Why are more Bitcoiners starting to see Michael Saylor as a risk to Bitcoin?

[nelson4lov]

Over the past few weeks, there have been more chatter about Saylor, strategy and how their involvement with Bitcoin is net negative to the Bitcoin ecosystem right now.

As a matter of fact, some people think that for Bitcoin to go up in the future, Saylor and Strategy have to go. Not a lot of people had two cents to say about Saylor and ETFs when we were breaking several ATHs but now, it's all they talk about.

Personally, I think everyone is just overreacting because when people buy an asset and numbers don't go up, they start saying stuff like this. Do you also think Saylor is net negative to Bitcoin?

[Churchillvv]

Basically the only negativity I see he currently pose to bitcoin ecosystem is the fact that none bitcoiners and some low coiners or no coiners are now attaching bitcoin existence to his company or his platform or his actions, including the retail market validating this point by selling when he sells, and buying when he buys and that has an effect on bitcoin because the price begin to behind towards his actions, but the fact is bitcoin has nothing to do with to the entity. So that mistake from the crowd which is thinking that bitcoin is now more like the company asset is what is negative towards bitcoin.

[sandaq]

Over the past few weeks, there have been more chatter about Saylor, strategy and how their involvement with Bitcoin is net negative to the Bitcoin ecosystem right now.

As a matter of fact, some people that for Bitcoin to go up in the future, Saylor and Strategy havep to go. Not a lot of people had two cents to say about Saylor and ETFs when we were breaking several ATHs but now, it's all they talk about.

Personally, I think everyone is just overreacting because when people buy an asset and numbers don't go up, they start saying stuff like this. Do you also think Saylor is net negative to Bitcoin?

Saylor buying or selling large amounts of Bitcoin isn't my concern. Like any other market participant, he has every right to buy or sell as he sees fit. My concern is with the business model and how investor returns are ultimately generated, not with the act of trading Bitcoin itself.

My concern with Saylor's model is that it appears to promise investor returns regardless of how the market performs. In my view, that creates a situation where, if Bitcoin fails to appreciate, the company could eventually be forced to use capital raised from investors—or by selling assets originally acquired with investor funds—to meet those expectations.

That's why I view it differently from a Bitcoin ETF. An ETF doesn't promise returns beyond the performance of the underlying asset. If Bitcoin goes up, investors benefit; if it goes down, they bear the loss. The ETF simply reflects the market rather than creating an expectation of returns independent of it.

[The Founding Titan]

The people who are bothered about what Strategy is doing isn't nearly as high as you might think and they are definitely not having that much of a negative influence on bitcoin or bitcoiners either, a temporary rant on may X isn't going to determine what bitcoiners actually believe is happening, just watch, sooner then later the whole conversation will die down and no one will even mention it again, it's time in the spotlight won't be long.

[Popkon6]

Those who are short-term investors and those who are involved in Bitcoin are the ones who think badly. Not everyone can feel what Michael Saylor is doing and the change he has made through Bitcoin investment.
That's why I say that the number of people who feel this way is very small, those who have invested in Bitcoin and are holding and using Bitcoin for a long time will understand how much change Michael Saylor has been able to make.

[passwordnow]

It lies with what he said that holders shouldn't sell but his Microstrategy isn't an exception. And that's why many sees him as a risk because just like what other companies before like Tesla who held thousands of bitcoin eventually sold. It's the likelihood of what his company can do and that's to manipulate the market through his words. But we're used to this, no matter what they do, we'll continue to hold and they're free to do what they think is necessary for their actions. They're a company and has got a lot of investors while us, we're on our own and no need to catch up someone's else money and investment.

[PrivacyG]

Keep in mind that a lot of people are not purchasing Bitcoin but the Saylor hype.  And the Saylor hype is over filled with unrealistic expectations and a lot of delusion.  Such as people thinking he will NEVER SELL as if there would ever be a point in purchasing Bitcoin and NEVER doing the opposite and using that money for other things.

I thought people were confident he will never sell a long time ago and I read many replies telling me I am wrong, but now that he sold a couple Bitcoin and the hype suddenly turned into negativity it is clear that people were actually not expecting a sell to ever happen.

Which means people were being delusional.  So now that their delusion has been proved wrong, they realized this is no fantasy where things only go up for ever.  And as a consequence.  You see them angry about the small sale and he is all of a sudden the black sheep.  I do not particularly like Saylor or his Bitcoin business but this was expected.

[PX-Z]

Anyone who understands market manipulation would probably think the same. People like Michael Saylor could eventually gain enough influence to affect whether bitcoin's price moves up or down as they continue accumulating more.

Large purchases usually benefit the market because they create hype and positive sentiment. But large scale selling is a different story, it could be catastrophic. Even the last time they sold a relatively small amount, the price dropped significantly. And even after buying back, the market didn't recover with the same strength as the initial drop.

[PrivacyG]

Even the last time they sold a relatively small amount, the price dropped significantly. And even after buying back, the market didn't recover with the same strength as the initial drop.

It still relies mostly on delusion of people purchasing his hype.  The panic you see when he sells almost nothing compared to his total holdings is very similar to what we were used to see when any small rumors about an Altcoin turned true.  His 'attempt to make Bitcoin better' is making it look more immature than ever!

[Ronsbit]

The only risk I think is possible there is the fact that he would always try to manipulate the market at his own will so he could make good profit from his holdings which is what every normal human would do to make more money and besides we have seen worst of it from other big holder's who always manipulate the market for their own interests.

[rat03gopoh]

Honestly, I've always considered this company a threat to Bitcoin's value from the start. No matter how much Saylor vowed not to sell his bitcoin, he's more concerned with the company's image. I've said their strategy is sound for anyone to implement, but I just didn't expect MS to achieve such a large accumulation so quickly, defying public expectations that Bitcoin would one day become a truly (acceptable) global currency.

[Vaculin]

If we look at it closely, Michael Saylor and his firm Strategy could be a risk to other bitcoiners because of its massive bitcoin hodlings that any time if they wish to sell their assets, it will leave a huge impact to bitcoin and its market, and definitely to other bitcoin investors.

But in reality, I don't see them as a threat. We all have the individual freedom here to buy or sell whenever we want, although it may create an impact to the price of bitcoin after, but knowing the fact that bitcoin is considered a highly volatile asset, even if they don't sell, bitcoin will always have a roller coaster price, so its up for us to adjust.

[Oshosondy]

Personally, I think everyone is just overreacting because when people buy an asset and numbers don't go up, they start saying stuff like this. Do you also think Saylor is net negative to Bitcoin?

No, Michael Saylor is a good thing for bitcoin, but bitcoin does not depend on anyone though. Do not be surprised that Strategy Will get over the bear market again.

What I am doing now is that bitcoin is worth $1.2 trillion while Strategy is worth $29.44 billion. Strategy marketcap is $2.45% of bitcoin marketcap if compared. So I am allocating 2.45% of my money on Strategy, while $97.55% on bitcoin.

[PX-Z]

Even the last time they sold a relatively small amount, the price dropped significantly. And even after buying back, the market didn't recover with the same strength as the initial drop.

It still relies mostly on delusion of people purchasing his hype.  The panic you see when he sells almost nothing compared to his total holdings is very similar to what we were used to see when any small rumors about an Altcoin turned true.  His 'attempt to make Bitcoin better' is making it look more immature than ever!

I'm among those who are not entirely supportive of what he is doing with Strategy continuously accumulating bitcoin. In the end, shareholders expect returns, and that means those holdings will eventually be sold, whether gradually or through large sell-offs.

I would appreciate it more if the businesses connected to him were actively contributing to bitcoin adoption in practical ways. But given his current position, i think the accumulation has reached a point where it raises concerns.

If this were a crypto-related business, such as an exchange, for traders, it would make more sense. But accumulating purely as a treasury asset with the intention of selling later feels different.

[Darker45]

Whether it's Saylor or somebody else, and other whales for that matter, it's negative for Bitcoin to have its circulating supply concentrated in a handful of whales, whether institution or individual.

There's the risk of manipulation. There's the risk of stirring strong emotions in the market or triggering fear which, in turn, causes severe correction or a massive sell-off. There's the risk of significant reduction in liquidity. The list goes on.

And, regardless of their public pronouncements, it's unbelievably stupid to believe that they won't ever sell.

[akamit]

People like Michael Saylor could eventually gain enough influence to affect whether bitcoin's price moves up or down as they continue accumulating more.

While one big holder can influence the price in the short term, it is not the same as a systemic risk to Bitcoin. The network is still in operation, it's the market depth and the total liquidity that is important, not the trading behavior of one company. Surely a holder can cause volatility, but that doesn't give them control of Bitcoin as a system.

[TheUltraElite]

People pose negativity and people also post positivity.

Over the years I have seen big names making comments and crypto landing the market into fear or fomo, depending on the context of their words and eventually the market bounces back.

Does not sound like it makes much of an effect, but what I have understood is that people are not to be trusted with their words. If you want to make money in this market you have to ignore everyone, take words from any human with a bag of salt and buy bitcoin when the price drops - simple logic.

You listen to what they have to say, then you think over it over and over again, nothing happens. Hence you have to learn to ignore. These people are only interested in their own gains, not yours.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Over the past few weeks, there have been more chatter about Saylor, strategy and how their involvement with Bitcoin is net negative to the Bitcoin ecosystem right now.

As a matter of fact, some people that for Bitcoin to go up in the future, Saylor and Strategy havep to go. Not a lot of people had two cents to say about Saylor and ETFs when we were breaking several ATHs but now, it's all they talk about.

Personally, I think everyone is just overreacting because when people buy an asset and numbers don't go up, they start saying stuff like this. Do you also think Saylor is net negative to Bitcoin?

Well, I don't see saylor as a threat to bitcoin because who ever has money can invest as much of it as they want in bitcoin, there is absolutely no limit to how much anyone can invest and if a man has chosen to adopt bitcoin as the only asset he wants to invest all his money in, why call him a threat?

If saylor is now a threat simply because he holds several bitcoins, then what do we call the government, especially the US government who I believe holds more bitcoin than saylor and they didn't even buy it, but they seized it from supposed criminals and all, we all know that a day is coming and they will or may decided to dump some of those bitcoins (if not all on) us, what then happens?
We should all allow the man saylor to live his life, if I had as much money as he had, I would have done the same, buy as much bitcoin as possible and hold.

[X-ray]

Saylor's bitcoin revolve around leveraged position and selling off bitcoin right as of now. They're not just holding Bitcoin anymore but have the obligation for many things even though risk of liquidation is very low with their convertible bond.

It's pretty normal for Bitcoin holders to consider it as risk, Bitcoin holders are just thinking about the possibilities that could happen. But, it doesn't mean that thing will really happen, just possibility.

[Outhue]

Over the past few weeks, there have been more chatter about Saylor, strategy and how their involvement with Bitcoin is net negative to the Bitcoin ecosystem right now.

As a matter of fact, some people that for Bitcoin to go up in the future, Saylor and Strategy havep to go. Not a lot of people had two cents to say about Saylor and ETFs when we were breaking several ATHs but now, it's all they talk about.

Personally, I think everyone is just overreacting because when people buy an asset and numbers don't go up, they start saying stuff like this. Do you also think Saylor is net negative to Bitcoin?

I think it's not overreacting, Micheal Saylor looks like someone who could get into trouble soon, because STRC is dumping massively and the whole thing is looking like he his running a Ponzi scheme, here is what the news is saying presently about Micheal Saylor.

Micheal Saylors complex issuance of convertible bonds and preferred stock to buy Bitcoin mimics a "death spiral" or Ponzi-like dynamic that could result in legal liability if market conditions force him to default. If it's not looking like it then the news won't be on yahoo and others, I hope his case won't be like that of Luna, it's this serious.