Michael Saylor

And I think the administration wasn't very constructive. So I would say there's been a non-constructive dialogue. The people in the crypto industry, their position has been, well, you don't respect us, so we don't respect you. And the entire relationship broke down to kind of mutual yelling back and forth. But the right question for the crypto industry to ask is,

Why is it unethical for Katy Perry to issue Katy Perry token to a million people if she has no intention of lie, cheating and stealing? Why is that unethical? Why can't Joe Rogan, you know, raise capital from the general public in an honest way, cheaper? Why does he have to spend infinite money to do it? And then why can't I trade Apple stock on an iPhone on Saturday? What's unethical about that?

Why is it unethical for Katy Perry to issue Katy Perry token to a million people if she has no intention of lie, cheating and stealing? Why is that unethical? Why can't Joe Rogan, you know, raise capital from the general public in an honest way, cheaper? Why does he have to spend infinite money to do it? And then why can't I trade Apple stock on an iPhone on Saturday? What's unethical about that?

And if I take you at face value, the SEC says just register. But if I did register, it's illegal to trade on Saturday. And so the point is, Microsoft, MicroStrategy's registered. You can't trade MicroStrategy stock on Sunday. Binance once listed our stock on the Binance Exchange. The German regulators made them shut it down, right?

And if I take you at face value, the SEC says just register. But if I did register, it's illegal to trade on Saturday. And so the point is, Microsoft, MicroStrategy's registered. You can't trade MicroStrategy stock on Sunday. Binance once listed our stock on the Binance Exchange. The German regulators made them shut it down, right?

And so what we really need is we need to elevate the conversation to constructive, cheerful, progressive. How are we actually going to make things a million times cheaper, faster, better, more efficient? And the dialogue devolved. It started kind of optimistic in 2021. And then it devolved to two sides, you know, kind of screaming at each other. And it became a deadlock and very non-constructive.

And so what we really need is we need to elevate the conversation to constructive, cheerful, progressive. How are we actually going to make things a million times cheaper, faster, better, more efficient? And the dialogue devolved. It started kind of optimistic in 2021. And then it devolved to two sides, you know, kind of screaming at each other. And it became a deadlock and very non-constructive.

Did you see this exchange? Oh, yeah, I have seen it. I have seen it. Play this clip, Rob, for the audience to see. Go ahead.

Did you see this exchange? Oh, yeah, I have seen it. I have seen it. Play this clip, Rob, for the audience to see. Go ahead.

Do you agree with him?

Do you agree with him?

I would say the Democratic administration has not been constructive or constructive in providing any kind of digital assets framework over the last four years that would allow the industry to grow. And I think what Emmer is saying is we need clarity, but what they need is they need a constructive way to do business and

I would say the Democratic administration has not been constructive or constructive in providing any kind of digital assets framework over the last four years that would allow the industry to grow. And I think what Emmer is saying is we need clarity, but what they need is they need a constructive way to do business and

I think that Gensler is a traditionalist, and I think that if you add his traditionalist with Elizabeth Warren's negativity, I mean, she has been non-constructive completely across a variety of things. That has dominated the administration's political views. Look, I read the history of money and banking in America. It's Rothbard's book.

I think that Gensler is a traditionalist, and I think that if you add his traditionalist with Elizabeth Warren's negativity, I mean, she has been non-constructive completely across a variety of things. That has dominated the administration's political views. Look, I read the history of money and banking in America. It's Rothbard's book.

And Rothbard is one of the great libertarian Austrian economists. And he notes in 1930s, the 33 SEC Act, it was actually an act put forth in order to restrain the capital markets and lock out entrepreneurs from being able to raise money and create a cartel. This is in 1933. So on one hand, the administration and Gensler have been very glowing in their reverence for the 33 Act.

And Rothbard is one of the great libertarian Austrian economists. And he notes in 1930s, the 33 SEC Act, it was actually an act put forth in order to restrain the capital markets and lock out entrepreneurs from being able to raise money and create a cartel. This is in 1933. So on one hand, the administration and Gensler have been very glowing in their reverence for the 33 Act.

But the bigger issues that no one is addressing in these debates that hasn't been addressed by either side is. Why doesn't it cost $40,000 to issue a token or 44,000? How do you actually provide access to the capital markets to 40 million businesses instead of 4,000? I mean, the elephant in the room right now is that American public companies are dying.

But the bigger issues that no one is addressing in these debates that hasn't been addressed by either side is. Why doesn't it cost $40,000 to issue a token or 44,000? How do you actually provide access to the capital markets to 40 million businesses instead of 4,000? I mean, the elephant in the room right now is that American public companies are dying.

We had 10,000 public companies in the US 25 years ago. We got 4,000 now. So the fact is we have a choking, onerous regulatory regime which makes it so obscenely risky, difficult, and expensive to engage in the capital markets. Nobody can afford to do it. And if you choose to do it, It's illegal to do every cool, interesting thing that we can now do.