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

[uchegod-21]

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?

Yes, they are overreacting and only acting out of their emotions. When the price of Bitcoin was bullish, everyone applauded institutional investors like Saylor and the likes for accumulating Bitcoin. Now that the price of Bitcoin is down, they think institutions are bad for Bitcoin. The real question is, do Bitcoiners truly know what they want?

I understand their frustration since a large amount of Bitcoin is being controlled by a single entity. There is a high chance that its decisions could influence the price of Bitcoin. But then, from all the reactions when Bitcoin was bullish and now that it is bearish, they should agree that investors like Saylor can be both advantageous and disadvantageous, as their actions can push Bitcoin's price upward and can also push it downward. Institutional investors are part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. As long as they can only influence the price and not control the entire network, it is just okay.

[Cryptomultiplier]

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?

Yes, they are overreacting and only acting out of their emotions. When the price of Bitcoin was bullish, everyone applauded institutional investors like Saylor and the likes for accumulating Bitcoin. Now that the price of Bitcoin is down, they think institutions are bad for Bitcoin. The real question is, do Bitcoiners truly know what they want?

I understand their frustration since a large amount of Bitcoin is being controlled by a single entity. There is a high chance that its decisions could influence the price of Bitcoin. But then, from all the reactions when Bitcoin was bullish and now that it is bearish, they should agree that investors like Saylor can be both advantageous and disadvantageous, as their actions can push Bitcoin's price upward and can also push it downward. Institutional investors are part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. As long as they can only influence the price and not control the entire network, it is just okay.

Microstrategy holding Bitcoin, selling and accumulating more Bitcoin is a strong sign that they believe in the digital gold coin and that is the first most important thing that has occestrated major adoption of ETF by other large institutional pockets and even retail investors who don't want to miss the action.

Although the move to sell off a huge chunk to clear off some financial needs sometime back by microstrategy did help to cause a volatile situation that may have been the result of the bearish season, but they did buy some more after this and what I can say about this instead of blaming Michael Saylor is that, they may have the power somehow to manipulate the market and this is the concern most investors have.

Michael Saylor did show how to financialize Bitcoin investment and even though people get involved, the emotional factor of investors would always look for a blame point and that's human nature in play.

[DPHOR]

I do not see Saylor or Strategy to be a bad influence to the community because as I know he is actually holding enough volume of Bitcoin which I think he has not gotten to his projected level, of course he is regarded as a major influencer to the current market knowing that he has enough volume of Bitcoin in his position that can likely effect the price of Bitcoin. Whereas, the small trader or low holder are being affected whenever he takes a drastic action toward the market.

[Donneski]

Whereas, the small trader or low holder are being affected whenever he takes a drastic action toward the market.

What you said about small holders is true. The risk about MicroStrategy is not that Michael Saylor will want to panic sell and that's because he's already proven his conviction but the psychological weight of it all. Because of the huge amount of Bitcoin in their possession, retail investors usually panic when his actions are suggesting a market dip, sometimes they fear they'll be liquidated even when it's not likely gonna happen.

Like I've said before, I think it's a massive central point of failure for the market sentiment and if we're being honest to ourselves, it goes against the Bitcoin's decentralized nature.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I don't think Saylor is a net negative for Bitcoin. Saylor has allowed institutional capital to have bitcoin exposure, and created products that may seem more lucrative than buying shares of an ETF.

Many people just rather gamble with MSTR or STRC than directly buying BTC, and they end up losing a lot more money during the bear market, so they blame Saylor.

[ColdLava40]

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?

Don't you think that people are just over reacting? It's very normal for people to want to point fingers when they perceive that what they anticipated isn't going as planned.

Indeed when Institutions or bigger bodies like the government purchases an asset it's values in price tends to shift. But that shouldn't be a must. Saylors adoption of Bitcoin contributed alot to it's adoption in most recent times.

His Investors are more concerned about the profits they make in return and not the bitcoin itself. But it still doesn't change anything about Bitcoin not poses a risk. In the future, when all Bitcoin will have been mined, people would be more exposed to investing in ETFs because of how scares bitcoin would become.

[Hazink]

People are overreacting. While some are actually making sense, there are some negative effects on the price of bitcoin because of this big name's involvement in it, especially in a time of price which we should not overlook. Their involvement might have helped Bitcoin reach an all time high faster than it could have, so canned their news of selling always have negative effective on the market, they are gradually creating a room for easy manipulation of Bitcoin price.

[Finestream]

I think any whale that hoard massive percentage of the total bitcoin supply will always be a risk to bitcoin, and Strategy is never an exception. They often have the means to control the market and bitcoin price, that's why other bitcoiners do see them as a risk to their bitcoin holdings.

But honestly, I don't see them any like that. What I have in my mind is that anyone can enter the market and leave the market, and that anyone can hoard bitcoin maximum amount because that person has huge resources, and we can't blame him for that. Bitcoin itself is already risky, so having this kind of attitude will not be a helpful tool in the market.

[Myleschetty]

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, they are not overreactions, and no Bitcoiners who thoroughly studied the idea of Bitcoin ETFs will believe that people are overreacting to Saylor and other BTC ETFs because the move was to tokenize all assets, create a form of centralization, narrative distortion, and make potential sales that could weaken the market.
In theory, the purpose of ETFs is to centralize Bitcoin so that the institution has control over it.

[MRY]

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, they are not overreactions, and no Bitcoiners who thoroughly studied the idea of Bitcoin ETFs will believe that people are overreacting to Saylor and other BTC ETFs because the move was to tokenize all assets, create a form of centralization, narrative distortion, and make potential sales that could weaken the market.
In theory, the purpose of ETFs is to centralize Bitcoin so that the institution has control over it.

Especially big organizations purchasing Bitcoin may actually consolidate unwanted centralization. I can see why this scares so many that this is undermining the original intent of digital currencies. As a person who prefers to stay free, I need to be alert on such transformations. It is important to retain its true value so that it does not give way to be a toy of the rich.

[Hamza2424]

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?

He can only be a risk to the BTC price, otherwise he is not interfering with anything internally. Although this post of yours and any other posts that are now pointing their fingers at him and MSTR remind me of this meme.

Strategy has bought a lot of coins and the system through which they are buying these coins could easily start a domino effect. Their cycle could break and they could eventually have to sell most of their coins, if not all, and that will be the first domino to fall, and with that the market will crash badly.

But still good for buyers, they will buy BTC at a cheaper rate.

[Botnake]

Whales will often be a threat to the rest of bitcoiners, because whatever they do in the market, it will leave an effect to the bitcoin assets of the holders. And Michael Saylor and Strategy are already considered big whales in the market, so I think its normal for any regular bitcoin investor to feel that way.

But rather than seeing them as risk, why not just enjoy the market and focus on bitcoin accumulation. Yes, they have huge control over the market's possible outcome, but hey bitcoin is highly volatile, it can always recover and get back to its original price, and Michael Saylor has no hold on that.

[yhiaali3]

Linking Bitcoin to any name is in itself a negative impact on Bitcoin, and this is where Satoshi's genius lies when he chose to disappear and not reveal his identity so that Bitcoin would be completely decentralized.

Now, this is what some people do, as they somehow link Michael Saylor to Bitcoin and believe that if Michael Saylor buys, the market will boom, and conversely, if he sells, the market will plummet. This is a mistake and has the biggest negative impact on Bitcoin. We saw how the price dropped as soon as "Strategy" sold only about 32 Bitcoins.

[X-ray]

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?

There is no jealousy, just critique on his preferred stock and it's completely valid concern.

If you don't know. The preferred stock is basically the senior tranche of the bitcoin reserve, and bitcoin reserve as a junior tranche will be the one taking hit if preferred stock couldn't trade at par from what I read about the whole thing.

Another important thing, his bitcoin reserve average price is below the current market price.

[jcojci]

People needs someone to be blamed so Saylor is the right person for them. Maybe that is overreacting but that is happens so it is better people don't follow up and just stick to their research. Even if Saylor as a risk for Bitcoin, that will not stop Bitcoin to increase or decrease but Bitcoin will moves as its nature. People need to be patient and not just affect to someone but focus in their buying will be better so they will be ready with the future.

[Lexandroove]

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?

Personally, I don't believe Saylor is a net bad for Bitcoin. If anything, the larger conversation should encourage more individuals to adopt self-custody.

[Jostern]

Personally, I don’t know how many people are seeing Micheal Saylor as a threat to bitcoin, because if you ask me I think that he has made so many people understand what bitcoin is all about, and people who do feel that he is a bad example for bitcoin, I don’t see anything he has done wrong in terms of buying and stacking a large amount of bitcoin, maybe people are are feeling that he has bought mostly all the bitcoin investments the market, and made bitcoin to be more expensive for miners, people who are digging and mining bitcoin on the internet and blockchain, everyone has each and every way or methods of approaching things.

[Lucius]

Linking Bitcoin to any name is in itself a negative impact on Bitcoin, and this is where Satoshi's genius lies when he chose to disappear and not reveal his identity so that Bitcoin would be completely decentralized.
~snip~

The difference between Satoshi and everyone else is that he was the only one who didn't see financial gain in Bitcoin for himself personally. Therefore, he is much more than the genius who invented Bitcoin - he is someone who made it possible for people to have their own decentralized currency, but unfortunately very few people recognized that.

I would conclude that people who promote Bitcoin as a kind of digital gold and accumulate large amounts in their wallets are not something positive - for me it is more positive when I see someone somewhere in some faraway country putting up a sign in front of their store saying "Bitcoin accepted".

[Arenga pinnata]

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?

Although I personally feel that people are overhyping him, because someone like Michael Saylor surely knows what he’s doing. Besides, he has inspired many people to invest in Bitcoin in the end.

But I understand why some people view Michael Saylor as a threat to Bitcoin, such as concerns about liquidity risks and forced sales by the company, whether due to a crisis or any other reason. After all, Michael Saylor’s company uses high-interest debt to finance its Bitcoin reserves, right? People also surely have concerns about MicroStrategy holding an increasing amount of Bitcoin (asset centralization). And since MicroStrategy’s stock price is just as volatile as Bitcoin, it will inevitably become the center of attention one day and have a sentimental impact or something along those lines.

[uchegod-21]

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?

Yes, they are overreacting and only acting out of their emotions. When the price of Bitcoin was bullish, everyone applauded institutional investors like Saylor and the likes for accumulating Bitcoin. Now that the price of Bitcoin is down, they think institutions are bad for Bitcoin. The real question is, do Bitcoiners truly know what they want?

I understand their frustration since a large amount of Bitcoin is being controlled by a single entity. There is a high chance that its decisions could influence the price of Bitcoin. But then, from all the reactions when Bitcoin was bullish and now that it is bearish, they should agree that investors like Saylor can be both advantageous and disadvantageous, as their actions can push Bitcoin's price upward and can also push it downward. Institutional investors are part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. As long as they can only influence the price and not control the entire network, it is just okay.

Microstrategy holding Bitcoin, selling and accumulating more Bitcoin is a strong sign that they believe in the digital gold coin and that is the first most important thing that has occestrated major adoption of ETF by other large institutional pockets and even retail investors who don't want to miss the action.

Although the move to sell off a huge chunk to clear off some financial needs sometime back by microstrategy did help to cause a volatile situation that may have been the result of the bearish season, but they did buy some more after this and what I can say about this instead of blaming Michael Saylor is that, they may have the power somehow to manipulate the market and this is the concern most investors have.

Michael Saylor did show how to financialize Bitcoin investment and even though people get involved, the emotional factor of investors would always look for a blame point and that's human nature in play.

Those who think Saylor is the problem should ask themselves why they believed that Saylor would only accumulate bitcoin for this long and never sell. That is a myopic thinking.

Bitcoin is open to everyone: the poor, the rich, individuals and corporate bodies. So, saying that investors like Saylor should not be involved in Bitcoin because of the level of influence their buying and selling of bitcoin has on its price contradicts the purpose of decentralization and the benefit of freedom we have enjoyed all this while.

As for those who react to Saylor's patterns, they were never forced to buy or sell their Bitcoin whenever Saylor does. These are people following Bitcoin with emotions.