He can take bitcoin to 0 if he goes mad.

Nobody can move the market like Saylor could, other than Satoshi. Realistically higher than 4% of coins considering lost coins.

Anyone owning 4% of the "world supply of money" is not good for the money itself.

How?

Dumps it all?

People start buying at a certain point...

And selling… a lot.

Hardly.

why

Don’t temp him 😂

is that a lot

They can buy stuff with it that can make everyone's life worse.

It adds risk to the money itself, that if the money becomes too valuable, it consolidates inordinate power into a single individual's hands.

That comment is retarded over 6 mil were sold by long term holders this past cycle.. 800k ain’t gonna get that done

I’ll own all the bitcoin before it ever goes to 0…

It's purchasing power though. Optionality not projectable power. He can only sell 4% of the bitcoin supply once.

And yes it would dump the price but then it would spike like a jack in a box after the dump since the market is spooked by the MSTR stack concentrated risk.

You think money only buys physical things? You fundamentally misunderstand what money is. Money is a promise. You can get someone to do anything for money. If you have enough money, you can get anyone to do anything, if not directly, you can pay someone to use force to get you to do it. Money is power. Concentrated money is absolute power.

money is a promise? What?

Yes, that is the difference between a commodity and a money. When people will accept something universally for their goods or services, the commodity becomes a "social contract" or "universally implied promise" to accept it for whatever is for sale; be it goods, labor, repaying debts or securing favors.

the beauty of bitcoin is it only accumulates to those who provide value. if he has 4% of the bitcoin it’s because he provided sufficient value. trying to change that would make bitcoin bad money.

I'm not worried about it. He will get margin called and we will all be sitting here ready to vacuum up cheap sats.

Settle down cowboy, it's just optionality. You have to exercise that optionality to realise any power. You have to spend your money. Money can't buy everything. Money can also buy anything.

you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about🤣

if someone owning 4% of bitcoin is “bad” for bitcoin, then it deserves to fail.

The power is not in his hands at all. MSTR and it's Bitcoin are a regulated entity owned by the shareholders. Even if 4% of the supply was owned by an individual, how is that a risk? The worst that can happen is that it was sold all at once and the price dipped briefly. Big whoop.

4% is anti Bitcoin philosophy

no central bank ever held 4% of gold without people noticing.

At least he doesn't KYC Bitcoin on-ramps/off-ramps cause that isn't real Bitcoin, no?

No he can’t - I have it on good authority there’s a bunch of limit buy orders on exchanges for 21M bitcoin at $0.01 :)

if ya say so Mr. @Lyn Alden who am i to argue 🤔 #asknostr #transexpert

I mean that is a really huge portion of “real” trading volume (ie not counting market makers making short-term bets or rotations from self-custody to ETFs).

I also imagine when it is known that he's selling, all of his larpy followers will also follow suit, of which there are many

😡

are you angry?

Do they really or does Coinbase?

you and me will have half each

the power is orthogonal to the money itself and its characteristics. that is also part of the point of money

Sounds fair to me!

I am not interested enough to understand what Saylor is doing with the corporate bitcoin. All I need to know is he is promising the same bitcoin to more than one person. The market will catch up with him.

You presume money is constrained by the state. When you have enough money, power functions in the opposite direction.

I disagree. The problem exists in all forms of money. The problem isn't with bitcoin, it is with concentration of power.

I would have preferred it if he sold 32 coins at market top. That’s a clearer message of I can if I want to not I’m pushed to.

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.

Saylor will only have power over me if I choose/allow myself to be at the bottom of a control hierarchy that he bought himself to the top of by a series of voluntary transactions where the recipient determined they'd rather have Saylor's coins than whatever else they could have in exchange instead. do you not see how that is fundamentally different than the alternatives? also, your premise is flimsy: the "problem of concentration of wealth" is not a problem to be solved - and definitely not by the base layers of a monetary technology. it's a natural result of many people valuing what someone else is providing. "solving" that "problem" in any way beyond emergent collective voluntary choices is a slippery slope to (artificially and likely coercively) removing the incentives that encourage an individual to innovate and create value in the first place. ..which is how you make sure civilization never emerges.

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

Did I say ita the SAME as Fiat, or that it's fundamentally the same as the alternatives? You're putting up straw men. I'm saying there is a reality to the underlying technology of money itself, and there is no "solving" it, only realize the dangers and the realities.

fair. fine

I prefer the outcome that it will all be sold at once due to a market correction rather than the alternative, which is a single corporation controlling a significant portion of the money supply. Note, this is a fundamentally different problem than ETFs custodying large sums of bitcoin.

Too much for my taste... Saylor is bad for the corn. 🫂

*pinches the bridge of his nose*

heads-up: we looked for a lightning address on your profile but could not find one... u can get a free one at

Rizful: Lightning Services

Free Lightning vaults, and instant, disposable Lightning Nodes.

... and then reply back to this comment so we can zap you.