Bitcoin and Michael Sellor fud, Michael Sellor is the new Do Kwon?

[Free Market Capitalist]

I don't think it's a good parallel to make between Michael Saylor and Do Kwon. What Do Kwon did was associated with the collapse of an entire ecosystem, while what Saylor did was to merely manage a big Bitcoin position.

Haha! The comparison is apt—and even worse for those of us who hold Bitcoin—because in this case, the danger to the Bitcoin is immediate unlike with the Terra Luna collapse that affected the Bitcoin price in a derivative way.

It's true that market sentiment can be shaped by any buying or selling by Strategy due to the size of its holdings. Many traders are used to seeing the news of the Bitcoin purchases and the reports of sales now infuse fear and uncertainty into their minds. But this is what markets do and FUD can have more of an effect on novice investors. Bitcoin value in the long run is driven by adoption and fundamentals rather than by the actions of a single company.

You managed to avoid having your shitpost reported for being low-value because the first thing you said made sense, but this is pure garbage. What reports of sales? There has only been one report of a sale this year. The rest is generic garbage with a lot of words that mean nothing.

[d5000]

However, with the billions he has used to buy bitcoin on the last bull market, we have witnessed the weakest bull market on bitcoin. I speculate the psychological effect of Michael Sellor dumping bitcoin will be more stronger.

For me the reason of the "weakness" of the 2022-25 bull market is due to increased liquidity and less volatility. However, this also works as a "brake" to the downside.

On we, this is the community. Michael Sellor declared that he will not sell but recently he declared that he did not say this and he said that only the community should not sell.

First, nobody is forced to listen to any individual.

Second, Saylor is now in Bitcoin for almost 6 years. MicroStrategy has begun to buy Bitcoin in August 2020. They bought on average around 400 BTC per day. Yes, that looks like a lot. But it is less than 0.2% of the daily trading volume which is about 300-500k BTC. Yes, you'd have to filter out wash and short term trading but it would still be well below 5%.

So he's a large buyer but still other buyers are much more relevant than him.

If he exits Bitcoin, then it would be approximately like 5% of the other Bitcoiners exiting.

[Dogedegen]

However, with the billions he has used to buy bitcoin on the last bull market, we have witnessed the weakest bull market on bitcoin. I speculate the psychological effect of Michael Sellor dumping bitcoin will be more stronger.

For me the reason of the "weakness" of the 2022-25 bull market is due to increased liquidity and less volatility. However, this also works as a "brake" to the downside.

I don't think that we can simplify it to one source, you are forgetting to bring up paper Bitcoin from which there is an unknown big amount now. This is the primary motivator for which companies don't want to publish proof of reserves in any way, it has nothing to do with security or other claims. Even if we got weak proofs it would be better than nothing, but like this they can't be scrutinized. I recall derivatives also being an instrument that was supposed to tame Bitcoin, someone said it somewhere.

On we, this is the community. Michael Sellor declared that he will not sell but recently he declared that he did not say this and he said that only the community should not sell.

First, nobody is forced to listen to any individual.

I find it better to place responsibility more on the individuals or they are never going to learn. Strategy selling 30 Bitcoin does not have any impact on the market, it does not move the price down even 0.1% because of how good the liquidity is. It is the other people, whether companies or individual people who are selling in response to this even that are causing market dumps. Some sell with anticipation of a dump so they are trying to front-run it which can be less criticized than the other options which are the users that are selling as part of panic dumping. Nobody can force them to do this, but unfortunately it seems we are still far from teaching people not to trade with emotions.

If he exits Bitcoin, then it would be approximately like 5% of the other Bitcoiners exiting.

While it is not going to be the end of the world, I'd prefer that we avoid this scenario and have a more peaceful future. It seems that many forces try to induce as much anxiety in others as possible about any event that is going on in this space..

[d5000]

I don't think that we can simplify it to one source, you are forgetting to bring up paper Bitcoin from which there is an unknown big amount now.

I think this is very speculative, where does your suspicion come from that paper Bitcoin is so relevant that it can really tame down a bull market?

It is the other people, whether companies or individual people who are selling in response to this even that are causing market dumps. Some sell with anticipation of a dump so they are trying to front-run it which can be less criticized than the other options which are the users that are selling as part of panic dumping.

I fully agree, but here I was referring to Saylor's influence with his predictions and "advices" ("never sell your BTC"). I honestly think nobody should give any attention to them, because he's obviously talking from the PoV of his company and will always try to influence the market in the direction it's best for his company.

While it is not going to be the end of the world, I'd prefer that we avoid this scenario and have a more peaceful future.

Me too. Thus I brought up the thought that Saylor could switch, at least in the medium term, to bonds which really give the creditors rights not to payouts in cash but in Bitcoin. This means that in the case of a bankruptcy, the pressure to sell the Bitcoins would be lower if many people switch to Bitcoin-backed assets.

[bbc.reporter]

I don't think it's a good parallel to make between Michael Saylor and Do Kwon. What Do Kwon did was associated with the collapse of an entire ecosystem, while what Saylor did was to merely manage a big Bitcoin position.

Haha! The comparison is apt—and even worse for those of us who hold Bitcoin—because in this case, the danger to the Bitcoin is immediate unlike with the Terra Luna collapse that affected the Bitcoin price in a derivative way.

What many people have forgotten is Do Kwon has also bought 80,000 bitcoin which was worth $3 billion on 2022 as a safety fund for UST stablecoin. When UST lost its peg, Do Kwon dumped the bitcoin and caused a big market dump in the cryptospace.

This financial experiment of Michael Sellor is certainly making it appear that this will have a similar occurrence as Do Kwon's financial experiment.

[Catenaccio]

What many people have forgotten is Do Kwon has also bought 80,000 bitcoin which was worth $3 billion on 2022 as a safety fund for UST stablecoin. When UST lost its peg, Do Kwon dumped the bitcoin and caused a big market dump in the cryptospace.

This financial experiment of Michael Sellor is certainly making it appear that this will have a similar occurrence as Do Kwon's financial experiment.

It's a nice AI photo but I really care more about myself, my plan, and what I am going to do with my money, my investment capital and keep my bitcoin safely if any thing bad happens with Michael Saylor and Strategy.

They took risk and we can observe that but in my opinion, I don't want to do things like bad traders do by using leverage, opening bad trading positions but do nothing to reduce risk, and letting the market moves with hope that their bad trading positions and collateral will not be liquidated.

It's firstly risky, and secondly very unrealistic as the market does not care about hope of people participating in it. So people with bad trading positions that are leveraged will very likely be liquidated.

I do DCA but I also prepare another part of money for chances of buying dips like with market crash because of Strategy for example.

[Dogedegen]

I don't think that we can simplify it to one source, you are forgetting to bring up paper Bitcoin from which there is an unknown big amount now.

I think this is very speculative, where does your suspicion come from that paper Bitcoin is so relevant that it can really tame down a bull market?

Why would it be speculative? Paper silver and gold has been well established, so why would it be different in Bitcoin? I think there was even a CME executive in the early days saying how they will tame Bitcoin with derivatives, and see how the situation is now with everything. It can not be by chance that all models and patterns that we have had are breaking since we have ETFs and derivative instruments.

It is the other people, whether companies or individual people who are selling in response to this even that are causing market dumps. Some sell with anticipation of a dump so they are trying to front-run it which can be less criticized than the other options which are the users that are selling as part of panic dumping.

I fully agree, but here I was referring to Saylor's influence with his predictions and "advices" ("never sell your BTC"). I honestly think nobody should give any attention to them, because he's obviously talking from the PoV of his company and will always try to influence the market in the direction it's best for his company.

I agree with this, but this is where the user responsibility part comes into play. I can not force anyone else not to listen to someone famous in this space like Saylor, only I myself can decide not to do this for myself. Even though I always wish for good outcomes in all things surrounding Bitcoin, I have never bought or sold anything in response to something that is said by Saylor or someone else online. We should really push more responsibility so users stop acting this way individually, and once they do that the group response will disappear too. Simply too many people listen to influential names, and that is the same as trading with emotions during market panics it is just a different kind of emotion.

While it is not going to be the end of the world, I'd prefer that we avoid this scenario and have a more peaceful future.

Me too. Thus I brought up the thought that Saylor could switch, at least in the medium term, to bonds which really give the creditors rights not to payouts in cash but in Bitcoin. This means that in the case of a bankruptcy, the pressure to sell the Bitcoins would be lower if many people switch to Bitcoin-backed assets.

We are in a critical period with Strategy now, and we will see what will happen. The recent lie that he claims to never have said that his company will not sell Bitcoin is a red flag, but I still want to give benefit of the doubt not because I like him personally but because I am hoping for a good outcome. By the next bull market we will know for sure, but even sooner I take it.

[d5000]

Why would it be speculative?

Ok, maybe I misunderstood ... I think you refer to ETFs and other derivatives as "paper Bitcoin" and not some hidden fractional reserve stuff at exchanges (like the "MtGox coins" in 2014), which is was I was referring to in my answer and that's why I wrote that it's speculative.

But that is exactly a part of the point I was trying to make. These derivatives add liquidity. And thus they add depth to the supply and demand side, taming down the volatility in general, not only to the upside. It's quite a natural process. Only we could say that post-2024 there is now more risky capital again involved, e.g. with leveraged trading. But that happens also to both sides, and also adds liquidity at the end of the day.

In the case of Saylor, of course until now 99% has been buying activity. But as I wrote I think he is less relevant as a buyer than many think. So as a "sellor" he's also not that relevant - if the sales don't occur all at once.

We should really push more responsibility so users stop acting this way individually, and once they do that the group response will disappear too. Simply too many people listen to influential names, and that is the same as trading with emotions during market panics it is just a different kind of emotion.

Good point, I agree.

[bbc.reporter]

It is very headshaking that there are people who tell everyone that we should not use leverage for trading  and these people also defend the actions of the Michael Sellor.

Do they not know that Michael Sellor has presently done the most leveraged trade on bitcoin, this is being tested in this bear market and this might cause a big short occurrence?

[Dogedegen]

Why would it be speculative?

Ok, maybe I misunderstood ... I think you refer to ETFs and other derivatives as "paper Bitcoin" and not some hidden fractional reserve stuff at exchanges (like the "MtGox coins" in 2014), which is was I was referring to in my answer and that's why I wrote that it's speculative.

But that is exactly a part of the point I was trying to make. These derivatives add liquidity. And thus they add depth to the supply and demand side, taming down the volatility in general, not only to the upside. It's quite a natural process. Only we could say that post-2024 there is now more risky capital again involved, e.g. with leveraged trading. But that happens also to both sides, and also adds liquidity at the end of the day.

In the case of Saylor, of course until now 99% has been buying activity. But as I wrote I think he is less relevant as a buyer than many think. So as a "sellor" he's also not that relevant - if the sales don't occur all at once.

They do add plenty of liquidity I agree with your point, and the market has been able to swallow sales of quantities that could not be imagined before. Still I think the negative effect here is much bigger, this is also how they are able to suppress price gains. I remembered I think it was the CME president that said that they will tame Bitcoin using derivatives before the first ones came up. Also for ETFs, they did not enable redeeming in kind for a reason even if it was not necessary to have them this way. It is all these little things that are manipulative that add up to a big negative effect together. And as for the exchanges, I would never accept that there don't exist paper Bitcoin right now without everyone doing proof or reserves of some kind. Yes it is speculative because we can't know if it is a very small amount or it is a big amount, but I am just missing evidence to say that it is a fact but it is as close as it can be without verifiable evidence.

It is very headshaking that there are people who tell everyone that we should not use leverage for trading  and these people also defend the actions of the Michael Sellor.

Do they not know that Michael Sellor has presently done the most leveraged trade on bitcoin, this is being tested in this bear market and this might cause a big short occurrence?

If professional race car drivers are able to drive cars safely at speeds of 220 mph or more, that means that average people are able to do this too? This is a very bad way of thinking and it does not have any logical basis. We have very good data for trading, 90% or more people lose money in trading as an average of different studies and data sources. With dangerous instruments like leverage trading, the number can only be worse so probably closing in to 99% of people lose money. An average person should never touch leverage in their life. Strategy has many people working on this to make it happen and even they are making mistakes often, normal people stand no chance.

https://www.tradicted.com/research/chagu-day-2020/
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/about-95-of-day-traders-lose-money-but-a-new-rule-will-make-it-easier-to-do-so-anyway-b576498b