🎭"Saylor vs. NFTs: A Critique in Tokens"
Michael Saylor’s dismissal of on-chain proof-of-reserves sounds a lot like someone rejecting **token provenance** in the NFT space. But here’s the thing: **NFTs prove the opposite** of what he’s suggesting.
🎨 1. Provenance is Everything
In NFTs, value comes from *provable ownership*. If Beeple’s “Everydays” couldn’t be verified on-chain, it wouldn’t be worth \$69M—it’d just be a JPEG.
> Saylor’s logic rejects provenance** by arguing transparency weakens security. But **in the NFT world, transparency *is* security.**
---
🛠️ 2. Smart Contracts ≠ “Trust Me Bro”
NFT ecosystems thrive because **code enforces trust**, not CEOs. No NFT collector would buy a PFP from a project that says,
> “Don’t worry, the mint wallets are safe—we just won’t show them to you.”
Saylor wants Bitcoin to be a trustless asset… backed by trust-based accounting?
---
🏛️ 3. Blue-Chip NFTs and Reputation
In NFT culture, blue-chip status is earned through **public behavior, verified transactions, and community trust**—on-chain.
> Saylor claims to be a Bitcoin blue-chip. Then why resist the same kind of **open ledgers** that made CryptoPunks and BAYC valuable?
---
🔑 4. NFTs Give You the Keys—Literally
The whole mantra of NFTs is: *“Don’t trust, verify. Own your keys, own your asset.”*
> Saylor’s stance implies: *“Trust the custodian. We’ll handle the keys. Just believe us.”*
That’s not crypto. That’s TradFi dressed in digital robes.
---
🧩 5. If You Can’t Show It, You Don’t Own It
Just like fake NFTs collapse when provenance can't be verified, **paper Bitcoin collapses when reserves can’t be proven**.
> Would anyone take seriously an NFT project that refuses to link its contract on Etherscan?
Then why accept the same from a public Bitcoin custodian?
---
🎤 Final Mic Drop:
If NFTs taught us one thing, it’s this:
> 🔗 **On-chain or it didn’t happen.**
Michael Saylor might speak like a maxi, but when it comes to proof-of-reserves, he’s acting more like a maximalist of **opacity**—not transparency.
---
: 0 
: 0