It is good for the network when institutional investors like MicroStrategy and Michael Saylor purchases a lot of BTC
The network only can be supported if people run more Bitcoin full nodes or more miners join the network and increase total hashrate of the network as well as config their mining rigs to different mining pools with thoughtful consideration on what pools to participate in. Because with more full nodes, the Bitcoin blockchain will be stored more decentralized and more nodes mean more decentralized validators of Bitcoin blocks. Choosing mining pools with intention to avoid very big pools will help to reduce risk of 51% attacks.
it can affect the price in a good way if they continue to buy, but i don't think MicroStrategy is giving BTC anymore exposure than it already had before they started buying BTC, and i don't think one should buy BTC because MicroStrategy or Michael Saylor bought, they should buy BTC because they have done their own research and believe that BTC is a good investment for them.
It is about risk of price impact when big institutional investors like MicroStrategy sell their bitcoins massively. However, if we talk about selling, we should also mention about their considerable impacts on price when they are buying massively in the past.
Is it fair if we only discuss about their selling impacts and skip or try to hide their past buyings which help Bitcoin to rise up a lot?