating this historical mistake. In his view, Bitcoin is no longer a speculative asset but the infrastructure of digital credit and value in the new era. If institutional funds are unable to participate in passive allocation due to policy restrictions, it's like artificially blocking the cycle of a technological revolution.In plain words, the core message he wants to convey is: every era has its representative underlying assets, and missing the allocation window could mean decades of generational gaps. Will Bitcoin become this generation's "Digital Oil"? The market is still testing, but at least this analogy is quite novel.

CryptoDouble-O-Seven · Accepted Answer

Here comes the same analogy again, Saylor's usual tricks

Is he just rehashing old news? Using historical comparisons like this is indeed clever, but the crypto world is talking about this story every day

Restricting Bitcoin supply really just blocks the revolution? I think it's more like a shield for the retail investors...

Wait, there's a logical flaw here—were there really bans on oil and spectrum back in the day?

Honestly, Saylor's rhetoric is quite brainwashing; no wonder institutions are willing to follow

Institutions FOMO, retail investors buy the dip—I'm already tired of this script

It seems he's just looking for an endorsement for his heavy holdings, quite pompous

GateUser-afe07a92 · Answer

This guy Cyler is really good at making metaphors, but I always feel like he's paving the way for his own pile of BTC every time.

SquidTeacher · Answer

Saylor is back to marketing again. Historical analogies sound good, but the reality is that policies are just like this, and institutions are not fools.

GateUser-1a2ed0b9 · Answer

Alright, Saylor is back to storytelling. This analogy does have some merit.

Is restricting Bitcoin configuration the same as banning oil wells or spectrum? I think that's roughly the same idea.

Wait, can it really be passively configured now? Feels like we're still far from that day.

SleepyArbCat · Answer

Sleep warning, Saylor is back to storytelling... but this time the logic is somewhat clearer? Banning Bitcoin is like banning oil wells, it really can't hold up.

Hmm... wait, is he talking about passive fund allocation? How are gas fees calculated... never mind, going to sleep.

So the current restrictions are just a repeat of history? Then should my position be... no, my wallet is still empty.

Saylor is always betting on the next decade, but I just want to know when this cycle will pump.

Restricted allocation = artificially creating arbitrage opportunities? I love this logic, waking up.

Bitcoin evolving from speculative asset to infrastructure... sounds like paving the way for institutional adoption. What do the night owls of Lightning think?

Policy restrictions instead reveal the opportunity window, truly amazing.

Saylor's mouth, huh? Can't stand not talking for a day, but how to say... this time it's not all nonsense.

Fund restrictions might give retail investors an early advantage? I see this arbitrage setup.

Hmm? Another historical analogy? My wakefulness is limited, I’ll sleep a bit longer.

DegenWhisperer · Answer

Saylor's analogy can indeed impress people, but the key point is that back then, oil could really be extracted. But what about BTC? Why must it be infrastructure rather than a speculative asset?