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

[Webutxo]

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.

What people need to understand is that before Saylor, Bitcoin does has it moment and without him Bitcoin will do well but just like other market, he is already the face of Bitcoin and there is nothing that can stop him. It's okay if his ideas are changing and all the rebranding but if Saylor is buying Bitcoin and doing all he want, what about the rest of us, what are we doing to make changes, we should be there at the top buying and holding instead of the ranting.

I believe people that are selling their coins and running away from the market, the very time they stop selling their coins and hold, I believe even Saylor will have no Bitcoin to buy. By the time they run after the limited ones on the market, it will make it too pricy and he would be out of money to buy since he is going to need billions from other places to be able to buy. I'm not sure if he is going to survive that buy without much money on him.

[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.
~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".

Yes, you're right. Satoshi is much more than just a genius who invented Bitcoin.
In fact, Satoshi's personality is unique and unlikely to be repeated in history. I don't recall ever reading, even in ancient history, of someone who invented something new and then completely abandoned it for the benefit of society without it being associated with their name or generating huge financial gains.

People are now unfortunately beginning to squander the sacrifice of this great man by turning Bitcoin from a decentralized tool for financial freedom into a means of profit only.

[RockBell]

Yes, you're right. Satoshi is much more than just a genius who invented Bitcoin.
In fact, Satoshi's personality is unique and unlikely to be repeated in history. I don't recall ever reading, even in ancient history, of someone who invented something new and then completely abandoned it for the benefit of society without it being associated with their name or generating huge financial gains.

Satoshi's invention is what as brough us to this place. There have been a lot of benefits from investing in bitcoin, and there is no investment when it comes to an asset that can beat bitcoin am talking about virtual assets, and even some physical assets can not compete with bitcoin the financial game have changed and there is going to be a lot of efforts that people have put in and they have benefited from investing so there is no doubt bitcoin will still go a long way.

People are now unfortunately beginning to squander the sacrifice of this great man by turning Bitcoin from a decentralized tool for financial freedom into a means of profit only.

And, the system is somehow being tempted, and the whole idea of decentralization is compromised and it is what you can invest that will determine the outcome you will get so it is now a principle, and that is why accumulation is very important and issue Michael Saylor the man knows what is doing and they are always after there own because that is what people with influence knows how to do so the best thing is to still buy regardless.

[stadus]

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.

The bottom line, we can't stop them from doing so, yet they can always manipulate the market that we are in, and that's something that most of us are fearful. But who needs to be fearful anyway when we are already dealing a market full of uncertainty. So let's just focus on our own and mind our own business, just like Strategy are consistently growing their bitcoin acquisition.

Seeing him as a risk is already there, we can't change that. But we can always change our reactions and behaviors towards seeing that risk in him.

[TedMosby]

He's too big of a figure for a decentralized thing like Bitcoin, which is somehow look like a representation of the Bitcoin community itself. Everything he does is like a benchmark of how true Bitcoin hodlers should be. He's like a mini Satoshi because he's the figure that is known to own Bitcoin in significant numbers. This condition is not good for the Bitcoin community.

For existing Bitcoin hodlers, they will make Saylor and his company a benchmark. Like when the BTC price is high, they will speculate and calculate again based on Saylor and MSTR's BTC holdings. It can bring up fear of being exit liquidity due to their massive holdings.

For no-coiners who think of investing in Bitcoin, they will see Saylor and MSTR as an example. Simply put, when big Bitcoin investors are at a loss, why should they risk their money on Bitcoin? They need a good example of how good Bitcoin investors should be. I am saying investors who have a strategy, not just people who are waiting for luck.

So, I am a little bit in agreement with the statement that Saylor is a risk to Bitcoin. 1,000 companies holding 1 BTC each are better than 1 company holding 1,000 BTC. But again, without Michael Saylor and MSTR, other big institutions that helped BTC become what it is today probably wouldn't have joined us on this Bitcoin journey.

[Mate2237]

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?

How is saylor a negative to Bitcoin , simply due to reasons of him selling part of his holding in Bitcoin. The truth is that just as you have pointed out most people are just overreacting to the market and how the price of Bitcoin has performed especially since the beginning of this. And Michael saylor one of the people who has been a great advocate for Bitcoin announcing about his plan to selling his holding.


People should not forget about the contributions and role that Michael saylor did in the past, especially his role in making sure that institutions can take in Bitcoin. It's on record that Michael saylor strategy is the first institution which paved the way for the institutionalization of Bitcoin. Which was historic in the history of Bitcoin the events happening now should not make anyone begin to look at Michael saylor as a problem to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

[Smartprofit]

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?

Of course, Michael Saylor's actions are sucking liquidity and capital out of Bitcoin... Which Bitcoin holders would like that? 🙋

How much should Michael Saylor's shares be worth? The calculation is very simple: the company's net assets divided by the number of shares owned by Michael Saylor.

Net assets are the value of the Bitcoin on the company's balance sheet minus the company's liabilities (the value of issued bonds and stock dividends). In other words, Michael Saylor's company's shares should under no circumstances be worth more than the Bitcoin it has accumulated. On the contrary, they should be worth less. Perhaps even significantly less.

The fact that the share price was higher than the Bitcoin price for some period of time is an anomaly. Now the price is lower, and this cannot be corrected (because it contradicts the basic laws of economics and accounting).

This means that Michael Saylor's financial scheme will collapse, and with it, the price of Bitcoin. For Michael Saylor, selling Bitcoin in this situation is pointless. But he will sell Bitcoin and take other pointless actions to avoid declaring bankruptcy for as long as possible. This means the bear market will persist for a long time (until Michael Saylor's company finally goes bankrupt).

[avp2306]

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.

The bottom line, we can't stop them from doing so, yet they can always manipulate the market that we are in, and that's something that most of us are fearful. But who needs to be fearful anyway when we are already dealing a market full of uncertainty. So let's just focus on our own and mind our own business, just like Strategy are consistently growing their bitcoin acquisition.

Seeing him as a risk is already there, we can't change that. But we can always change our reactions and behaviors towards seeing that risk in him.

If people would learn to do that which to mind their own business and focus on current things that they deal with their Bitcoin. For sure that there's little to no effect if they would dump their Bitcoins.

People should try to look at their accumulations done. Even if they accumulate large quantities of Bitcoin the market almost didn't move. So provably same thing will happen even if they dump, since Bitcoin liquidity is much bigger than what they currently hold. People just need to believe on Bitcoin and not those institutions that try to manipulate the market.

[Lucius]

Yes, you're right. Satoshi is much more than just a genius who invented Bitcoin.
In fact, Satoshi's personality is unique and unlikely to be repeated in history. I don't recall ever reading, even in ancient history, of someone who invented something new and then completely abandoned it for the benefit of society without it being associated with their name or generating huge financial gains.

People are now unfortunately beginning to squander the sacrifice of this great man by turning Bitcoin from a decentralized tool for financial freedom into a means of profit only.

There might be some example that would go in that direction, but those are very rare things like the owner dying and leaving the factory to the workers or something like that - but Satoshi is truly unique. In the past, in conversations with various people about Bitcoin, I often touched on the topic of the mysterious creator of Bitcoin, and most of the people I spoke to did not appreciate his genius, but considered him literally a fool because he did not profit from his invention.

People who give and ask for nothing in return are not very valued in today's materialistic world where the only thing that matters is who has more money and power.

[Catenaccio]

I don't recall ever reading, even in ancient history, of someone who invented something new and then completely abandoned it for the benefit of society without it being associated with their name or generating huge financial gains.

There might be some example that would go in that direction, but those are very rare things like the owner dying and leaving the factory to the workers or something like that - but Satoshi is truly unique. In the past, in conversations with various people about Bitcoin, I often touched on the topic of the mysterious creator of Bitcoin, and most of the people I spoke to did not appreciate his genius, but considered him literally a fool because he did not profit from his invention.

People who give and ask for nothing in return are not very valued in today's materialistic world where the only thing that matters is who has more money and power.

A person who is very famous and we read or hear about his name every year. Nobel and Nobel prize annually.

In my opinion, stories about Satoshi Nakamoto and Alfred Nobel are not 100% the same but somewhat similar. They invented good things but tended to leave these good things to community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Nobel

Alfred Bernhard Nobel (21 October 1833 – 10 December 1896) was a Swedish chemist, inventor, engineer, and businessman. Nobel is known for inventing dynamite, as well as having bequeathed his fortune to establish the Nobel Prizes.

[aoluain]

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.

Because its futile. Everyone knows that anyone and his dog is free to buy Bitcoin whenever
they want and in any quantity. We can jump up and down and shout its not right about whomever
decides to buy but it wont achieve anything only stress and anger.

Likewise when it comes to selling - same as above.

I understand for some its a logical reaction to what happened but personally and maybe others
are in my boat, I couldnt care what he or MS do. It was just another MS saga which will be confined
to 'Bitcoins history'

.

^
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

Me or you alone can not change the market pricing alone, when greater events can cause
temporary movements we can take advantage of what is seen as a temporary negative event.

TBH MS would say that their Business model works for them. And again if its unsustainable
I really couldnt care - maybe I am too blazé its my perspective on the whole thing.

[yhiaali3]

Yes, you're right. Satoshi is much more than just a genius who invented Bitcoin.
In fact, Satoshi's personality is unique and unlikely to be repeated in history. I don't recall ever reading, even in ancient history, of someone who invented something new and then completely abandoned it for the benefit of society without it being associated with their name or generating huge financial gains.

People are now unfortunately beginning to squander the sacrifice of this great man by turning Bitcoin from a decentralized tool for financial freedom into a means of profit only.

There might be some example that would go in that direction, but those are very rare things like the owner dying and leaving the factory to the workers or something like that - but Satoshi is truly unique. In the past, in conversations with various people about Bitcoin, I often touched on the topic of the mysterious creator of Bitcoin, and most of the people I spoke to did not appreciate his genius, but considered him literally a fool because he did not profit from his invention.

People who give and ask for nothing in return are not very valued in today's materialistic world where the only thing that matters is who has more money and power.

Yes, I too have encountered many people who, unfortunately, still haven't grasped the magnitude of what Satoshi did.

Returning to our topic, Michael Saylor once tried to portray himself as Satoshi when he stated, "He might burn his private keys to Bitcoin rather than donate the cryptocurrency before he dies."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/michael-saylor-may-burn-bitcoin-142500370.html

Perhaps he was expressing his belief in Bitcoin, or perhaps he was trying to portray himself as the next Satoshi....
But we now know how much he lied...

[KingsDen]

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.

Not only Saylor. Elon musk had been seen as such in the past when he benefited from Bitcoin and dumped it. He played hero and people started complaining.

Even people are saying same words to Donald Trump because he couldn't implement too many promises he made to bitcoin.

So, seeing Saylor as a risk is not a surprise to me.

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.

Whether with Saylor or not, bitcoin price will moon when it's supposed to.

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 are over reacting and creating fud in the market

[Natalim]

I think its not only Michael Saylor, but the rest of big whales in the market, eventually they turn as risk to those normal investors. Maybe out of envy, it's quite unstoppable, and maybe because these big whales will more likely determine the future of their investments, although its how they manage their bitcoin will affect its future the most.

And everything that they can't be, they are considered as risk to bitcoin. That's one of the behavioral threats with people, they cannot appreciate the success of other people just because its hard for them to succeed on their own.

[ThemePen]

I think its not only Michael Saylor, but the rest of big whales in the market, eventually they turn as risk to those normal investors. Maybe out of envy, it's quite unstoppable, and maybe because these big whales will more likely determine the future of their investments, although its how they manage their bitcoin will affect its future the most.

And everything that they can't be, they are considered as risk to bitcoin. That's one of the behavioral threats with people, they cannot appreciate the success of other people just because its hard for them to succeed on their own.

Partially correct, the jealousy angle is a partial truth that hides the actual issue that people have with whales. It is not jealousy, but danger of too much power in one place, market structure issue. When several large players are in charge of billions of Bitcoin, those moves actually impact markets and negatively affect smaller Bitcoiners, no matter how they feel about success of the first ones mentioned. Whether it is because of jealousy or not, the fact that Saylor is holding so much BTC for Strategy is raising some serious questions about what will happen if he ever decides to sell. While praising Saylor success, you can acknowledge that it has put his company in built in disadvantage in same market that he loves, for smaller players.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Partially correct, the jealousy angle is a partial truth that hides the actual issue that people have with whales. It is not jealousy, but danger of too much power in one place, market structure issue. When several large players are in charge of billions of Bitcoin, those moves actually impact markets and negatively affect smaller Bitcoiners, no matter how they feel about success of the first ones mentioned. Whether it is because of jealousy or not, the fact that Saylor is holding so much BTC for Strategy is raising some serious questions about what will happen if he ever decides to sell. While praising Saylor success, you can acknowledge that it has put his company in built in disadvantage in same market that he loves, for smaller players.

I am one of members in Bitcoin community and I have freedom to think about the others, including institutional investors and whales such as Strategy. If I dislike the investment approach of Strategy, and I consider Strategy as a potential risk of Bitcoin market in the future, it does not make me as a jealous person against Strategy.

If someone, some companies do wrong things and there are the other people who recognize that, warn about risks for community benefit, it does not make such people like bad ones. I believe that many people see risk in strategies of Strategy, difference is like they keep it for themselves or discuss about it publicly.

[ArabBTC]

Basically bitcoin as a cryptocurrency is supposed to be completely independent devoid of any human direct influence, with the occurrences in this few past days people are beginning to see Michael Saylor as a threat to the existence of bitcoin because of his enormous influence on the market, every of his slightest bitcoin move have a great impact on the market and it is really questionable, if bitcoin must continue to increase in value then no one man should have the capacity to influence it regardless of the amount of bitcoin he/she possesses. If people influence completely over shadow the market then its uniqueness will be lost.

[AprilioMP]

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?

It’s common to look for reasons when market prices are falling and remain at low levels.
Saylor and MicroStrategy have had a significant influence on many people’s views of Bitcoin because of their consistent purchases, regardless of the amount.
People are influenced by this and continue to strengthen their resolve regarding their future plans.
I don’t think it will have a negative impact because the more demand there is for Bitcoin, the better.

[Somegory]

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.

This is true, it will pass away in a very short term but the fact is something this crazy needs to happen, a capitulation maybe, still doesn't have anything to do with DCA strategy, Bitcoin will always bounce back with or without bad news or bad events.

It's only a matter of time and we are very close to the bottom, but that fear needs to be epic first so that many will scared away, it's possible that if Bitcoin failed to hold this 61k Saylor will be forced to sell even more Bitcoin.

It still doesn't and shouldn't determine your reason why you are holding back from investing into Bitcoin, another 20% leg down won't change a thing if you are using DCA strategy.

[348Judah]

I don't know why people are setting Michael Saylor as their own strategy or indicator to bitcoin performance, for crying out loud, operating by his own principles with Microstrategy and this does not have to do anything with the market price volatility or performance, bitcoin follow seasons and whenever we are in the bull season you will discover the rising and when it is in the bear season he will see more of the market falling, institutional investment cannot control the entire market because bitcoin cannot be centralized despite we still have some giant whales that are fully investing like Microstrategy.