Why is Microstrategy vilified by some?

[Abiky]

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.

[legiteum]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Abiky]

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 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.

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.

[legiteum]

[...]
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.

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.