Michael Saylor is not Bitcoin's hero

[bbc.reporter]

He wants his own image for bitcoin and with his economic influence on it and an inordinate amount of control on the price, can he influence the community?

I reckon much of the people in the community might not care as long as he and his friends can pump bitcoin with their billions of dollars. This is another story of big people stepping on little people again hehehe.



“Stop talking about regulatory arbitrage. Censorship-resistance, privacy, and tax evasion are bad ideas. We hate that.”

The conversation began with a huge letdown. I had asked Michael Saylor what could motivate greater institutional investment in Bitcoin—after all, if Bitcoin is going to the moon, we’re gonna need a lot of deep pockets to climb on board.

“People with billions of dollars don’t want to invest in crypto networks that support anarchists,” Saylor explained.

I asked Saylor if this was a marketing problem.

"It’s a matter of emphasis. The industry would benefit if we didn’t call Bitcoin a cryptocurrency, but a crypto asset."

As a “currency,” Bitcoin not only competes with the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, it also implies a payment network to compete with Square, Apple Pay, Alipay, and other services that are both faster and cheaper. Maybe that’s why even the venture capitalists on Sand Hill Road still struggle with Bitcoin as a technology. They see it as either a bet on the collapse of Western Civilization, or a heavily impaired PayPal.

Source https://www.btctimes.com/insight/michael-saylor-on-bitcoins-next-billion-hodlers

[1715581094]

1715581094

[nutildah]

I never really cared for or about this Michael Saylor guy. As CEO of a big company, he made a gamble and it paid off. That's admirable, and great for his shareholders. However, I don't think he understands what Bitcoin is supposed to be about. He'd obviously be pleased if he could mold it into a tool that benefited himself first and foremost.

All we can do is hope that Bitcoin Core remains democratic and self-regulating enough to not cave to corporate interests as its going to be more tempting than ever in the upcoming years.

[witcher_sense]

“People with billions of dollars don’t want to invest in crypto networks that support anarchists,” Saylor explained

He is right. People with billions of dollars will rather invest in traditional networks such as banks and others that support money launderers, terrorists, and authoritarian governments. Unlike fiat money, Bitcoin is for anarchists and libertarians who want to separate governments and money, deprive them of the power to print money to constantly finance their shady needs, which is completely unacceptable for pseudobitcoiners like Michael Saylor.

[pooya87]

It is already too late to want to "control" bitcoin price no matter how much money one has, "influencing" the market for a short time is still a thing though. But newbies can still dream

In any case there are still people who are stuck in the denial phase not wanting to believe that bitcoin as the only successful decentralized global censorship resistant currency has been working find for over a decade and its value is still increasing to this day. When they see one unit of a currency is worth twenty thousand times more than one unit of US dollar they fall deeper in that denial not wanting to believe that this payment system is a success and will only continue to grow without needing any "deep pockets" just as it has been for the past decade...

[davis196]

“People with billions of dollars don’t want to invest in crypto networks that support anarchists,” Saylor explained.

I asked Saylor if this was a marketing problem.

"It’s a matter of emphasis. The industry would benefit if we didn’t call Bitcoin a cryptocurrency, but a crypto asset."

1.99% of the people,who own cryptocurrencies aren't anarchists.His point isn't valid.

2.It doesn't matter how we call Bitcoin.BTC is both a cryptocurrency and a crypto asset,so the way we call it doesn't change the nature of Bitcoin in any way.I don't give a damn about the opinions of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

I don't like the views of this guy about crypto.As if he is trying to say "Look,I'm OK with pumping the Bitcoin price,but let's not make the big boys angry." By the "big boys" I mean the Federal Reserve,the government and the big payment gateway companies.

[hatshepsut93]

“People with billions of dollars don’t want to invest in crypto networks that support anarchists,” Saylor explained.

Yet we still read from time to time about a billionaire or at least a multi-millionaire saying that they own Bitcoin and it's a good investment. Maybe Michael Saylor shouldn't speak for "all" billionaires - after all, they are people, and people can have different views. Some billionaires probably don't care about "supporting anarchists" as long as they get profit, and others might not believe that Bitcoin "supports anarchists", or that anarchism is a huge deal.

It's like if people refused to invest in the Internet, because there's darknet, or even just the fact that there's a lot of awful things on the clearnet, and no one can stop that. Everyone, including billionaires, agrees that the government shouldn't control the Internet like they do in China, so why should they have a radically different opinion on Bitcoin?

[Obi theo]

 This is just to show that most investors really don't understand the concept of bitcoin , the just investing in this to yield profit and when that don't happen they then to call it names. I wish they was a way to give them proper orientation before they invest in it.....

[Wind_FURY]

OP, the fact that you started this topic with that question, makes me encouraged to see that "NO", Michael Saylor will never influence the people in community that matter. He will be Bitcoin's new Roger Ver if he forces his own narrative on the Honey Badger.

I want to know how/what the Core developers, like gmaxwell, feel/think about the "Saylor-narrative".

[acquafredda]

Michael Saylor is sailing his personal bitcoin ocean. Sorry for this stupid intro but I do not very much approve this man's actions. His changing narrative is something to stay away from, still he has a big say around the finance world. He feels too empowered by the fact that he was able to probably time the market but I do not feel has more to say than others also considering his bitcoin dismissal in the past.
Watch out.

[buwaytress]

The heroes of Bitcoin don't need exposure. But I don't see why Saylor should be painted as a villain. We're all happy when big buyers are all hot and heavy on Bitcoin, aren't we? Regular Joe's always going to be there, growing in stature, they can (try to) manipulate all they want but I don't think it's sinister.

[nutildah]

The heroes of Bitcoin don't need exposure. But I don't see why Saylor should be painted as a villain. We're all happy when big buyers are all hot and heavy on Bitcoin, aren't we? Regular Joe's always going to be there, growing in stature, they can (try to) manipulate all they want but I don't think it's sinister.

Well, he flat out said he hates the ideals that Bitcoin was founded upon. That's a good reason to paint him as a villain, if one were so inclined. And you didn't just call a billionaire a "Regular Joe", did you??

This is who you are dealing with:

In March 2000, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought charges against Saylor and two other MicroStrategy executives for the company's inaccurate reporting of financial results for the preceding two years. In December 2000, Saylor settled with the SEC without admitting wrongdoing by paying $350,000 in penalties and a personal disgorgement of $8.3 million. As a result of the restatement of results, the company's stock declined in value and Saylor's net worth fell by $6 billion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Saylor

He'll obviously say or do anything in the pursuit of even more money. A bit of a ridiculous human being if I do say so myself. He cares about Bitcoin as much as Donald Trump cares about America. Make of that what you will.

[bitterguy28]

This is just to show that most investors really don't understand the concept of bitcoin , the just investing in this to yield profit and when that don't happen they then to call it names. ..

Because many investors here just come because of encouragement of their friends and relatives that This is Good investment and may bring them Millions just buy and Hold or Buy then sell.
when Bitcoin becomes a Material for trading and not what satoshi designed this.
and you are right that once they did not get what they want or in worst case that they lose instead of gaining(because of their Panicking move as what newbie does) they will throw stones and blame the crypto market for the stupidity they did as investing in market that you don't really understand well.

I wish they was a way to give them proper orientation before they invest in it.....

If only We they ask the community first ,but it is not because when they enter in this market they come directly in exchange and buy as what they have told,But of course this s for Small investor..

[Wind_FURY]

The heroes of Bitcoin don't need exposure. But I don't see why Saylor should be painted as a villain.

I believe it will be Michael Saylor's personal narratives themselves which will "paint" him as the villain, like how Roger Ver undid his own hero-status in Bitcoin years before him.

[Fundamentals Of]

A lot of people are criticizing or even insulting others who treat Bitcoin as a way to make money. And now it seems to me Michael Saylor is one of them but instead of criticizing him, a lot are actually promoting his statements as if the man is a real representative of what Bitcoin truly is. For me, Michael is just actually chasing dollars and he happens to spot Bitcoin as one of the easier ways to make it. And now he is marketing Bitcoin very hard because he wants the price to rise and rise no end and make himself even richer.

[milani]

“People with billions of dollars don’t want to invest in crypto networks that support anarchists,” Saylor explained.

I asked Saylor if this was a marketing problem.

"It’s a matter of emphasis. The industry would benefit if we didn’t call Bitcoin a cryptocurrency, but a crypto asset."

As a “currency,” Bitcoin not only competes with the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, it also implies a payment network to compete with Square, Apple Pay, Alipay, and other services that are both faster and cheaper. Maybe that’s why even the venture capitalists on Sand Hill Road still struggle with Bitcoin as a technology. They see it as either a bet on the collapse of Western Civilization, or a heavily impaired PayPal.[/i]

Source https://www.btctimes.com/insight/michael-saylor-on-bitcoins-next-billion-hodlers

I am agree that lots of big investors would rather choose the traditional systems and services, but nevertheless lots of people with billions of dollars made their investments into Bitcoin, crypto projects and enormous crypto ideas of services and so on. And they doubled their assets. In my opinion it depends on personal motivation and the concrete situation. So telling that Bitcoin or crypto are for anarchists only, I would avoid such statements. The other thing is that there are lots of traditional systems and people who prefers the traditional systems and services, and they are also in the competitive strugle for existence. So it is not key moment how to name Bitcoin - assets or currency, the most important in my opinion, what are you doing with it for its developing. And many men many minds. Every opinion has the right to be.

[Lucius]

He wants his own image for bitcoin and with his economic influence on it and an inordinate amount of control on the price, can he influence the community?

I personally think he can’t influence the crypto community in any significant way. A man does not own 5 million BTC that he can be significant as a person who can in some way affect anything, regardless of his opinions that have been changing since 2013. There are people who also have a lot more BTC in their possession (or who have had it), so they have failed to impose their ideas and mislead the community, and here I am thinking primarily of Faketoshi CW and Roger Ver & Co.

No matter how the story of Michael Saylor develops, I think it's too early to call him a hero or Judas - a man is simply an investor who has some opinions about Bitcoin, but does anyone think we should worry too much about that?

[sheenshane]

Even us (crypto holders) will remain speculative on what the future lies ahead for Bitcoin.  None of us can conclude if when does Bitcoin will become a number one currency same as fiat or will it remain as an asset but as of now, it's fair for us that Bitcoin has been recognized as a good investment as global adoption proves it.

I may not inculpate those people who have billions of dollars if they find Bitcoin as an asset like Michael Saylor sees it because those who have been in the business for quite some time now will remain and choose to cling to the traditional system where they have grown, get used to, and established themselves as skilled businessmen which if they would try to go in crypto world where decentralization is the core idealogy they might find it challenging to get stabilized again.

No matter how the story of Michael Saylor develops, I think it's too early to call him a hero or Judas - a man is simply an investor who has some opinions about Bitcoin, but does anyone think we should worry too much about that?

I tend to agree, and heroes will not reveal themselves too.

[cabron]

He does have some camera pointing at him when he speaks of his bitcoin investment. He is just a bullish investors but it happens to be a CEO of a big company that is why we noticed him this time. If it weren't for Raul Pal interview I wouldn't have heard of the guy. He is a businessman and likely just like any other guy who invested in BTC, he wants profit. 

[AakZaki]

He wants his own image for bitcoin and with his economic influence on it and an inordinate amount of control on the price, can he influence the community?

~snip~

I don't think so, even monopolizing with his wealth probably won't happen. I read, he has 38,250 BTC and maybe until now the number is growing. Raising the price of BTC and becoming a hero may only be for the people who benefit, but I'm glad he believes in Bitcoin but not to make him a hero.

~snip~

All we can do is hope that Bitcoin Core remains democratic and self-regulating enough to not cave to corporate interests as its going to be more tempting than ever in the upcoming years.

As long as they stay on track, I don't think a developer with  consensus will be able to drink coffee and negotiate with them. If they don't comply, I think Bitcoin will die.

[Altcoinsintel]

I don't know why some think of Saylor as a hero. In fact Bitcoin never benefited from heroes.
See: Bitcoin Jesus.

The whole community matters more than one, and this person is obviously trying to promote his personal image more than anything else. Did great for his company with a huge bet.
He had a past with a huge pump and dump of the price share of microstrategy and was accused of fraud by the SEC too, but this doesn't actually matter.
Bitcoin wasn't ever about any one person. Satoshi left for this reason too because everything was concentrated around him. Did better for Bitcoin when the founder left, when Gavin Andresen left and when more that gain power will also leave. There is nobody that has a say on Bitcoin and I keep reading comments in bitcointalk by people that think they have the right to claim how Bitcoin will move, but they aren't doing justice for Bitcoin, only for themselves. Bitcoin is a currency among other things. Face it and move on. It is a lot of things and not just what someone and his friends want it to be.