🧵 Saylor says AI will transact in Bitcoin.

But Bitcoin can barely handle human scale demand today.

If AI is the future of money, Bitcoin isn’t the answer.

This is the flaw no one talks about 👇

This analysis emerged from convos with a PWM head and a bulge bracket bank MD.

1/
AI will break the economic rules humans built.

– Infinite attention
– Zero marginal labor
– No sleep, no breaks, no weekends

Their coordination needs a base layer that’s:
– Frictionless
– Scalable
– Final in real time

Bitcoin fails all three.

2/
Bitcoin was built for human-time trade:

– Store value
– Wait for blocks
– Confirm in ~60 minutes

It’s not designed for economic activity that moves at machine speed.

3/
AI won’t:
– Wait 10 minutes for a block.
– Pay $3 fees on a $0.01 transaction.
– Trust third-party bridges or L2 wrappers.

AI will ruthlessly optimize for latency, cost, and security.

That rules out Bitcoin.

4/
Now zoom out.

If AI is the next great economic actor…
Then base-layer scalability becomes the geopolitical bottleneck.

The currency AI chooses becomes the reserve asset of the machine age.

5/
So let’s game this out:
– Needs to finalize instantly
– Needs to scale natively
– Needs to be trustless, simple, secure
– AI needs a decentralized, proof-of-work ledger

That shortlist eliminates 99.9% of crypto.

But one survives.

6/
Kaspa is the only PoW ledger that can scale with time and retain full decentralization.

Why?
Because it isn’t a chain.

It’s a blockDAG.

7/
Kaspa doesn’t bottleneck itself with linear blocks; it confirms multiple blocks per second in parallel.

Bitcoin scales through abstraction, while Kaspa scales at the base layer, no trade-offs.

It’s trust-minimized by design, fast by necessity, and future aligned by architecture.

8/
That’s what AI needs:
– Real-time finality
– Minimal fees
– Native scalability
– Stateless, clean design

Kaspa isn’t trying to be just “money.”
It’s the only PoW base layer built for machine liquidity.

9/
Bitcoin’s biggest flaw isn’t technical.
It’s temporal.

Its structure is frozen in 2009.
Its ideology punishes evolution.

That works when your opponent is the Fed.
Not when it’s a superintelligence.

10/
Kaspa flips the time axis:
– Real-time finality
– 0 orphan rate
– Infinite TPS potential without L2 gimmicks

Not “instant settlement” marketing.
Actual physics-speed clearance.

11/
AI isn’t coming to play by our rules.
It’s coming to write its own.

And it’ll choose the monetary substrate that doesn’t slow it down.

12/
This isn’t about market cap.
It’s about design under pressure.

In a future where machines drive markets,
you don’t want the loudest narrative.

You want the cleanest architecture.

13/
Kaspa is what Bitcoin would be
if it were designed for the next century
...not the last one.

14/17
Bitcoin will still store value.
But storing value is not transacting.
And transacting is where AI will live.

If your base layer can’t keep up,
you’ve already lost.

15/17
The coming era won’t ask what humans believe is sound money.

It will test what machines can use as money.

That shift won’t happen gradually.

It will snap to the best available option.

16/17
The world is still playing the Bitcoin narrative game. But AI will trigger a protocol reset, not a brand loyalty contest.

Everyone is watching for an AI revolution.

Few realize it will come with its own monetary preference.

It will be Kaspa.
Not Bitcoin.

17/17
👉 Follow for the next thread and for more on monetary game theory, geopolitical hedges, and crypto as statecraft, drawing on private market conversations inside legacy finance.

👉 Next thread:
— BRICS has every reason to sabotage a U.S. Bitcoin reserve
— Prisoner’s dilemma at multi trillion dollar scale.
— Kaspa might be the dark horse
— The U.S. didn’t spend decades and trillions defending the dollar to hand over global trade. Bitcoin won’t be spared if it threatens supremacy.

Want a full article breaking this down in depth?
Let us know.

🧠💥
🧨 Critiques and 🛡 Counters

🧨 Critique 1:
AI won’t need money. It’ll be integrated into closed systems that don’t transact on-chain.
🛡 Counter: 
Some AI will be closed. But the economic AI, autonomous agents trading, arbitraging, routing liquidity, executing orders, and allocating compute, will live in open adversarial environments.

That means: 
– Global reach
 – Zero-trust assumptions 
– Censorship resistance 
– On-chain rails

AI won’t need fiat. But it will need a decentralized monetary substrate. 
That rules out walled gardens.

🧨 Critique 2:
Why would AI care about decentralization or proof-of-work?
🛡 Counter:
 Because centralization creates chokepoints.  Because trust increases risk. Because PoW is physics-based and permissionless.

AI will optimize for:
 – Security without gatekeepers
 – Systems that can’t be turned off 
– Protocols aligned with economic incentives, not political ones

That’s PoW.  
That’s Kaspa.

🧨 Critique 3:
You’re assuming AI needs money like humans do. That’s anthropomorphizing.
🛡 Counter:
 This isn’t about AI needing money emotionally. It’s about AI participating in economic coordination.

If AIs: 
– Pay for compute
 – Price data
 – Monetize services 
– Settle value autonomously

Then a monetary layer becomes infrastructure, not preference.

And the substrate that offers the best latency, scalability, and security wins.

🧨 Critique 4:
Bitcoin can just scale with L2s. Lightning fixes this.
🛡 Counter:
 Lightning: 
– Isn’t trustless
 – Breaks down with liquidity routing
 – Is built on Bitcoin’s bottlenecks

Kaspa’s blockDAG removes the bottleneck. It doesn’t route around it. 

There’s no “wrapper,” no reliance on channel infrastructure. Just raw, high-frequency consensus.

AI doesn’t want a workaround.  It wants a base layer that works.

🧨 Critique 5:
AI is too far off. This is sci-fi speculation.
🛡 Counter: 
AI isn’t coming. It’s here.
 – LLMs are already agentized 
– GPT models are trading and executing logic
 – Machine liquidity is already a niche hedge fund thesis

This thread isn’t science fiction.
It’s pre-monetary infrastructure planning for machine-scale markets.

🧨 Critique 6:
Bitcoin has the network effect. Even if Kaspa is technically better, it won’t matter.
🛡 Counter: 
Network effects are powerful, until the environment changes.

The internet killed fax machines.
 Mobile apps killed desktop software. 
AI won’t wait 60 minutes for finality or route through wrappers.

When incentives shift, capital and code follow.
 Kaspa doesn’t need to win narratives, just win machines.

🧨 Critique 7:
You’re framing Kaspa as if it’s inevitable. That’s not objective.
🛡 Counter: 
Nothing is inevitable.
But in a multi-polar, zero-trust, high-frequency world, systems that: 
– Finalize in real time
 – Scale natively
 – Require zero trust
…aren’t optional. They’re prerequisites.

Kaspa isn’t guaranteed to win. 
But it’s the only one playing the right game.