Do you think Michael Saylor is a bit dodgy?

[brainactive]

On 19 December 2013, Michael Saylor tweets "Bitcoin's days are numbered. It seems like just a matter of time before it suffers the same fate as online gambling."

How does someone go from this to buying 100,000 bitcoin and starting a mining council?

I understand that anyone's entitled to change their views over time, but am I the only one who thinks he's a bit suspicious? This is not a high school student tweeting random things and then learning about the case for bitcoin a few years later. This is an educated, intelligent and high profile and long standing CEO basically doing a 180. How does that even happen?

In recent interviews, he makes the point that bitcoin is the "apex-predator asset" and that we should go all-in on bitcoin because diversification doesn't make sense when there is a clear winner. This just sounds so dodgy to me and makes in cringe a bit when I hear it. Michael isn't just saying bitcoin is a clear winner out of the cryptos but he is saying bitcoin is the clear winner out of all asset classes and therefore it makes sense to go 100% into bitcoin...

[mk4]

How is doing a 180 on something suspicious? I personally have a lot more respect to those that realized that they're wrong and changed their mind, compared to those that stand strong to their obviously-wrong narrative just because of their ego.

With that said, I've already watched like more than a dozen interviews of Michael Saylor, and I have no doubt that he knows what he's talking about. Well, except the "borrow money and go all in on bitcoin" thing. That I'm quite against. It's either he's a delusional mega bitcoin bull, or he's trying a bit too hard into pumping bitcoin's price.

[NeuroticFish]

This is an educated, intelligent and high profile and long standing CEO basically doing a 180. How does that even happen?

How about JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon who wrote the bitcoin is a fraud and some years later he admitted that he was wrong? He's also a person with BMA at Harvard.
People can make mistakes in their judgement. Admitting them, learning further, ... and I'd say that educated people have better chances to learn and move forward.
So I don't see anything fishy there. When Saylor finally understood Bitcoin, he also understood that it can easily be a gold mine.

[brainactive]

How about JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon who wrote the bitcoin is a fraud and some years later he admitted that he was wrong? He's also a person with BMA at Harvard.
People can make mistakes in their judgement. Admitting them, learning further, ... and I'd say that educated people have better chances to learn and move forward.
So I don't see anything fishy there. When Saylor finally understood Bitcoin, he also understood that it can easily be a gold mine.

The overall idea of bitcoin is not particularly complicated to understand (the nitty gritties of bitcoin might complicated but not the general idea). Ideas such as governments printing money, devaluation of currency, bitcoin's fixed supply and incentive driven network aren't foreign concepts to someone like Michael. It's not something that will take years to finally understand.

There are FUD-slingers, flip-floppers and genuine people. I'd classify Jamie Dimon as a flip-flopper. He doesn't really have anything useful to say about bitcoin and he just changes his tune to confuse people. It won't surprise me that Jamie already understood bitcoin a decade ago or whenenver he came across it.

[pixie85]

How is doing a 180 on something suspicious?

We could make a list of people who said contradicting things over the years.

Mark Cuban, John McAfee, Elon Musk, Kevin O'Leary... Some were positive and turned negative, some the other way round.
I don't find Saylor to be dodgy at all. He saw real profits, Bitcoin helped him build his company, so he became bullish.

[brainactive]

We could make a list of people who said contradicting things over the years.

Mark Cuban, John McAfee, Elon Musk, Kevin O'Leary... Some were positive and turned negative, some the other way round.
I don't find Saylor to be dodgy at all. He saw real profits, Bitcoin helped him build his company, so he became bullish.

And what are your thoughts on Mark Cuban, John McAfee, Elon Musk, Kevin O'Leary?

Do you think they're dodgy?

Or do you think they just saw the potential for real losses and became bearish?

[bL4nkcode]

Give a person a chance, there are lots of huge names that changes their perspective after they realized they were wrong. He's one of the biggest asset on this community imo. Without his company investing bitcoin I doubt that bitcoin will reach such current price at this early. He really understood what bitcoin is.

[NeuroticFish]

The overall idea of bitcoin is not particularly complicated to understand (the nitty gritties of bitcoin might complicated but not the general idea). Ideas such as governments printing money, devaluation of currency, bitcoin's fixed supply and incentive driven network aren't foreign concepts to someone like Michael. It's not something that will take years to finally understand.

Yes and no.
Bitcoin is indeed scarce. Bitcoin has indeed limited supply. Indeed, as long as there's demand, with the supply remaining fixed, the price will rise. But imho it's not that easy to grasp why there's such demand for Bitcoin.
All in all, the internals are clearer than its economics, because the economics imply human reactions, which, as you noted, can change over time.

So while I expect him to understand (if he cares) the internals, it could have taken indeed some more time to digest its economics and understand its potential.

Elon Musk

Here's a difference. This guy is posting whatever suits him now, whatever he feels now and doesn't give a shit about the consequences.
Keep in mind that he's a billionaire hence he can live very well with or without Bitcoin ever existing. And he doesn't seem to take anything serious enough.


Edit: fixed typo

[brainactive]

Yes and no.
Bitcoin is indeed scarce. Bitcoin has indeed limited supply. Indeed, as long as there's demand, with the supply remaining fixed, the price will rise. But imho it's not that easy to gasp why there's such demand for Bitcoin.
All in all, the internals are clearer than its economics, because the economics imply human reactions, which, as you noted, can change over time.

So while I expect him to understand (if he cares) the internals, it could have taken indeed some more time to digest its economics and understand its potential.

Agreed that the economics are driven by human reactions and this isn't easy to grasp. Michael seems to believe that Bitcoin is basically a done deal, that it is guarateed to go to $1M. I think he's saying this publicly but he doesn't truly believe it. And it is precisely because the economics are driven by human reactions that make it impossible to have such a certain view on bitcoin's eventual outcome.

Here's a difference. This guy is posting whatever suits him now, whatever he feels now and doesn't give a shit about the consequences.
Keep in mind that he's a billionaire hence he can live very well with or without Bitcoin ever existing. And he doesn't seem to take anything serious enough.

Michael Saylor could potentially be no different, posting whatever suits him at the time. Just with a different time frame.

[electronicash]

We could make a list of people who said contradicting things over the years.

Mark Cuban, John McAfee, Elon Musk, Kevin O'Leary... Some were positive and turned negative, some the other way round.
I don't find Saylor to be dodgy at all. He saw real profits, Bitcoin helped him build his company, so he became bullish.

And what are your thoughts on Mark Cuban, John McAfee, Elon Musk, Kevin O'Leary?

Do you think they're dodgy?
Or do you think they just saw the potential for real losses and became bearish?

each of them had actually opened some doors for something to look at. Cuban was complaining about the Defu project that did the rug pull lately and now it seems regulators are checking what Defi has to offer. i wouldn't say dodgy like deceitful but at least these popular persons are opening the eyes of the government.

Micheal Saylor somewhat makes us now know that there can be negotiations to be done for BTC to be widely adopted and that could be environment friendly and green energy.  elon is something else.

[NeuroticFish]

Michael Saylor could potentially be no different, posting whatever suits him at the time. Just with a different time frame.

The change of optics has happened at some point and afterwards he started investing. The investment is what's to be followed. Posting, declarations, those are biased (and worthless). Of course that now his declarations will be bullish. I don't feel this being "dodgy".
I mean, I see it absolutely normal for the head of a company working with Bitcoin and investing into Bitcoin to declare "bitcoin is the "apex-predator asset" and that we should go all-in on bitcoin" as you said. But we know that such declarations are biased, but we're biased too, so we smile and move on.

[TIMBUCKTOOOOO]

People can change their mind on things without being dodgy...

[brainactive]

With that said, I've already watched like more than a dozen interviews of Michael Saylor, and I have no doubt that he knows what he's talking about. Well, except the "borrow money and go all in on bitcoin" thing. That I'm quite against. It's either he's a delusional mega bitcoin bull, or he's trying a bit too hard into pumping bitcoin's price.

Interviewer: "Do you have eggs for breakfast?"
Michael Saylor: "If dinner outperforms breakfast and lunch then breakfast is just a losing game. If your egg is radioactive and is about to spontaneously explode, you wouldn't eat it would you? The issue I see there is that toast has no purpose when unpaired with eggs.Imagine your a Venezuelan chicken in Nazi Germany..."

Saw this comment somewhere and it pretty much summaries Michael's interviews.

[worle1bm]

Many have changed their prespective about bitcoin as in early days Bitcoin transaction were limited and not much hype was there and silk road was busted and thousands of bitcoins were confiscated by the Feds.The decentralisation concept was new as they think fiat cannot be served as alternate to these coins with high volatility having no backed up assest.But with time their thinking changed and they came to know about these revolutionary and decentralised coin bitcoin and wanted to be part of it.The main enemy of bitcoin the central banks and government have came up with new statement making btc legal and providing crypto services to customers so this is how Saylor also come in this list and we might appreciate him for this investment although his main motive is profit.

[jesselui]

No rich man is stupid. No rich man loses money. Since Michael has announced that he has bought so many bitcoins, I think he wants to sell it. When he rises, he will sell what he has.

[Kittygalore]

No rich man is stupid. No rich man loses money. Since Michael has announced that he has bought so many bitcoins, I think he wants to sell it. When he rises, he will sell what he has.

You are right, the rich people get to where they are not because they are taking sides and having loyalty, what they are is opportunistic people that will easily change sides if it fits their interests. Pretty sure that Michael Saylor is any different from other businessmen out there.

[stompix]

No rich man is stupid. No rich man loses money.

Yeah right..

As for Michael Saylor, I don't think there is anything special about his change of views, he saw suddenly this can bring him money, he got interested in it, let's be honest, if bitcoin would be all about technology and freedom and not a bit about financial gains how many would be interested in right now? 2-3% of everyone here? Many times I doubt myself too, more or less depending on the mood.

What I feel is a bit disturbing about him is that he starts to look more and more like a salesman or a bitconnect promoter, he is all about money, borrowing and paying interest to buy more bitcoin and increasing his exposure days by day, if the price will drop once more below 30k, how does he plan on paying, a prolonged bear market will turn his company in a Ponzi scheme, trying to attract more capital to pay up for the sums he has borrowed, as selling coins is clearly a no since it would affect the price and dragging its value down.
A bit too much hype for my liking, I prefer more the approach guys like Silbert or Novogratz have.

[dkbit98]

I can't really be sure if Michael Saylor really cares about Bitcoin and decentralization or what are his intentions, but I can follow the money of his company Microstrategy and say that I am a bit worried that companies like BlackRock and Vanguard Group are currently owning over 23% of that company.
I never trust big corporations and we know that Microstrategy currently owns 105,085 BTC or 0.5% of total Bitcoin supply.

How does someone go from this to buying 100,000 bitcoin and starting a mining council?

He didn't buy 100,000 bitcoins with his own money, and mining council is probably his idea to tackle current global warming propaganda in main stream media.
We should however be very careful with forming any mining councils like this.

[Fundamentals Of]

With Bitcoin, it is not surprising for anybody to do a 360-degree turn. Only the highly technical persons who are very familiar with coding and cryptography that would probably love Bitcoin at the first sight during its very early days. Nobody outside who was just an onlooker would fall in love with Bitcoin immediately, unlike today when there is already a hype. Back during those days, Bitcoin was more or less treated with insignificance by mainstream individuals like Saylor.

[dothebeats]

I don't think so. Just because someone changed his ways and beliefs doesn't mean he's already dodgy. Some people make mistakes on their judgment, and that's perfectly normal—even if eventually they will also campaign for the very thing that they used to hate or go against. He's just someone following where the money is, and again it's completely normal. He's got a lot of people under him, and it wouldn't be a bad move for him to do a complete 180 and help his people with his decisions.

[pixie85]

We could make a list of people who said contradicting things over the years.

Mark Cuban, John McAfee, Elon Musk, Kevin O'Leary... Some were positive and turned negative, some the other way round.
I don't find Saylor to be dodgy at all. He saw real profits, Bitcoin helped him build his company, so he became bullish.

And what are your thoughts on Mark Cuban, John McAfee, Elon Musk, Kevin O'Leary?

Do you think they're dodgy?

Or do you think they just saw the potential for real losses and became bearish?

Musk touched a nerve because he used a straw man argument to explain his bearishness. He knew how much energy Bitcoin consumes and still chose to buy. He's like a child that gets bored with a toy and throws it out.

Cuban was negative when he was first asked about bitcoin, he thought it was a scam. Then he bought BTC and ETH and is still bullish on them. He said that BTC is still far from it's top price.
He lost money on some shitcoin but it was a small part of his portfolio.

O'Leary called Bitcoin garbage a few years ago and now owns bitcoin and some defi projects. He said in an interview that cryptocurrencies are better than stocks.

I don't think they're dodgy. They see an opportunity that obviously is there. Even musk sees it, despite all the criticism.

[mk4]

Of course you understand that the correct answer is pumping.

We can speculate all we want all day, but in the end there's really no way to know the true intent. He could surely be pumping it for MicroStrategy's sake, but at the same time he could really just be a lot bullish than a typical Bitcoiner.

[Ararbermas]

Give a person a chance, there are lots of huge names that changes their perspective after they realized they were wrong. He's one of the biggest asset on this community imo. Without his company investing bitcoin I doubt that bitcoin will reach such current price at this early. He really understood what bitcoin is.

or maybe a technique also like what elon's doing? Because i really had doubts that once bitcoin made a good improvement because of his words and positive views,  I'm sure he will give a negative feedback afterwards, wherein like what he just said way back 2013 that " bitcoin days were numbered"..especially if they gained enough because it will be another chance for them to manipulate the market..this is the common way of some whales indeed.. So what we are expecting?

[boyptc]

We would always say to anyone to 'buy bitcoin' just as what he's saying. It's actually a clear winner that bitcoin is of the best assets but it's not alone as there are others too.

When a prominent guy is bullish on bitcoin, two things, yeah for his company to nourish and for his own thought being a bitcoin maxi.

[brainactive]

We really have no right to judge someone because that person changes in everything, indeed humans always make mistakes. it's something that
can happen to anyone. People are free to do anything as long as they don't violate the law. I know Michael Saylor is only doing what he thinks will
benefit him. So it's a normal thing that happens to humans, he can change drastically if he sees opportunities that are in his favor. This is nothing
to worry about and nothing new to anyone.

Nothing wrong with change or learning from one's mistakes. Just pointing out that Michael's behavior over the last year seems a bit strange to me.

He makes 5 posts about bitcoin everyday without fail, most of them littered with odd sounding metaphors and exaggerations.

Whenver someone asks him something that doesn't allow him to give his usual spiel, he just ignores the question and goes on his usual spiel anyway, talking about the granite of Manhattan, the Bitcoin dragon defeating the Gold knight, pushing someone off the edge of a cliff, holding bitcoin for a hundred years, the gun and bow and arrows....

Watch this interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1LvKmW_lXk

[Poker Player]

Of course you understand that the correct answer is pumping.

We can speculate all we want all day, but in the end there's really no way to know the true intent. He could surely be pumping it for MicroStrategy's sake, but at the same time he could really just be a lot bullish than a typical Bitcoiner.

Probably a bit of both. It is not a problem for me to change my mind either, rather it is a sign of intelligence. What I don't like either, and I have said it in other posts, is this insistence on borrow to go all in. I think it can lead to problems. Anyway, we must recognize that he has done a good job of popularizing Bitcoin.

[WNTRjon]

I think (almost) every rich person is a bit dodgy. It's rare to find someone who climbs to the levels these guys do without being dodgy. I personally wouldn't take his word on much, but I don't mind listening and doing follow-up research myself.

[Chato1977]

dodgy it is ..

I think (almost) every rich person is a bit dodgy. It's rare to find someone who climbs to the levels these guys do without being dodgy. I personally wouldn't take his word on much, but I don't mind listening and doing follow-up research myself.

\Exactly , that is part of their strategy and this made them not just Dodgy but also stupid but rich