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

[m2017]

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.

So what do you suggest? "Kick out" Saylor \ Strategy of bitcoin?

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.

At first, BTC-community dreamed of the arrival of institutional investors, but after they appeared here, now ready to get rid of them on the crypto market?

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?

At this point, Strategy can't be directly blamed. But there's still a risk that they could be the culprit behind a market crash. For example, if they're forced (or for other reasons) to start selling off crypto assets, this could cause widespread panic. But again, they haven't done that yet.

On the other hand, individual small investors are also influencing the market by selling off bitcoins and causing a falling. No one's accusing them of negatively impacting the cryptomarket, right?

[aoluain]

^
I agree 👍

With MS recent sale of Bitcoin it was amazing 5he level of panic, fear and outright annoyance
there was in some corners of the community.

I posted in some other thread weeks ago stating that they only sold something like 0.003% of
the HODL'ings and since that sale they have bought over BTC3500...

Its all about perspectives

Everyone needs to be able to separate the Bitcoin market from Bitcoin the technology

Micro Strategy handed savvy traders, buyers and investors an opportunity to buy Bitcoin
at an ever better discounted rate

No one person or entity is bigger than Bitcoin itself

[Free Market Capitalist]

Why shouldn't we? I've been pointing out his contradictions since late 2025. What has happened now—the panic he has unleashed, all the concern—is simply a logical consequence of that.

^
I agree 👍

With MS recent sale of Bitcoin it was amazing 5he level of panic, fear and outright annoyance
there was in some corners of the community.

I posted in some other thread weeks ago stating that they only sold something like 0.003% of
the HODL'ings and since that sale they have bought over BTC3500...

Its all about perspectives

No, it's not about perspectives it's about the market pricing in the the unsustainability of the business model. That 0.003% sale you mentioned was the dumbest sale in the entire history of Bitcoin.

I'm not going to repeat yet again what I've already said a thousand times: the constant contradictions, the unsustainability of the MSTR model with an mNAV multiple, and the stupid shift toward: STRC: the bullshit dividend preferred stock

[a-blockchain]

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.

This is the most balanced take in the thread. Concentration of supply in any single entity is a structural risk regardless of their intentions or public statements.

The real issue is not whether Saylor is good or bad for Bitcoin personally. The issue is that when one entity controls such a large percentage of circulating supply, their financial obligations become Bitcoin's problem. Strategy has obligations to shareholders and creditors. Those obligations do not disappear in a bear market.
History shows that even the most vocal "never sell" advocates eventually sell when financial pressure becomes severe enough. Mt Gox trustees said the same thing. Luna foundation said the same thing.

Bitcoin's strength comes from decentralization. Anything that moves away from that principle, even if well-intentioned, introduces systemic risk that did not exist before.

[mindrust]

He was always a liability in some sense. Many liked it because he was driving the prices up but he wasn't buying bitcoin with his own cash. He was leveraging his company up. Issuing shares, selling it to the public and buy more bitcoin... That can only work till it doesn't and now we are seeing why it doesnt work forever.

People who cashed out above $100k made a good trade. People who didn't, they can wait for the next Michael Saylor or ... just use btc to make purchases you now, as it was intended originally.

[Rustam Meraj]

His aggressive treasury was considered at the time as institutional genius when market was aggressively kicking all time highs, so the current criticism is not due to fact that it is somehow bad, but short term frustration.
While I believe there is some degree of centralisation in having all this supply concentrated in one public corporate asset, I do not think it is net bad thing because he added huge amount of institutional credibility to the asset class. Bitcoin is open source and permissionless protocol that aims to prevent accumulation pattern of any entity. Idea that global network should be held back by big corporate user is major overreaction and does not take into account macro economic market forces.

[Agbamoni]

Maybe it is jealousy because I don't see anything wrong Michael Saylor has done that have affected bitcoin to the point that we have to be mindful of their actions.  Michael Saylor is a big investor that attracts other investors in his idea of MSTR. He is not the first and wont be the last to make decisions that affected bitcoin drastically. Trump made statement earlier this year so why is that of MSTR different?

[Oshio-man]

Since we all know how this bitcoin is be run and it will be difficult for anyone to come out in public to say am a bitcoiners apart from this forum we claim that we like bitcoin and we are holding bitcoin, Michael saylor is a someone that took his or her time to steady bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies because he or she always like to speak negative of bitcoin, but doesn't mean he or she hate bitcoin because what bitcoin users want to understand about bitcoin before they can embrace it, they have understood it and they will continue taking the risk to invest in bitcoin to expect huge amount of income when the bullish season appear.

[MArsland]

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?

I see it from 2 sides, first Saylor believes in bitcoin and is optimistic about its future so he is the most vocal when it comes to buying more bitcoin, but on the other hand the concern that Saylor will eventually profit and control the remaining supply he has is as bad as it is. Hence there is a narrative to get rid of Saylor as a form of dislike for large amounts of bitcoin ownership in the hands of one individual or one company Retail investors will find it increasingly difficult to obtain a larger portion.

If Saylor is left, the remaining supply is just not waiting for the time to be concentrated in his wallet. In the future Bitcoin is considered no longer a reflection of decentralization in terms of ownership distribution because we can easily point to who is the largest owner. I know the Network remains decentralized but the supply of bitcoin is concentrated in a handful of people or companies.
 

[Lucius]

He was always a liability in some sense. Many liked it because he was driving the prices up but he wasn't buying bitcoin with his own cash. He was leveraging his company up. Issuing shares, selling it to the public and buy more bitcoin... That can only work till it doesn't and now we are seeing why it doesnt work forever.
~snip~

Some members have long questioned whether Strategy can operate successfully given that its entire business (or at least a large part of it) is completely dependent on the price of BTC. When the price does not follow the business model, problems and cracks appear, and that is exactly what has been happening recently.

When someone has around 850k BTC, there is no doubt that it poses a certain risk, but the reality is that no one could have done anything to prevent that risk from occurring, similar to the case with BTC spot ETFs and all the other companies that started investing in Bitcoin.

Perhaps it's best to view all of this as a test for Bitcoin - it was inevitable that it would happen sooner or later.

[FP91G]

The bitcoins from the bankrupt Mt. Gox exchange were distributed over many years, and there were 141,000 coins. Strategy has about 850,000 coins, which will be sold for a very long time if the company goes bankrupt.
This will put enormous pressure on the cryptocurrency market.

[The Cryptovator]

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?

Due to decentralisation, anyone could purchase Bitcoin. It doesn't matter whether it's Saylor or whoever; for me, I don't see any threats for Bitcoin if he buys or sells Bitcoin. Because selling and buying is the normal process for Bitcoin holders, there is nothing to panic about when Saylor sells Bitcoin at all. We shouldn't overreact during the sale or buy.

A few people would consider Saylor a threat to Bitcoin since he sold a part of his holding a few days back. Also, the market seems to have reacted negatively. It's because of panic; a few investors became panicked when Saylor sold. But we forget Bitcoin is for our life; we have to sell it when necessary for some reason. So I am not going to blame him, but on the other hand I really don't like someone alone accumulating a large portion of Bitcoin.

[YOSHIE]

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.

If Saylor carries out a leverage strategy with a funding model for investing/buying Bitcoin based on debt liquidation, of course there will be concerns among Bitcoin users, this will be a potential intervention in Bitcoin itself.

In short, the public knows that Saylor bought Bitcoin by issuing debt and shares from the company MicroStrategy with a nominal value of billions of dollars, which is feared if the price of Bitcoin does not recover and continues to decline. The fear is that the debt is due, Saylor will most likely reverse the facts, he will sell Bitcoin to pay the debt, this will create a risk of panic among crypto users, the Bitcoin market will automatically crash.

[Fiatless]

People who cashed out above $100k made a good trade. People who didn't, they can wait for the next Michael Saylor or ... just use btc to make purchases you now, as it was intended originally.

Was it only Saylor's purchases that moved Bitcoin price to $100k? There were other factors, so the Bitcoin price will still rise without Strategy inflows. I advise they should keep hodling.

Maybe it is jealousy because I don't see anything wrong Michael Saylor has done that have affected bitcoin to the point that we have to be mindful of their actions.  Michael Saylor is a big investor that attracts other investors in his idea of MSTR. He is not the first and wont be the last to make decisions that affected bitcoin drastically. Trump made statement earlier this year so why is that of MSTR different?

Saying that he would never sell Bitcoin and later changing his mind got many of his followers disappointed. I don't blame him but people who had so much confidence in him.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

If they are considering him a risk in the aspect of causing market crash, then will the crash be the end of it all? The crash won't destroy Bitcoin, as a matter of fact, Saylor and Strategy has it risk management measures that they have been keeping to in all the years of investing in Bitcoin, so a Bitcoiner should also live on their own risk management measures. When people mentioned how institutions invested heavily on Bitcoin and so they called it a progress and an advantage for Bitcoin, they called Strategy as part of the institution but what ever holds advantages also poses some disadvantages. If the market dumps due to huge sell, of course it will boom again in due season.

[Chinesebaby]

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?

Indeed you have a clear point regarding peoples view about Microstrategy having the most Bitcoin as a singular business corporation. And for the fact that Saylor holds the highest number of Bitcoin, people fear that whatever moves he make In either buying or selling his Bitcoin, will definitely affect the entire Bitcoin price at that very moment. But on the contrary, Microstrategy is absolutely no threat to Bitcoin, because before his involvement with Bitcoin, it still existed and was strong as a decentralized digital assets, and even if he eventually plans to sell off his whole Bitcoin, it will only cause a massive drop in its price, but Bitcoin will still survive as long as people like you and I still holds it.

[nelson4lov]

I read all your replies and I agree that having the market dependent on Saylor's actions is not a good thing. This is why I liked when bitcoin didn't have such dependencies before but the reality is that bitcoin price will be here or even worse if not from the purchases from Strategy. It's a bear market, numbers go down more than they go up and it's completely normal. When we hit ATH last year, there was almost 0 chatter about about why Saylor and Strategy was bad for the space.

Right now we can only hope that the plan Chatgpt wrote for him was solid enough so he isn't forced to dump 800k+ Bitcoins.

[OcTradism]

I read all your replies and I agree that having the market dependent on Saylor's actions is not a good thing. This is why I liked when bitcoin didn't have such dependencies before but the reality is that bitcoin price will be here or even worse if not from the purchases from Strategy. It's a bear market, numbers go down more than they go up and it's completely normal. When we hit ATH last year, there was almost 0 chatter about about why Saylor and Strategy was bad for the space.

Right now we can only hope that the plan Chatgpt wrote for him was solid enough so he isn't forced to dump 800k+ Bitcoins.

It's unlike dependence on Michael Saylor and Strategy because they have freedom to do things they want with their money and Bitcoin market. The market opens for everyone so it's not good if there is any restriction against Saylor and Strategy. Whatever things will happen with Strategy and their bitcoins in the future will only create market fomo, panic or crash or soar in price and trading volume spike but it won't cause bitcoin lost. Because in 2026, it's different than in early years when many people did not know how to store their bitcoins safely. So they lost their wallets, bitcoins, and lost forever, while with Strategy, if they get liquidations, their bitcoins will change ownership to the others.

There will be no bitcoin loss and disappearance from Bitcoin circulating supply. With market price changes, people must prepare for that and secure their finance, bitcoin portfolios as well as take advantage of it for more accumulation if possible.

[moneystery]

I don't think Saylor's actions pose a threat to Bitcoin because he simply bought Bitcoin and used it as a reserve asset for his company. While there are concerns that a single person like him could accumulate that much Bitcoin, it's still for investment purposes, as well as for his company. It's not as simple as unloading all his Bitcoin and walking away, as doing so would likely undermine the value of his holdings and negatively affect his company.
However, he is still a company owner, so some of his decisions may not align with public expectations. Therefore, we need to remain objective and avoid treating him as someone who will always act in line with the Bitcoin community.

[Faisal2202]

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?

People only question the hand feeding them when it stops feeding them.

Saylor was a hero at $100k and when he was buying at $115k he was a superhero for us. Now all of a sudden he is the bad guy, became villain! I say nothing has changed.

The facts stay the same except the sentiments have changed, or they are being forced on us so we change our sentiments by who! I don't have to be thorough here haha.

I am not saying the concerns about leverage and forced selling are not legitimate, I completely agree with that, but MSTR has bought more than 800k BTC so far, and they have held that high stash all this time without selling, but the moment they sold 32 BTC, they are bad guys. CryptoQuant CEO said they should stop buying at least, but the main problem is MSTR is the only one (not exaggerating, but maybe some will agree on this) who has helped the market to pump that high and then helped it to not crash that hard as well.