The "why would I own equity when I can just own Bitcoin?" argument is a category error. This is because Bitcoin is money and capital, and equity is not money. For anyone who has spent a considerable amount of time studying Bitcoin, they usually come to a sensible conclusion about what money is. It's not an easy question to answer, but it seems like money has been an asset that humans use to save, price things, and settle obligations. On the other hand, equity is a claim on productive capital. It represents ownership of assets, cash flows, IP, financing capacity, labor, contracts, and essentially whatever future value an enterprise can create. What a lot of Bitcoiners misunderstand is that these functions of equity do not disappear just because the underlying monetary system improves. Just ask yourself what the logical conclusion of the argument actually is. If Bitcoin becomes money for everyone, do Bitcoiners believe that investment simply stops? Will a Bitcoin standard usher in an age without venture capital, factories, energy infrastructure, or businesses in general? How about mortgages or lending? Entrepreneurship... is that gone too? Will everyone sit on their private keys forever because exchanging money for a productive claim is somehow philosophically impure? Obviously not. Anybody who sees this through understands that a Bitcoin economy would still have capital allocation. In fact, capital allocation would probably matter more, because then the hurdle rate would be brutally honest. The concept of investment itself is fundamentally the decision to surrender liquidity today in exchange for the expectation of greater purchasing power tomorrow. This concept predates fiat itself by thousands upon thousands of years. It is most likely over long stretches of time we will see the denomination change for humanity as rational actors continue to adopt Bitcoin, but the economic act of investment will not change. If there is going to be a Bitcoin standard, someone will eventually have to say "I have 10 BTC. I could hold it. Or I can invest 1 BTC into this enterprise because I believe my claim on that enterprise will eventually be worth more than 1 BTC." This is capitalism. And this is where the objection to Bitcoin treasury companies becomes especially strange. Today, someone can hand a BTC TC depreciating fiat currency, and if that company possesses a genuine capital-markets advantage, it can convert that fiat into Bitcoin and potentially increase the amount of Bitcoin economically attributable to each share. We have empirically seen this done successfully with multiple BTC TCs. Some Bitcoiners look at that and say “Why would you ever give them dollars? Just buy Bitcoin.” Okay. Then what happens if Bitcoin actually wins? Because now the entrepreneur is not asking you for depreciating dollars. He is asking you for Bitcoin itself. You are going to have to part with the hardest money ever created and trust that the enterprise can generate a return exceeding the Bitcoin you surrendered. If voluntarily investing fiat into a vehicle designed to increase your Bitcoin-denominated wealth strikes you as offensive, wait until the unit of capital being invested is Bitcoin. The Bitcoin standard will not only NOT eliminate investing, it will eliminate the luxury of being sloppy about investing. Every project today faces the opportunity cost of simply holding Bitcoin. Businesses today are having to demonstrate that it can earn a return above that hurdle. Treating ownership in a productive enterprise as though it were merely another competing fiat currency makes no economic sense whatsoever. Bitcoin can become the money for everyone. Businesses will still exist. Capital will still need to be allocated. Investors will still demand returns. And of course, equity will still represent ownership. It's also baffling how we see some Bitcoiners advocate for parting of sats to buy goods and services, but they draw the line at investing? Did this investment leave me with more Bitcoin than I started with? That's the ultimate scoreboard for me.