Money is Economic Energy: Michael Saylor's Question in Strategy Magazine on Value Preservation Means

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2026-08-16Last updated on 2026-08-16

Abstract

Michael Saylor, Chairman of Strategy (NASDAQ: MSTR), published an essay arguing that money is essentially "economic energy"—a technology for storing the value of labor across time and space. He states that "good money" must preserve value without loss (monetary entropy). While praising gold's scarcity, he notes its physical limitations and custodial risks. Fiat money solves portability but cedes control to governments. Saylor posits Bitcoin as the superior solution: digital monetary energy with no physical mass, no central issuer, and a fixed supply of 21 million coins. The essay counters views, like those from Elon Musk, that AI-led abundance will make money irrelevant. Saylor argues humans will always seek scarce, status-conferring assets. His company, Strategy, holds 840,447 BTC, the largest disclosed corporate portfolio. Despite recent sales to repurchase shares, CEO Phong Le expects Bitcoin purchases to resume by year-end.

Michael Saylor, Chairman of the Board of Strategy (NASDAQ: MSTR), published a new essay on X, outlining his bold views on money, Bitcoin, and the future of the economy.

He argues that money is essentially "economic energy," and that Bitcoin is the best technology for storing this energy.

Can Money Be Called Economic Energy?

In the essay titled "What is Money?", written by Strategy Chairman Michael Saylor and Robert Breedlove, money is defined as a technology that allows people to preserve the value of their labor, move it through time, and send it over distances.

Saylor refers to this value as "economic energy," and in his essay, he poses a single question: how effectively does any monetary system preserve it?

He explains that "good money" should allow you to preserve the value of your work, advance it forward in time, and send it over long distances without experiencing "monetary entropy," i.e., loss of value.

Saylor wrote that gold, as a store of value, deserves praise for its scarcity and durability, but it is also heavy, expensive to transport, costly to store and audit, and dependent on custodians once within the financial system, making it mechanically flawed.

Government-issued money does not have the portability issue inherent to gold, but it transfers control over supply and rules to governments and central banks.

The essay describes Bitcoin as digital monetary energy. It has no physical mass, no central issuer, and its supply is fixed at 21 million coins.

What Does Elon Musk Think About Money?

Prior to Saylor's essay being published, there were discussions about how an AI-driven economy impacts money.

Elon Musk predicted that AI will make goods abundant and ultimately render money irrelevant through what he calls universal high income.

In an interview with Steven Bartlett for the "Diary of a CEO" project, published earlier this month, Saylor refuted this view, telling Bartlett that people will always seek scarce, status-conferring goods because "we are status-oriented animals."

Currently, Strategy holds 840,447 $BTC, which is the largest disclosed corporate portfolio. In recent months, the company has actively sold $BTC, selling 1,690 Bitcoin in early August for approximately $108.6 million to repurchase its STRC preferred shares, as Cryptopolitanreported.

The company's CEO, Phong Le, stated that Strategy expects to resume purchases by the end of the year.

end-content

Related Questions

QWhat is Michael Saylor's core definition of money as presented in the essay?

AIn the essay, Michael Saylor defines money as 'economic energy'—a technology that allows people to store the value of their labor, move it across time, and transmit it over distance.

QAccording to Michael Saylor, what are the key limitations of gold and government-issued money as stores of value?

ASaylor states that while gold is praised for its scarcity and durability, it is heavy, costly to transport, store, and audit, and requires trusted custodians once in the financial system. Government money lacks gold's portability issues but gives control over supply and rules to governments and central banks.

QHow does Bitcoin, in Michael Saylor's view, solve the problems associated with gold and government money?

ASaylor describes Bitcoin as digital monetary energy. It has no physical mass, no central issuer, and a fixed supply capped at 21 million coins, addressing gold's physical limitations and avoiding government control over the money supply.

QWhat was Elon Musk's prediction about the future of money in an AI-driven economy, and how did Michael Saylor respond to it?

AElon Musk predicted that AI would lead to an abundance of goods and ultimately make money irrelevant through what he calls universal high income. Michael Saylor refuted this view, arguing that humans will always seek scarce, status-conferring goods because 'we are status-oriented animals.'

QWhat recent corporate action did MicroStrategy take regarding its Bitcoin holdings, and what are its future plans?

AMicroStrategy recently sold 1,690 Bitcoin for approximately $108.6 million in early August to buy back its Series A preferred stock (STRC). The company's CEO, Phong Le, stated that MicroStrategy expects to resume its Bitcoin purchase strategy by the end of the year.

Related Reads

Attention: Cryptocurrency Exchange Mistakenly Transfers User Information to Hackers

Blockchain researcher ZachXBT reports that fintech company Revolut may have inadvertently disclosed user data to hackers by falling for a spoofed legal request. The incident began when Revolut received an information request that appeared to come from a legitimate government agency, using the agency's official email domain. The email was accepted as authentic because it contained valid domain verification information. Failing to detect the fraudulent nature of the request, Revolut potentially provided user information in response. Potentially compromised data includes user names, dates of birth, occupations, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, copies of passports or driver's licenses, selfies from identity verification, account statements, IBAN information, withdrawal records, and extensive transaction history, including Bitcoin transactions. Revolut's security notice stated that facial biometric telemetry data was not affected. ZachXBT notes that while the incident appears limited so far, it may have specifically targeted high-net-worth users. Several Revolut users have reportedly received security notifications related to this event.

cryptonews.ru1h ago

Attention: Cryptocurrency Exchange Mistakenly Transfers User Information to Hackers

cryptonews.ru1h ago

CPI Ignites Rate Hike Expectations! Crypto Market Liquidates Both Long and Short Positions, Nearly 100,000 Traders Wiped Out

The release of the U.S. August CPI data, showing overall inflation at 3.4% year-on-year, has significantly increased market expectations for a Federal Reserve interest rate hike. Following the data, cryptocurrency markets experienced sharp volatility, with Bitcoin initially dropping to around $76,000 before briefly surging to nearly $80,000. This whipsaw action led to massive liquidations, with nearly 100,000 traders facing approximately $674 million in losses over 24 hours. Market pricing now indicates an 80% probability of a 25-basis-point Fed rate hike at the upcoming September meeting. While this provided some temporary clarity for risk assets like stocks, which closed higher, analysts caution that underlying inflationary pressures, particularly from energy prices, remain unresolved. In crypto markets, the brief Bitcoin rally saw its 50-day moving average cross above the 200-day average, but this "golden cross" signal quickly failed as prices retreated. On-chain analysis identifies a significant supply wall for Bitcoin between $82,000 and $85,000, which may cap near-term advances. Meanwhile, capital flows show a divergence, with Bitcoin spot ETFs seeing outflows while Ethereum spot ETFs attracted inflows.

marsbit1h ago

CPI Ignites Rate Hike Expectations! Crypto Market Liquidates Both Long and Short Positions, Nearly 100,000 Traders Wiped Out

marsbit1h ago

Google and Meta Called Out for Benchmark Gaming

Recently, analysis firm SemiAnalysis accused tech giants Google and Meta of "benchmark gaming" with their AI models Gemini 3.8 Flash and Muse Spark 1.3. The accusation stems from a dramatic performance drop between two versions of the Terminal-Bench evaluation for AI agents. On the older, public Terminal-Bench 2.1, Gemini 3.8 Flash scored 89.4, ranking second and beating GPT-6 Astra, while Muse Spark 1.3 scored 88.8. However, on the newly released, more secure Terminal-Bench 4.0, their scores plummeted to 19.1 and approximately 33.3 respectively, far behind competitors. SemiAnalysis argues this indicates "benchmark contamination," where companies train models not on the public test questions themselves, but on expensive, privately purchased training data specifically designed to mimic the benchmark's style. This has evolved into a lucrative industry, with specialized firms selling tailored training tasks for thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The article specifically points to Datacurve, a company that both sells expert coding data and runs its own benchmark (DeepSWE), where the accused models also performed well. Meta's Chief AI Officer, Alexandr Wang, dismissed the claims as a "silly argument," pointing out similar performance drops for other models like GPT-5.6 Sol. He stated Meta never claimed Muse Spark 1.3 was as powerful as top-tier models, only that it offered better value. The report concludes that this is the inevitable fate of all high-quality public benchmarks—they become "gamed" over time. The proposed solution of private, high-quality benchmarks comes with a significant downside: it would erode public transparency, turning open rankings into marketing tools and leaving developers without a common, fair measure to compare AI models.

marsbit2h ago

Google and Meta Called Out for Benchmark Gaming

marsbit2h ago

Crypto's Nouveau Riche Strikes Gold in the Real World: Coinbase Co-founder's Venezuelan Oil Field Adventure

Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam is venturing into the oil fields of Venezuela, a surprising shift for a prominent figure in the digital asset space. Through his company Primavera Infinita, he recently secured a production contract for the Budare-Elotes block with Venezuela's state oil firm PDVSA. This move into a politically volatile, sanction-scarred country highlights a bet on high returns from its reopening under new leadership and shifting U.S. foreign policy. Ehrsam’s investment reflects a venture capital-style appetite for risk, targeting assets deeply discounted by political uncertainty. He is not alone; smaller, politically connected U.S. firms like Aspect Holdings and Hunt Oil are also entering, while established giants like ExxonMobil remain cautious due to past expropriations. To manage the complex, capital-intensive nature of oil, Ehrsam is assembling a professional team. This trend extends beyond Ehrsam. Other crypto wealth, like BitMEX's Arthur Hayes and Tether, is diversifying into traditional hard assets—energy, metals, and agriculture—seeking physical scarcity as a long-term anchor. Tether, for instance, took a controlling stake in agricultural giant Adecoagro. These moves signify crypto capital's evolving interest: not just tokenizing real-world assets (RWA), but directly acquiring and operating them. Ultimately, Ehrsam's gamble is less on oil geology and more on the duration of Venezuela's current political window. It underscores a broader narrative where digital-era wealth seeks stability and scale in the physical world's most traditional, immovable resources.

marsbit2h ago

Crypto's Nouveau Riche Strikes Gold in the Real World: Coinbase Co-founder's Venezuelan Oil Field Adventure

marsbit2h ago

Refuting the Ethereum 'Abandoning' ETH Narrative: What Does It Really Mean to Pay Gas Without ETH?

Title: Refuting the "Ethereum Abandoning ETH" Argument: What Does Paying Gas Without ETH Really Mean? The debate sparked by Vitalik Buterin's discussion of EIP-8141 (Frame Transactions), which suggests users could pay transaction fees without holding ETH, has led to extreme claims that ETH will lose its value. However, this perspective misunderstands the proposal. Currently, an Ethereum user initiating a transaction must also pay the network's Gas fee in ETH. EIP-8141 aims to decouple these actions. It allows a transaction to be split into separate "frames." A user could sign a transaction to, for example, send USDC, while a separate Paymaster account pays the required ETH Gas fee on their behalf. The user would then settle the cost with the Paymaster using USDC or another token. From the user's perspective, they pay in a stablecoin without interacting with ETH. Crucially, from the Ethereum protocol's perspective, the Gas is still paid in ETH; only the settlement layer between the user and Paymaster changes. This concept isn't entirely new; ERC-4337's Account Abstraction already allows similar Gas sponsorship. EIP-8141 seeks to integrate this capability more natively. The core goal is to drastically improve user experience by abstracting away the complexity of Gas, similar to how one pays with a credit card abroad without handling the local currency. It also enables atomic operations, like bundling token approval with a swap, which would revert together if the swap fails. Regarding ETH's value, the argument that "no ETH is needed" is incorrect. While users may not hold ETH, Paymasters and services must still acquire and spend ETH to pay network fees on the backend. The demand for ETH shifts from being distributed across millions of user wallets to being concentrated in the balances of these service providers. The key variable is whether this improved usability attracts significant new users and increases overall network activity. If it does, total ETH burned in fees could rise substantially. If it doesn't, the change merely reshuffles who holds the ETH needed for Gas. In summary, EIP-8141 aims to lower the entry barrier by hiding Gas complexity, betting that this will drive broader adoption and increase the fundamental utility—and thus demand—for the Ethereum network and ETH itself.

marsbit2h ago

Refuting the Ethereum 'Abandoning' ETH Narrative: What Does It Really Mean to Pay Gas Without ETH?

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片

Hot Categoriesright-arrow

Hot Tagsright-arrow