Here’s the thing — what you’re pushing with BTC has already been played out before, just in a different skin.
Loan-to-Value (BTC vs Pharma):
With Bitcoin, lenders only give you 20–50% of your stack. Put up $100k, maybe you see $20–50k. If BTC drops 30–50% — which it’s done plenty of times — you’re margin-called and liquidated.
Same deal with pharma. In the 90s, reps tried to borrow and spin future sales on Oxy like it was guaranteed. Banks discounted it hard, because if demand shifted or lawsuits hit, the whole model collapsed. And it did.
Collateral vs Cash Flow:
Bitcoin produces nothing, it just sits there, marked-to-market every minute. That’s not income.
Pharma at least has royalties and milestone payments. But even then, look at the biotechs in the 2000s and the millennials chasing the next “blockbuster” drug — most ended up over-leveraged, their projections flopped, and lenders ate them alive.
Collapse Logic:
You say, “If fiat dies, I’ll borrow against BTC.” Same nonsense pharma reps ran: “This drug will fund itself forever.” When the environment shifts, lenders pull the plug. If fiat actually collapses, there won’t be lenders handing you dollars. And if they’re still handing you dollars, then fiat hasn’t collapsed.
So side by side — Bitcoin today is the same as pharma hype then. Reps thought they’d hacked the system, but history shows they usually lose. Borrowing against BTC isn’t a strategy, it’s just the same old racket with shinier branding.