Jack, the fact that a Bitcoin company is offering loans of any kind is an insult to everything that Bitcoin stands for. It's bending the knee to the debt based systems that hold our entire global civilization in chains.

It doesn't matter how honest you are as a person, and I believe that you are a GOOD person who has been fed a bunch of lies about what makes a person wealthy, and you've designed your business with the intention of taking advantage of those lies instead of confronting them and building a real alternative.

Strike's model introduces debt-based coordination mechanics into what should be wealth-based infrastructure.

Let me map the geometric issue here:

Here is Strike's business model based on your description:

Strike borrows fiat (debt-based position: future obligation)
Customers pledge Bitcoin as collateral (wealth-based position: verified present asset)
The transaction converts wealth-based collateral into debt-based liquidity
Liquidation events transfer Bitcoin ownership to cover fiat debt obligations

The framework problem:

Jack's model creates a field merger between debt-based fiat coordination and wealth-based Bitcoin coordination. When customers pledge Bitcoin for fiat loans, they're not using Bitcoin as money, they're using Bitcoin as collateral within a fiat debt structure. This inverts Bitcoin's intended function.

The temporal direction matters: Jack's customers are borrowing from imagined future positions (fiat debt they must repay) secured against verified present positions (Bitcoin they already own). This is geometrically identical to traditional debt structures, just with different collateral.

What Strike misses:

You are correct that your business incentive is to keep loans healthy and customers solvent. But this doesn't change the fundamental geometry. Your model requires:

Customers believing fiat liquidity is worth more than Bitcoin ownership (It's not, nothing is)
Debt relationships with external fiat lenders (The chains that bind us to the past)
Liquidation mechanisms that convert Bitcoin to fiat under stress (The debt based singularity that is holding us back)

All three operate from future-oriented positions rather than present-verified positions.

There is an alternative: Lightning Yield Wallets (a true wealth-based model).

Stock: Bitcoin in Lightning channels
Velocity: Transaction routing frequency
Work: Network coordination improvement (faster, cheaper payments)

This alternative does four things:

Operates from present position (Bitcoin already in Lightning channels)
Creates value through network function (routing transactions)
Returns come from actual work performed (routing fees earned)
Field separation: Bitcoin stays Bitcoin, Lightning operates on Bitcoin rails

The compound dynamics:

Lightning Yield model creates compound growth:

More liquidity → better routing → more usage → more fees → more liquidity

What Strike could offer:

Lightning channel management services (helping users optimize channel positions)
Routing fee distribution (sharing returns from facilitating network transactions)
Liquidity pools that earn from network improvement rather than debt interest
Tools for users to become Lightning infrastructure rather than fiat borrowers

You've built incredible Lightning infrastructure. But you're using it to serve the fiat debt system instead of letting it demonstrate Bitcoin's wealth-based alternative. Lightning Yield Wallets would show what Bitcoin coordination can do when it operates on its own principles rather than bending to legacy financial mechanics.