Bitcoin solved the problem of corrupt issuance. It did not solve the problem of concentrated ownership. If one identifiable corporate-political actor controls 4–5% of the eventual monetary base, that becomes a legitimacy problem for global adoption. People may tolerate early adopters becoming wealthy if the ownership is distributed, inert, or anonymous. They will be far less willing to adopt a new global money if doing so appears to enthrone one visible man or corporation with disproportionate claim on human economic potential.

apply your hypothesis to the other monies on the table. wouldn't people avoid using Dollars if what you're saying is universally true?

The power is not orthogonal to the money. Purchasing power is the social function of money. Money is not merely optionality over physical goods. It is command over scarce human time, labor, attention, loyalty, coordination, protection, silence, influence, and violence. Yes, he can only sell 4% of the Bitcoin supply once. But that misses the point. If Bitcoin becomes the dominant world money, 4% is not “a bag he can dump.” It is a standing claim on a meaningful fraction of global economic potential. You do not need to sell all of it to project power. You can borrow against it. You can fund institutions. You can buy media. You can influence politicians. You can acquire companies. You can endow foundations. You can shape incentives. You can hire security. You can create dependency. You can move markets merely by threatening to act. That is not just optionality. That is latent power. Bitcoin solved the problem of corrupt issuance. It did not automatically solve the problem of concentrated ownership. A new global money has a legitimacy burden. People may tolerate early adopters becoming wealthy if ownership is distributed, inert, anonymous, or earned through broad contribution. But one visible corporate-political node controlling 4% of the eventual monetary base creates a power-load on the asset itself. The issue is not whether Bitcoin still works technically. It does. The issue is whether ordinary people will willingly adopt a money that appears to enthrone one identifiable actor with disproportionate claim over future human productivity. That is an adoption risk, a legitimacy risk, and eventually a political risk.

This is a question of adoption, which is sticky. Dollars started out as 0.752-ounce of silver. That commodity money was converted to debt backed money during the wars. Bitcoin is starting out as a new commodity-based money, one without intrinsic use other than as money itself. That is a new thing and someone living that controls 5% of the supply is a liability on the asset itself.

look at rich european dynasties, kings and their kingdoms. you can easily loose all your wealth. and it's been historically often the case. one generation gets it the other will erode it, the third will loose it (not literally)

miss me with your ai responses man

Fine, don't read it

Again, I'm not proposing that Saylors power will be eternal. I'm saying adopting bitcoin will effectively mean giving Saylor power over you, where the alternative to bitcoin (the dollar) will not.

all I say is I don't see it as a problem.

I can appreciate that point of view. I'm only pointing it out because some people will sniff it out and not like it.