Bitcoin and Michael Saylor fud, it is almost Michael Sellor

[d5000]

An adaptation is not a contradiction, everything else is correct. When it comes to contradictions usually we talk about things that are current or don't make sense, you can't just pick any point in time like find something I said 20 years ago and say look you are contradicting yourself now. If you do that, then you are rejecting any learning process in a biased way.

The thing is that I don't think that there is any adaptation nor learning process. I think Saylor knew from the very start that eventually Strategy would have begun to sell Bitcoin.

Simply, the "I will not sell any Bitcoin" was a slogan that was useful for Saylor in the phase his company needed every new investor to grow. Now his company is one of the biggest Bitcoin players, growth isn't that important anymore. And perhaps there is also some "maturing" of a part of the audience. The "brute" Bitcoin Maxi from 2018 looks a bit outdated in 2026. But all this was predictable.

The little uptrend we're seeing since 60k was thus probably the perfect occasion to change the communication strategy and admit that selling is on the table.

So I can fully understand people who feel betrayed now. The thing is ... that's simply a very typical move of a "growth company". "Fake it until you make it" often works (and don't do it like Elizabeth Taylor ...). And, as I wrote, if Saylor sells or not, is not important for Bitcoin at all.

[Free Market Capitalist]

First finish something more than high school then we can talk about the definitions of things.

Finish high school you fucking retard? You have amply demonstrated that you lack even a basic understanding of logic. You don't understand such basic concepts as “all,” “some,” and “never.”

You have been proven wrong,

In you retard mind I have been proven wrong for sure.

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to that other idiot: show me where I said Saylor is going to sell ALL of his Bitcoin.

Let's set the record straight. There has been a thread here for a long time—a high-quality thread on Strategy:

MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’

But the retard OP had to come along and start this thread, which is perfect for him to hit his post quota by writing generic posts—the kind of thread where retards, people who don't understand basic logic, and those whose horizons don't extend beyond “Sailor Moon” abound.

[bbc.reporter]

You might be correct. We can begin calling Michael the Saylormoon with his new nickname Michael Sellor after he gives the command to sell some bitcoin from the treasury of Microstrategy hehehe.

However, to declare that he will dump all of the bitcoin from the treasury and cause a big short occurrence is certainly fud.

Are you fucking stupid or what? I never said that. You said that I said that.

Quote me where I said that he will dump all the Bitcoin or you are just another stupid fuck.

Heheheh are you on your menstruation cycle? Why are you very much triggered on this? I have agreed with you already that the promise of Michael the Saylormoon will be broken if he will sell any amount of bitcoin so we can also begin calling him Michael Sellor heheheheheeee.

In any case, news update. Michael the Saylormoon has bought more bitcoin.



Strategy has acquired 24,869 BTC for ~$2.01 billion at ~$80,985 per bitcoin and has achieved BTC Yield of 12.6% YTD 2026. As of 5/17/2026, we hodl 843,738 $BTC acquired for ~$63.87 billion at ~$75,700 per bitcoin.

Source https://x.com/saylor/status/2056349245913849969?s=46

[Dogedegen]

An adaptation is not a contradiction, everything else is correct. When it comes to contradictions usually we talk about things that are current or don't make sense, you can't just pick any point in time like find something I said 20 years ago and say look you are contradicting yourself now. If you do that, then you are rejecting any learning process in a biased way.

The thing is that I don't think that there is any adaptation nor learning process. I think Saylor knew from the very start that eventually Strategy would have begun to sell Bitcoin.

Simply, the "I will not sell any Bitcoin" was a slogan that was useful for Saylor in the phase his company needed every new investor to grow. Now his company is one of the biggest Bitcoin players, growth isn't that important anymore. And perhaps there is also some "maturing" of a part of the audience. The "brute" Bitcoin Maxi from 2018 looks a bit outdated in 2026. But all this was predictable.

The little uptrend we're seeing since 60k was thus probably the perfect occasion to change the communication strategy and admit that selling is on the table.

So I can fully understand people who feel betrayed now. The thing is ... that's simply a very typical move of a "growth company". "Fake it until you make it" often works (and don't do it like Elizabeth Taylor ...). And, as I wrote, if Saylor sells or not, is not important for Bitcoin at all.

But isn't that just a biased take that is entirely based on speculation? It would be equally valid to speculate if you were a person that is positively biased to Saylor that he tried until the very end to pursue this strategy for the benefit of Bitcoin but failed, and that this is an adaptation to the changing environment. How you frame it, it sounds like you mean to tell me that the whole plan here everything that happened from the beginning to now including all the bad and good changes has been a master plan by Saylor. With that he would be a person with one of the best foresight abilities in human history? That does not align with Occam's razor well at all. The most likely explanation is that he believed it was possible at least to some way to go with that route, but it turned out that he was wrong. People make mistakes about things all the time, why would he be different? Every other explanation adds more assumptions and if there is no evidence for them, then it is just bias from any side of the equation.

But the retard OP had to come along and start this thread, which is perfect for him to hit his post quota by writing generic posts—the kind of thread where retards, people who don't understand basic logic, and those whose horizons don't extend beyond “Sailor Moon” abound.

For sure most of your posts are great.  

Heheheh are you on your menstruation cycle? Why are you very much triggered on this? I have agreed with you already that the promise of Michael the Saylormoon will be broken if he will sell any amount of bitcoin so we can also begin calling him Michael Sellor heheheheheeee.

He is so upset that others are doing so much for Bitcoin because he isn't. In your words, heheheheheeee.

[d5000]

But isn't that just a biased take that is entirely based on speculation? It would be equally valid to speculate if you were a person that is positively biased to Saylor that he tried until the very end to pursue this strategy for the benefit of Bitcoin but failed, and that this is an adaptation to the changing environment. How you frame it, it sounds like you mean to tell me that the whole plan here everything that happened from the beginning to now including all the bad and good changes has been a master plan by Saylor.

The big question is: how should that business model really work if Bitcoins are never sold (or spent for goods, which is essentially the same thing)? Even if Bitcoin eventually stabilizes and the "ride on volatility" does not work anymore? Yes, they talked about something like a Bitcoin bank with loans sustaining the business, but that would imply that Bitcoins would sometimes also flow out of the system.

At least I had doubts about the long term viability from the start, and I am actually quite fine that they didn't sustain that "lie" for more time.

It's the same like these social networks who said they won't rely on advertising on their platforms. Twitter did this in 2009 when they were massively growing, and one year later they added ads. These are typical claims of growth companies that are simply unsustainable.

There doesn't need to be a "master plan". In many cases it's more like "let's try that way with a bold promise, even if we already doubt it will work". They even may investigate some alternative business models or pretend to do so, like Twitter did in the late 00s (for example they talked about licensing content to search engines which is ... at least extremely bold).

The "honest way" for Saylor would have been to say: "For now we don't plan to sell Bitcoin. We are investigating possibilities to make that sustainable." instead of "We never will sell Bitcoin.". But which company does such a thing? That's also Ockham's Razor in action - it should be empirically verifiable that companies often lie or at least exaggerate in their growth phase. Why should Strategy be the outlier then?