Bitcoin Forum

Not by no-coiners or people who missed buying the dip, but actual HODLers like us.

Even though Michael Saylor is buying as much bitcoin as he can, some people don't seem to like him at all, and it shows for example on Telegram channels and sometimes X/Twitter.

Losers vilify winners, and it's basic human instinct, not only this Bitcoin market, and not only happen with Michael Saylor.

I only feel so pity for people who don't want to join the party that is opened for them, and use as many chances as possible to attack successful people like Michael Saylor. He takes risk, he is determinant with his investment vision and plan, and most important he does not do anything wrong with other people who are outsiders of Bitcoin market.

If people saw the party but by their own reasons, ignored chance to join it, it's their responsibility for their failures, not because of Michael Saylor.

The ones criticizing usually come from the traditional investment world, probably because Saylor keeps calling them out too. To be fair, what he’s doing is super risky, he’s going all in on Bitcoin, like converting company shares into Bitcoin, borrowing money just to buy more, basically doing everything possible to boost his stake in the Bitcoin market.

But that’s his strategy, and people invested in his company because they trust his moves. And I think we we’re in the Bitcoin space too, shouldn’t we back him up? What he’s doing creates FOMO, and FOMO means a bullish market. Isn’t that exactly what we all want?

My personal opinion is that haters will always hate everything a successful individual gains. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing [Microstratergy] but the problem arises when there is a competitor involved to create a negative atmosphere. I am assuming that this is a phase that Michael Saylor has already faced when he was questioned previously about his intentions to buy Bitcoin he said it was for the greater cause of the community and all others.

He is doing what he sees best for him and his organization. He is one of the first entrepreneurs who believed in Bitcoin and now his beliefs made him one of the biggest holders of Bitcoin. Some had accumulated Bitcoin in the initial days, they are now the biggest competitors of his company as he won't be able to overthrow them with the quantity.

Some people really don't like people who are succeeding, if you are doing bad some set of people will love you and some will hate you and when you are doing good some people will love you and some people will hate you, no matter what you do in this life some people will talk bad or good about you.
Michael Saylor is taking his own risk and with the way Bitcoin is going it's paying off for him so anyone not liking him is his own business.
Some set of persons are just too bitter they see progress and call it failure and just like you said majority of people doing this to Michael Saylor are Bitcoin hodlers like him they are just bittered about the amount Michael Saylor is using to accumulate, not like Michael Saylor or writing bad about him won't stop his progress.

Maybe they are scared that he would have influence over the market. It is possible that people are concerned that if he successfully acquires a large amount of Bitcoin he would have influence thereby having the capacity to manipulate the market.

Others might be jealous of his success. The amount of Bitcoin Michael Saylor has acquired within a short period can attract haters.

Although I don't hate Saylor and admire his Guts in buying Bitcoin even at the Top.
But I think most are concerned that an individual/institution holds such amount of Bitcoin and in case of MSTR whose shares are based on debt leveraged.
If investors starts selling their shares, they would have to start selling their holdings too.
Though The impact is going to be for a short term.
Not to mention, Saylor Promotes Bitcoin more as a store of value
So those that still hold to the belief of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange than store of value wouldn't take positive with that .

Some people don't like him because he speculate Bitcoin price that doesn't seems achievable, he predict Bitcoin will reach $350K in the end of 2024.

Some people don't like him because he bought a lot of Bitcoin and he could manipulate the market.

I didn't see any more reason from holders to hate him, probably it's personal hate.

They're belong to no-coiners which mentioned by @OP, definitely people who don't hold Bitcoin are mostly against Bitcoin.

When "your neighbor" buys an asset that is constantly going up in price, and you just whine, sitting on the couch drinking beer and calling bitcoin a scam-pyramid that will definitely collapse tomorrow, then such a "neighbor" a priori can't be liked by others.

No matter how everyone criticizes (out of envy) Microstrategy, Microstrategy continues to accumulate bitcoins despite the opinion of "well-wishers". It seems to me that they give a good lesson to everyone: ignore the surrounding noise and stick to your goal.

Keep walking, Microstrategy.

But seriuosly, did he mentioned that?
Last time I check, his prediction was only $100k by the end of the year, in fact theres a news that came out about that.

Michael Saylor Predicts Bitcoin Will Hit $100,000 by Year-End (https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/michael-saylor-predicts-bitcoin-will-hit-100000-by-year-end)

I stand corrected on this one, my gosh.(poor comprehension. )  :)

I have not actually seen such bad posts about Michael and his team but what I do know is that such is possible because envy and jealousy are two words that will never leave humans. If not of that, why would someone who love bitcoin hate on someone who have been an integral part of the journey of the successes recorded by bitcoin. We cannot deny the fact that those buys from Microstrategy contributed in one way or the other in strengthening the mind of HODLERs and by extension, bitcoin itself. Many people also got the motivation to start investing in bitcoin massively following the successes recorded by Michael Saylor and Microstrategy.

I think HODLers are paranoid of the day, Microstrategy may choose to sell high numbers of their bitcoins and even have a sense of censorship of the market based on how they are accumulating more bitcoins. But I think there are little to no worries in the long run for this based on this thread, When will Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy sell BTC? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485752.msg63690328#msg63690328)

Because no one likes everyone, no matter how smart, good person or whatever you are. Everyone has detractors, and when it comes to someone who has been successful, even more so.

The guy has revolutionized business management by being the first to propose the profitability of his company in bitcoin, and not in dollars or in the corresponding fiat currency, which looks like it will be studied in the history of economics and finance in the future. The mediocre can't stand that.

If nobody talks about you, then you are nobody. When people are talking about your actions negatively because you are focused on achieving your goal, you should know that you are doing the right thing. Micheal Saylor has a plan in future on what he wants to use all the bitcoin he is buying to achieve, which is why people are criticizing him because they know that in future, he will outsmart all traditional investors with his bitcoin holdings, so they are jealous. This was how Bukele was also criticized by the media in 2021, when he started buying one bitcoin every day with DCA to keep as El Salvador bitcoin reserve. Enemies of progress are everywhere, unknown to you.

The work that Michael Saylor has done is very commendable, because he has accumulated the best coin Bitcoin of the present time. When a person wants to be successful and other people are jealous, those who criticize Saylor are basically donkeys. He has purchased the most Bitcoin in this month of November, and he will buy more because he is very happy to predict the future, his total Bitcoin accumulation is 386700 bitcoins. People cannot tolerate such success, so they criticize.

I think you nailed it - in some distant future, hate for Saylor would still be there, albeit it would be less of it and more because of people being jealous (even more than now), rather than thinking he is a madman or something.
I wouldn't be surprised if there would be whole campaigns to discrete him or his company for that matter.

That is just human nature, those people know that even if they were on is shoes, it is likely they will not have the guts to pull this kind of move, so in a way we need to take those statements as those people expressing their discontent with themselves, as a long term holder with a small stash that is completely convinced about they are doing either does not care about what Saylor is doing, or instead holds him in high regard and admires him for all the bitcoin he has bought despite the criticism he has received.

I've posted numerous times in the bigger-than-big thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5268108.0) about MSTR and their BTC purchases (and Jesus, I didn't realize said thread was that old until I looked for it just now), and probably up until my last two posts or so I've kept a skeptical stance despite being lambasted by a certain outspoken member of the community.  I don't know why anybody here would vilify the company or Saylor per se, unless they see him as the equivalent of a bitcoin carnival barker.

That's the thing, though.  Michael Saylor might be hyping up bitcoin a little too much given that his company holds so much of it, and to that extent it might be questionable on his part to do so--but what I see mostly is a guy who truly believes in bitcoin and puts his money (or his company's at least) where his mouth is and views it as what it was intended to be from the get-go, a form of money.  He's definitely not just gambling on a moonshot and then a cash out like so many members here both past and present have done.

I mentioned in the big thread that MSTR shareholders might have a problem with Saylor should bitcoin cause the company to lose money, but at this point I'm thinking that if that hasn't happened yet it probably never will, especially since MSTR stockholders know (or should know) that the stock is nearly a proxy for owning bitcoin outright.

Eh.  Haters gonna hate.

Ordinary people wouldn't be able to do what Saylor is able to do if we are talking about the volumes of funds flowing in - but they can be bitcoiners too.
It's not the thing to criticize Michael, in my opinion - after all, he may be seen as an example for others.

People are scared over the growing dominance of Microstrategy into the cryptocurrency market. But I don't think anyone is bashing Michael Saylor personally. people are worried about too much of corporate cash flowing into the crypto market. Cryptocurrency should stay with the commoners like us. if corporates start buying into this market, it's just a matter of time they will gain the complete control of it. I believe that's what people are worried about.

A lot of corporates are sitting on a pile of cash which they can indeed invest into various assets. Microstrategy has shown the way and there's no guarantee that other corporates will not join the bandwagon. I am sure you wouldn't like corporates controlling the majority stake of the crypto market in future.

Him buying bitcoin now doesn't mean he will be hodling forever. At any point he might decide to dump his coins on us. And its his right to do so. He can do whatever he wants with the coins he bought. We shouldn't feel bad about it at all. I too somehow don't trust him completely. Something looks off with him but I don't think we are in any danger as long as we hodl btc and don't buy his stock. He might do all kinds of crazy stuff to rip his investors off but he can't do anything to us other than dumping his coins which again, would be his loss, not ours.

I see that possibility as pretty close to 0. I am more concerned that as it is diluting its voting power by issuing more shares to buy bitcoin, and already has less than 50%, in the future a decision could be made to sell by the majority of shareholders. But for the foreseeable future that possibility is also nil. No one invests in MSTR to screw up what is the key to its success.

Hm, there doesn't seem to be an obvious answer to this question, and I can see some mentions in the thread being that people envy him, some are concerned about the dominance of one corporation over the market, or that people don't actually vilify him much.
I tried to look a bit for some Bitcointalk threads, and it seems that some people are indeed concerned that Saylor can choose to sell (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485752.0) BTC any time and are worried about the potential negative impact of that (a concern mindtrust mentioned a bit). Another point is that what Saylor stands for is not what some believe (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471567.0) Bitcoin stands and should stand for, as he's a corporate player, not interested in privacy and decentralization.
I think both concerns are valid to a certain point, but not enough to vilify Saylor.

In life generally, i have learnt on so many things, sometimes you could be doing the right things and people getting jealous of you because they are not up to the task of your capabilities, secondly, even if you're a good man, not everyone will like you or tend to accept your approach for no any reason, lastly, this is a public figure and we know Michael as well of Microstrategy, himself Michael would have be acting in some ways others feels good and ok with while some may not go well with some of his social media proclamations, but the good thing i have learnt from him is the perpetual holding capacity.

Tbh I wouldn’t touch that stock with a ten ft pole even if it owned all the bitcoins in existence. I don’t understand why its investors buy this crap instead of buying btc directly too.

MS was one of those bubble stocks during the dotcom era and if you check the charts you can verify this yourself. Just this chart alone raises lots of red flags.

I don’t trust Saylor completely no matter how great and supportive he is to bitcoin and it is the smarter play. He buys lots of btc, so what? That’s not a reason to buy into his stock.

Tesla bought btc too but tesla actually manufacture some real goods and tech. And people buy the stock because it has good earnings and shiet. Wtf MS does create? As far as I am aware nothing of significance.

I like Saylor because he has been buying lots of btc, other than that, I am not really a fan.

Michael Saylor and MSTR look liked a clown for those vilifying them because they've been buying at ridiculous prices for them. Not because it's too expensive for us, they shouldn't buy. But, they've got the balls in doing it while those that keeps on whining about their purchases have probably didn't bought any penny at all. They'll continue to do this but MSTR seems to be consistent at buying at the high prices that shall become one of the lows in the nearest future. They didn't know something, we also know what they know but they're putting where their mouth is.

"You can't please anyone", as the saying goes, and so we might call this like a norm as there are people that no matter what you do, very impossible to make them happy with your decisions. So it's possible that those who don't like him doesn't have the money to buy Bitcoin as much as they want and they envy the likes of Microstrategy or Saylor himself as they are whales. But even average joe who has experience this, maybe when we are young, we will be affected by those people saying things behind our backs, but as I mature, nah, I'm not going to be attached to those kind of personalities and I will stay away from them. And I do think that Saylor knows this as he is a public figure. Remember that he even dislikes Bitcoin before, so most likely that's where the hatred on him steam from.

You measure the support or lack of it towards someone by messages on telegram channels? That's cute.
For instance Russians use telegram channels to recruit spies in the EU and spread lies about the war. Does that make telegram a reliable source?

I'll bite though. Why don't people like Saylor?
He's rich for once and people feel the market is manipulated by rich people who can do what they want.
Also, most "crypto" Telegram users focus on shitcoins and Saylor is a bitcoin maxi.

I mean I like him and the way he is buying a lot, making it a legit investment in the eyes of many and I like that, but if I were to assume anything bad about this, someone having hundreds of thousands of bitcoin is a dangerous thing in the sense that what if they decide to sell all of it one day? That could crash the price very suddenly, making most of us lose a lot of money, and that's not really a good thing.

Doesn't mean I dislike him because of this, it's a risk we are taking but this is a free market, we can't limit anyone to have any amount of bitcoin, if the yare paying to get it  then why would I want to stop them? They are making the price go up by buying bitcoin and I own bitcoin so them buying and making the price higher works great for me.

This is what I think the reason why. I think it won't be good if others will follow microstrategy on accumulating more bitcoin. It would be problematic to other people who can only acquire small amount of bitcoin and as you have explained that they could have a full control of the market if this will happen. It will be hard for commoners like us when it happens when they have full control of the market although it's still possible but very hard and I think it will be costly.

This kind of thing can be a situation that is actually normal because in the end those who really criticize have a different understanding or even the opposite direction from Saylor who always prioritizes his bitcoin maximalism so maybe this is one of the reasons some of them criticize.

But in the end this can also be based on envy where Saylor can easily take advantage of the benefits he has from different resources than us who do have to set aside some of our income for bitcoin, although something like this for some people may be too exaggerated but in the end it cannot be denied that for some people sometimes they are very jealous of the achievements of others and things like this are always a fairly common activity for those who cannot follow the way of that person which in this case is Saylor.

I did not saw anyone criticizing MSTR besides those who think they are doing wrong to use their profits as leverage to take loans and then investing that loan back into BTC. I think you raise this issue in a topic and I came to know about it from your topic as well. And there are thos who criticize him for donating to devs to create more centralized products as in some videos shared by some OGz here, says, Micheal Saylor don't like decentralization don't know the reality.

But don't know the truth too so, I don't criticize him because his buying played an important role in pumping the price and he is holding onto a massive profit that he can book anytime and dump the market but he is using that profit to buy more even. That's a positive thing too but don't know why people really criticize him. Maybe just a sentiment that big brother in the house getting all the pie hehe.

Bitcoin, since its early days, has been promoted as something that fixes the Cantillon effect (https://blog.theya.us/the-cantillon-effect/). Instead of fixing it, we see that those accumulating the most Bitcoin aren’t those producing something of value but those that have benefited from the unfairness of the fiat system.

Saylor is a textbook cantillionaire so the real question isn’t why he is vilified but why are so many deranged bitcoiners on social media worshipping him as some kind of hero.

Right? If a random small company do that, it might start their downfall if not managed carefully but this dude believe from the beginning he actually learned about the technology and do an all out for his money. And he is winning too since then.

There are a number of reasons for this. For one, it might appear to some that Taylor is making too much hype and noise and exaggeration. He doesn't seem to speak for what's actually happening on the ground. Another is that Taylor is probably perceived as not really one of us in the sense that he actually belongs to the traditional world of fiat. He actually doesn't fight for what Bitcoin truly is.

There's also the worry of some that Bitcoin might one day end up in the wrong hands, in the hands of corporations and other financial giants and Wall Street babies. Another is that some don't like that certain entities own too big slices of Bitcoin's supply. This kind of concentration is feared as it could result into too much influence or manipulation.

There are also some who simply hate them, the likes of MicroStrategy, BlackRock, and other profit-oriented businesses that benefit from the status quo while also taking advantage of what's new out there.

I agree that people who hold cryptocurrencies for long time like us are ones who really support market. It is interesting that even though Michael Saylor is fully committed to buying and holding bitcoin some people still criticize him. It is surprising that people criticize someone who is actively helping and investing in bitcoin. We would think that community would support him because he is so dedicated. But instead some people focus on bad things or flaws they think he has other than recognizing good things he does for community. Instead of criticizing each other they should work together and be kind. If they do this they can create more positive and supportive community for everyone involved in cryptocurrencies.

I am one of the HODLers who is "vilifying" Saylor. It's not about sideline FOMO cause I have been stacking since before Saylor but I am genuinely concerned that he is leading people to their doom and here's why.

Saylor sells shares in his company to buy bitcoin but he seems to be leading people to buying his stock instead of buying (and self-custodying) bitcoin. In fact, he even vilified us self-custody maximalists as "paranoid crypto anarchists" for wanting to control our own keys.

Why would people want to buy the thing that Saylor is dumping so that he can buy more bitcoin?

Why wouldn't they just buy the bitcoin (and control the private keys) since he openly claims that "there is no second best"?

It seems to me that he leads a lot of supposed bitcoin maxis to buy his derivative shitcoin MSTR instead of buying bitcoin and moving it to cold storage. That is antithetical to p2p electronic cash.

Happy to hear any pushback on this but until Saylor can cryptographically prove that he actually owns the bitcoin that he claims to own, then he is only leading his followers into a custodial rug pull like we have seen with countless platforms from Mt. Gox all the way to FTX.

I get to an extent why people don't like MicroStrategy. They think it is like FTX. They are also concerned that they are buying a lot of bitcoin that their intentions may not be pure. Like they will soon one day be confiscated by the US government and their bitcoin reserve which would then have a negative impact the adoption of bitcoin globally because by that time and with the rate at which they are buying bitcoin, they would have own more than half of the bitcoin in existence which will kind of make it easier to manipulate its price causing alot of panic among those who hold bitcoin. This is just what I am understanding from the who villification from people in the community. 

That’s exactly what people need to get, he’s not buying Bitcoin with his own money. He’s using company funds raised through shareholders to make those purchases. Basically, he’s spreading the risk to the investors. While I haven’t read all the fine print on those investment terms, it’s pretty clear that if Bitcoin’s price shoots up, he’ll benefit more than the shareholders.

But here’s the thing, if Bitcoin crashes, the risk falls more on the investors than on him. And with his name and company now already popular in the crypto space, he’s built enough trust to keep investors from panicking during major corrections. In the end, it’s a smart play. He’s managing the risk brilliantly while keeping the upside heavily in his favor. (that's why he is criticized on the bold part).

I think criticism of MicroStrategy's strategy should be allowed, without "vilifying" Saylor or describing his business model as a Ponzi or similar. For me it's a currently viable, but risky strategy. And I can imagine a lot of the criticism is rooted in these risks, be it due to fear that Bitcoin could be negatively affected, or simply to warn to be too bullish on his stocks.

First, it's true that we don't know Saylor's real intentions. There is no guarantee that his business model works for longer terms. We only know that he was able to sustain the model in a macro bullish Bitcoin uptrend with an intermediate 76% crash but a relatively fast recovery in 2023, where MicroStrategy didn't run out of money even if there were some rumours. But what if 2022 the price had dipped deeper? What if a very deep dip happens in 2026 because of whatever uncertainty that makes Bitcoin hodlers panic? And what if he simply sells eventually, e.g. when several Central Banks already have acquired some BTC, because he thinks that "the time is right to get out", e.g. because he thinks Bitcoin is close to an adoption/price ceiling? I think this all are scenarios which are possible.

Second, his buys are not really helping Bitcoin to stabilize. He tends to buy when the price is already high (https://bitcointreasuries.net/entities/microstrategy), so the cost is higher than a typical longer moving average or a DCA. This is also a bit logical, because he will be able to raise more funds when the market is bullish. But this way he amplifies bubbles without helping much to establish a bottom in bearish phases. And it makes his strategy also a whole bit riskier because there's a real chance that BTC falls for a longer time below the average cost which is currently already at 56000 according to BitcoinTreasuries.

I think it is not FUD nor vilifying to point out to these risks. In any case, I don't think that Bitcoin will be seriously harmed if MSTR fails. But it could lose some investor confidence, and a MSTR fail would for sure be very bearish for some time.

Basically, those who have not entered Bitcoin will not be able to discuss Bitcoin holders properly, because they do not know that Bitcoin is currently ruling the world. There is a type of people who get jealous and angry when they see people's success, just like Saylor is currently at the top of the most successful people through Bitcoin holding. Because he is constantly buying Bitcoin, the only real proof that the title of the most successful person is possible through Bitcoin is Michael Saylor.
Not only good people live in this world, but there are many types of people in this nature who criticize people's success jealously, I think Michael Saylor does not care because some people can criticize. Behind his success in Bitcoin is the most patience and he has achieved the most success by using knowledge and strategy.

Hmm seems off to me maybe you’re seeing some misinformation? Saylor is hailed by most Bitcoiners I’ve found and he even appears on some popular trading cards that are crypto themed or course as a complete bad ass. Saylor is perhaps one of the largest Bitcoin bulls there is.

I guess it is still 50/50, for us Bitcoin enthusiast, we see him as one of the most popular personalities that we have in recent years, after let's say John McAfee (RIP), although John has a total different aura and personality that Michael Saylor himself.

On the contrary, those who hate or vilified by some Bitcoiners might be because he is buying everything and we are left with some dust amount that we have to divide ourselves, making it very difficult to buy Bitcoin specially at the rate of the current price as it could still go up next year 2025. But in overall, Michael Saylor has made a good decision to make a U-turn and be a Bitcoin maximalist.

I feel excited and scared at the same time, not for me but for Michael, because I am sure that the bears will always haunt Bitcoin forever, the volatility will be lower for sure but the higher the amount you invest the more damage you will take when a small percent is off the BTC value, let's say just a 10% loss will be significant for anyone that invested millions of dollars in BTC.

I don't know what 2026 will look like but thats another bear market period, I hope he is ready for this, but one thing is sure, the bulls will always be back, Michael have been around for long now, I am sure he won't be surprised when the bears hit, because it is only a matter of time before BTC makes another all time high price again.

A long term holder is never a loser in this space, if he understand this then he will be the smartest investor in the future.

You can also find plenty of Saylor-haters on Nostr, Stacker News, and even on X/Twitter.


Not misinformation mate. There are cypherpunks and even ex-bitcoin developers out there who don't like him (that does not include me by the way. Personally I couldn't care less about it but I brought this up because we're seeing a divide in people's opinions on whether Bitcoin should be used as P2P money or as an investment vehicle).

As it was said - haters gonna hate.
On every platform, media, or platform in IRL: doesn't change the fact.

There are certainly more reasons why some do not approve of what Saylor and his company are doing. One of the reasons may be that he only accumulates BTC, which is contrary to what BTC was created for in the first place. Another thing that some still haven't forgotten about him concerns his statements in the past, which turned out to be completely meaningless and misguided.

Some people may not like him because he is from the US, and when we look at what is happening there, we get the impression that BTC is somehow becoming too dependent on one country and a few people who buy large amounts of BTC.

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/11/29/pandd.jpeg

I bet you can find more people saying bitcoin is a ponzi scheme on various social media than people hating on Saylor. Does that mean they're right, or that you should care about what they're saying?

I do not vilify him but to be fair, I am not a huge fan of him because he plans to buy Bitcoins indefinitely and hold them forever. As I've said many times, there are billions of people on planet Earth and if we want to do good for Bitcoin, we shouldn't hold it forever, instead, we should promote Bitcoin usage. HODLed Bitcoins are lost Bitcoins, especially when Saylor says that he plans to hold them forever like Satoshi and doesn't plan to give them to the next generation. I believe that Bitcoin has to be in circulation to create new things, to create new jobs, improve the economy, improve Bitcoin adoption and popularize its usage. HODLing, especially HODLing of 1% of total Bitcoins forever and not giving them to people is not the best job in my mind.

Because some people in the space do not understand that, for bitcoin to achieve global adoption and recognition as the best reserve asset, the "enemies" of crypto-anarchism need to participate in this game as well. A useful way to conceptualize bitcoin is as a trojan horse: it must enter the existing financial system to ultimately transform it from within.

Michael has also said some dumb things like "self-custody matters only to paranoid crypto-anarchists" which is just plain stupid to claim when one of the game changers in this concept is self-custody itself.

1.8% of bitcoin's total supply, which the company holds already, is enough to put fear in people's bodies even if they don't accumulate more, which we all know they still are not ready to stop.
 
They will still be able to make some shakes in the market, because just an announcement of saying, "We will likely sell off some of our holdings on a certain date," that alone without any action can put the market in panic mode, but that's not something people should be worried about.
 
The company is busy doing what they know will work well for them; those hating are busy doing their things, and at the end of the day, there will be only one winner and many losers.

Why do you think "hodlers" vilify MicroStrategy? Because it's a company. And a company holding large amounts of BTC, goes against Satoshi's original vision. The less BTC people own, the more power will be concentrated on a single entity. Even if network consensus is solely determined by nodes + miners. This brings inequality into the system. Wasn't Bitcoin designed as a response against the failures of centralized entities?

By putting everything in the hands of banks and corporations, Bitcoin would become no different than traditional Fiat. These players will be able to influence decisions with their money. It's said that Bitcoin Core development is already compromised, as banks are indirectly involved with donations. So there's that. Don't get me wrong. Mr. Saylor is a good person with great ambitions for Bitcoin. It's just that it doesn't feel right to have a single company own most (if not all) of the BTC. You understand me, right? :D

I guess I’ve not see any lack of support for him pretty much so maybe I’ve just not seen the negative or perhaps I Ive just seen all positive and no negative sentiments towards him. He is certainly buying up quite the amount of Bitcoin! I suppose it’s better having him on the BTC team though, so many folks are against Bitcoin like Peter Schiff for example.

Yeah, better having him buy up lots of BTC than spreading FUD about it.

Even Peter Schiff is changing his tune a little bit, from what I read on his X profile.

He is not someone who could harm BTC even if he talks negatively about it - because if a man invests $12 billion in BTC in two weeks and it does not have any impact on the price, then it is completely clear that for the majority it does not matter at all. The market is of course free and everyone can buy (for now) as much BTC as they can afford - but I don't think it's positive to go towards the fact that in a few years some individuals/companies will have millions of BTC in their possession - which is not only a security issue a risk, but also a risk for the price when one day one of them decides to sell everything he has accumulated over the years.

This means that one day in the future we may experience what it's like when someone dumps a million BTC on the market - and it won't be Satoshi.


I doubt that, because in that case he would admit that he was wrong all along - and given that he is up to his neck in gold, such an admission would be bad for his job.

Peter Schiff has his job relates to gold and he dislikes or hates Bitcoin because he sees its potential to take over a first position of gold in market cap and favorite choice of investors. Since 2009, after many years, people now can see Bitcoin is no longer risky at the same level it was created in 2009 or a few years after that. After 4 Bitcoin halvings, and four market cycles, Bitcoin now is strong and investors can see less risk if they invest their capital in Bitcoin.

Seeing less risk, while ROI of Bitcoin investment is far better than ROI of gold investment, it's really hard to don't choose Bitcoin. Peter Schiff knows all these things but to save his job, he has no other ways of attacking Bitcoin.

I don't see people "vilifying" MSTR, but it's a really, really stupid investment when MSTR is trading at a 3x premium over their Bitcoin holdings. MSTR is 100% tied to Bitcoin going up in price, and if it drops a little MSTR will probably crash.

You don't have to get personal about Saylor and Microstrategy in order to make a case against buying the MSTR stock: it's just the numbers.

I can't say that I am literally versed in technical matters when it comes to the share price of this company and the price of BTC - although it is quite logical that the company has completely exposed itself to the price of BTC - but Saylor has been buying BTC since 2020 and in that time we have seen very large fluctuations in the price BTC if we take into account that from $69k the price dropped even to $15k. The company survived all that and seems stronger than ever, and now you claim that even a minor drop would mean a crash for the company?

Somehow it doesn't make sense to me, although maybe the point is that the company's exposure to the volatility of BTC is much higher today than it was 2-3 years ago.

Yes, it didn't go out of business, but the stock went up and down with Bitcoin's price.

If you believe in Bitcoin, then just buy Bitcoin. Buying MSTR is like buying Bitcoin at a 300% premium. It's not very smart.

There is no way MS will be selling Bitcoin. He sees what the future holds and what Bitcoin offers
in terms of wealth preservation. He knows its only a matter of time before this becomes common
knowledge to those who will want it, he is getting in early.


because its outperforming Bitcoin!


I think thats part of the reason some people hate MS, the fact that they possibly see him
as pushing the price of Bitcoin up and out of reach of the majorities reach.

Also there could possibly be a thinking that Bitcoin is for anti-establishment, anti-banks
thinking people and MS getting involved signals the establishment are following his path
into Bitcoin

As far as I understand, Michael Saylor has spoken out in favor of centralized storage of Bitcoin.

This is exactly why old Bitcoin holders criticize him. The main value of Bitcoin is decentralization. Decentralization consists of three aspects - decentralization of mining, decentralization of development and decentralization of storage. Michael Saylor and Microstrategy aim to accumulate 1,000,000 Bitcoins. Will this be good for Bitcoin decentralization? I highly doubt it.

Microstrategy's capitalization is much higher than the capitalization of the Bitcoins they have on their balance sheet. How can this even be? In the world of Wall Street finance, anything is possible, but derivatives will destroy the value of the first cryptocurrency in the long term.

This is why old Bitcoin holders have very mixed feelings about Michael Saylor.

That's a reason not to buy it.

MSTR has no value besides it's ownership of Bitcoin, so if it's trading at a multiple of their holdings, it's just... stupid.

It is undeniable that for now we can see that Saylor looks like a “marketing department” for bitcoin because indeed the consistency with which he has continued to launch his actions with bitcoin in recent years has made a lot of sentiment both positive and negative that comes his way.

But even so, regardless of bitcoiners who hate or support the way I think he still won't stop because apart from future goals it looks like he is targeting this as a form of popularity enhancer because whether you realize it or not Microstrategy and Saylor themselves are always associated or noticed when bitcoin starts to experience growth because indeed the assets he has and the buzz he does to become a maximalist are always worth talking about a lot of people.

But, why? It's just financial leverage, one of the many financial products in the market. For example, MicroStrategy owns $1 billion worth of bitcoin, and is $500 million in debt, then the net equity is $500 million. If bitcoin goes up by 20%, their holdings are now worth $1.2 billion. The net equity increases to $700 million. For MicroStrategy, that's 40%. (More than bitcoin, but with added counterparty risk.)

Why do you think that a person who:

- conducts a company depending heavily on the Bitcoin price,
- will benefit probably also personally from it,
- are one of the biggest Bitcoin whales (and thus the market will "hear" them),
- knows that each "change of direction" in the MicroStrategy communication, even if it becomes slightly more "reasonable" (e.g. mentioning 200.000 as a possible cycle top and not a million), could be interpreted by other investors as "he changed his mind, he now will sell and Bitcoin will crash!"

... should make accurate statements about the long term future of the behaviour of the company? Or should they instead make bullish statements all the time?

I'm quite sure that MicroStrategy's strategy is much more flexible than many think. They may re-evaluate continuously if their business model still works, and if yes (like now), deepen it, but if not, they may have several "B plans" (if they don't do that, they aren't doing their homework as a public company).

It's already interesting that it seems that in their newest Senior notes they don't even guarantee a cash repayment of the investment (if I understood this announcement (https://www.microstrategy.com/press/microstrategy-announces-pricing-of-convertible-senior-notes-11-20-2024) correctly).

If something has only value when you "get in early", well, we have a name for it - starting with P. I'm not accusing Saylor of that, but the investment is still speculative: we don't know what Bitcoin's fundamentals will look like after some Central Banks bought it. Does it then still have room to the upside? I personally think 100.000 is still a good price to buy, but that's because I'm more bullish than the average investor and I think there are chances that Bitcoin could become a global currency. The market, however, prices BTC slightly lower at this moment.

Besides of that -- I think I already posted that in this thread, one or two pages earlier -- MicroStrategy bought very few coins in the 2022/23 crypto winter and their cost is above average, because they simply don't get the money to buy really cheap (their senior notes sell well in a bull market, but only when the best days to buy have already passed).

For this reason, imo a Bitcoin DCA is much better than MSTR.

MSTR has $30B in Bitcoin and they market cap for the company is $100B. If they went into debt to get this $30B, than that is even worse.

You are basically paying $100B for $30B in Bitcoin, some of which they apparently don't even own.

And yes, you could pay somebody else e.g. MSTR to buy Bitcoin on margin for you, but why would you do that when they are charging you a 250% premium? If you want to borrow money to buy Bitcoin, then borrow money to buy Bitcoin--and then get 100% of the profits if it works instead of just 30%.

I think people have legitimate reasons to vilify MicroStrategy. They are buying so much Bitcoin and are using leverage that is increasing. Their liquidation price is currently $20,000. While it is unlikely that will happen, it isn’t unheard of for Bitcoin to drop 85% in a correction. If that happened it would cause a liquidation that would destroy the price and likely confidence in Bitcoin. In other words, people hate MSTR because they’re creating a systemic risk for Bitcoin.

from the beginning what Michael Saylor did was a risky thing and not everyone is able to do it, but he still gets criticism, hate, and envy, whether from the bitcoin community itself or from other parties. But what Michael Saylor did was something that needs to be appreciated, especially for the bitcoin community itself, isn't that what the bitcoin community wants? where there is someone who is ready to invest in bitcoin in large amounts and increase the value of bitcoin itself. But still envy and worry are our basic nature, and it is based on concerns about bitcoin centralization, and other problems, but at least Michael Saylor is not like someone who says he cares about the future of bitcoin but does nothing to bitcoin.

Here's what X is saying about MSTR right now...

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/12/02/pQ4Zm.jpeg

Yeah, but the correction wouldn't happen only because MS would sell off their BTC at once (I don't think they would be able to in the first place, we are not talking about the BTC of Saylor himself) - so I do see why people can hate MS, but I don't see it happening due to Microstrategy doing it for the profits - they wouldn't try to mess up with something that feeds them (from their perspective).
"Don't bite the hand that feeds you" ::)

I do think it arises from the fact that - such - big sums flow from one person or a company of his - that's natural too.
But I wouldn't think it would bring that much harm in the perspective, only if - all - companies like MS would drop their BTC off while doing it simultaneously.

Don't we hate the people we are jealous of?  ;)

But seriously though a lot of us praise Michael Saylor and Microstrategy because they were able to acquire Bitcoin at a cheap price and even before most of people got to Bitcoin. But I am guessing people do not like the concept of any individual or entity holding a lot of Bitcoin and potentially having the chance to control the market. They are thinking that the money Microstrategy is holding is not circulating which could be bad for the overall market. They want the coins circulating and not just being held. This is what I am assuming anyway. If they have a different reason, I would love to hear it.

The biggest thing I've heard by far is the thing you said - not even being jealous, but skeptical about the idea of a big whale and his entity holding so much, whereas it can be seen from either good or bad side depending on the overall situation on the market and how others whales like Saylor feel about BTC currently.
As it was said, such people and entities always have plan B if plan A doesn't work as intended.

probably because his buying will reduce the decentralization of holders, but if i'm being honest, people just like to hate, but I think people hate MSTR because it's a software company that's supposedly to be valued significantly lower than it is today had they didn't buy bitcoin but the truth is they did and their MSTR value has sky rocketed. sometime it feels like missing the pump when we just don't expect company like MSTR to make pivotal move like this and gained so much stock value increase just within short amount of time and apparently so many of us missed the train and well, some become bitter, though so far I don't really see any valid reasoning behind the hate so far except their inflated worth that's few times more than their bitcoin holdings.

No - I think those who invested in MSTR have made a very rewarding choice

See below!




I'm not sure if this is a Plan B or if it is a goal but didnt MS mention that they want to be

No, you're paying leverage. It's a bet. Just like you bet that bitcoin will rise by 20%, but you want bigger returns than 20%. What do you mean they "apparently don't even own"? They're buying their bitcoin, and use multi-sig with a custodian, if I recall right.

I believe it relates to legislative issues. For example, someone may want to invest their 401k in bitcoin, but the law prohibits it, so they choose to invest in MSTR instead. They could use a bitcoin ETF as well, though.

Well, I think the answer is very simple, reason for this is because most believe that the man already have too many bitcoins in his possession alone, and you know this popular saying about when power is left in the hands of one man, he may likely misuse it, and by so doing, become a threat instead of a blessing.

Personally, I do not hate Michael Saylor, he has his money and can do whatever he wanted with it, and those of us who love bitcoin should be happy for such a man, because whether we believe it or not, he has contributed greatly to the acceptance and confidence people, large cooperations, and even governments have in bitcoin today, his story is an inspiration and encouragement to alot of big Firms to consider creating a bitcoin reserve for the company, for the more we have this, the more our bitcoin becomes more valuable.

So, in the nutshell, I do not see any reason to hate or even envy the Man, hard and smart work pays.

Okay. Got it. So you give me $1000, and I will use your $1000 to buy $10,000 in Bitcoin? Sound good? But here's the catch: if Bitcoin doubles in price, and my Bitcoin is worth $20,000, I will give you $6,000 and I will keep $14,000, even though you could have done this yourself and kept the entire $20,000. Sound fair?



When you buy a stock on margin, you don't own it--it's like getting a loan for a car.


It's like an ETF with a 70% management fee (which is like, 140x what management fees normally are).

Bitcoin was never meant to integrate itself with the traditional financial system (institutionalization). It was created as a response from banks' (and governments') inherent failures. By welcoming "Wall Street" with open hands, we have essentially introduced a "single point of failure" into Bitcoin. I'm afraid all of these giant corporations will buy and "hodl" most of the circulating supply for their own benefit. Bitcoin will become centralized just like the Internet. It's human greed that will lead it towards its demise. The approval of spot ETFs is just the beginning.

It's not about making lots money. It's about becoming free (as in liberty) from the oppression of state-controlled currencies. I guess central banks and governments win after all. Why do you think Fiat currencies are still relevant these days? At least, BTC is open source. If all else fails, we can just "fork off" to a new chain and forget about the rest.

As I said in another thread, this year's election donations was dominated by crypto brokers who make a lot more money from non-Bitcoin coins. Since most consumers use these brokers to buy digital currencies, they are now the gatekeepers to consumer choices. Because of that, I can see Bitcoin's dominance getting smaller and smaller over time--it's a simple matter of economics. And I think once Bitcoin falls before 50% of the market, the trend will accelerate based on the psychological factors (it's at 55% now).

Those corporations won't HOLD Bitcoin, they will sell it at the exact moment they think they can profit the most from it. Nobody invests in an instrument just to let it sit there forever, unless it's your house or something. Every other investment is there to make money--and money is meant to be... spent. (This is why an economic downturn would absolutely crush Bitcoin: it would be the first thing most consumer investors would sell if they needed money to pay the bills).

So yeah, with the majority of Bitcoin being controlled by a handful of in-the-know whales--and there being absolutely no regulation of any of this like there is for stocks--those whales can completely manipulate the market for their own profit and average holders will be left holding... the bag.

Of course. No one is capable of holding BTC forever. Especially greedy corporations looking to profit quickly. They will cash out whenever they see the opportunity to do so. BTC will keep changing hands just like traditional Fiat currencies. What's important is that the majority of the BTC in circulation stays in the hands of the people and not in the hands of corporations, businesses, and governments alike. We all want a fairer system with freedom in mind. That's why Satoshi invented Bitcoin in the first place.

Since BTC is too tied with the mainstream economy, its value might fall drastically in the future if everything collapses. At least, the Blockchain will be up and running as usual. The future is unpredictable, so I'd hope for the best.

In my years on this planet I have seen both corporations and individuals exhibit immense amounts of greed :).

For that matter, I think individuals tend to be more "greedy" when it comes to investment since they tend to be more emotional about their sale, as opposed to a corporation which is often run by professional investors.

And in the case of Bitcoin, from what I have seen, it is mostly held by a tiny number of individual whales who are probably very well connected and can time the market far better than any amateur ever could.

If what you really want is a "democratic" digital currency that is very widely held, and not controlled by a small number of whales, then... Bitcoin is not going to be what you want  :-\. I don't pretend to know what is (sounds like a fun project for somebody: a currency that no individual would be allowed to hold more than a tiny percentage of), but it's definitely not BTC.

At Haypenny, we added the concept of "capital controls" for new memecoins, which can help make the market more fair. We're open to doing other things, too. We've always been focused on the "small" investor, not giant funds that dictate the terms of the market.



Anything with a market cap over a few billion is going to be like this. People invest in speculative stuff when they have extra money and then sell it when they need to pay the bills.

Of course Bitcoin itself will be just fine--it would be fine if the price went back to $1--but a lot of people would probably be wiped out by it.

It's certainly difficult to keep BTC out of the hands of greedy businesses and corporations alike. Especially when it's traded on the "free market". Putting "capital controls" on a coin might work. But prices won't rise that much because there won't be any whales able to "pump" them. Without money flowing, the project will become nothing but a failure.

Bitcoin has changed course only to help attract big investors and governments into it. I know it's bad for decentralization, but if we want prices to rise and BTC to go mainstream, this would be the way to go. There's no other choice. Otherwise, regulators will come up with "roadblocks" or obstacles which will prevent BTC from being used worldwide. This translates into lower market prices and mainstream adoption. At least, Bitcoin is open source. So all hope is not lost. :)

Therein lies the catch-22 :).

Bitcoiners hate it when the whales control everything, but they... sure love their money :).

And the same with decentralization: you can be "religious" and poor, or pragmatic and rich--it's one or the other.