This is a very good question. I would be tempted to do an article on that, to complement the one I did on Bitcoin (the "Bitcoin Kardashev Hinge"). Ironically what everyone seems to be missing, even Saylor, is where Bitcoin sits in the incentive schema of using the cheapest form of energy (solar). The "profits" of any mining installation are maximised by going solar, but the cosequence is that the mining installation has a maximum size limited by the amount of local land available for solar collection, which is yet another driver positively influencing the decentralisation of Biitcoin.
Greed, for ever more local mining power, which can only be provided by extracted energy (energy from finite resources on Earth) is rewarded by loss of profitability, and loss of desirability of Bitcoin, as we can see in the case of El Salvador, which had ambitions of taking complete control of Bitcoin by way of their "Volcano bond" promises to extract, which seems to have fallen flat, with the expected negative effect on Bitcoin value.
But of course it has to bounce back, how can it not, when it is the one industry maximising the dividends of solar power, which is the only actual raw energy source, the energy source of all life on Earth?
Bitcoin is the Kardashev Hinge, I just wish more folk could see it.
Contrasting that, with the obvious fossil fueled colonial war machine which is the dollar should be pretty easy, but it is likely to very quickly get political.
I wonder how many folk would reward such a story with Bitcoin (I am as yet uninvested / unprotected / unrewarded, unlike Saylor)