rich1.0Louis (npub1kz…87zc4)https://nostr.now/npub1kznjv5rsa5hkvpmhz3wrlwztd8kwa7aa00afwucux98dtpldzvrs487zc4njumphttps://nostr.nowI listened to nostr:npub1gdu7w6l6w65qhrdeaf6eyywepwe7v7ezqtugsrxy7hl7ypjsvxksd76nak and nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m's recent podcast, which sparked controversy for many listeners on the issue of BTC yield. My takeaway is that both sides can be valid in the non-binary world we live in. Someone like Saifedean would keep his Bitcoin in cold storage, avoiding any risk for yield. On the other hand, someone like Saylor might choose to risk a portion of his Bitcoin for yield. There’s no right or wrong, just differing risk appetites and approaches to risk management. In the future, corporations like banks will offer institutional-grade Bitcoin yield products, unlike what we saw with Celsius and BlockFi. This future will coexist alongside Bitcoin in cold storage, and it’s a wonderful scenario where capitalism provides users with options. I don’t view it as a bad or fiat like idea.