MicroStrategy now holds 1 out of every 173 Bitcoin
https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1465318122592915462
https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1465305537210458115
Lol, I don't know that's smart. Special for other companies that want to invest, it can become a red flag.
Not sure what he wants with that? After he hold around 0,6% of all bitcoins ever created - lost bitcoins, it should be around 1% +.
2 Things I think about that.
First who want to buy after him? It looks like Saylor will burn his investors in a "midterm run".
And on the other side, that is how a money attack looks like. I mean what is the goal from him? Spreading Bitcoin to more users adds more value and makes it accessible to more people than playing the Ponzi game.
The Ponzi game has close to 0 utility. Bitcoin at 1$ can do the same as 100k Bitcoin. The value comes with people and not with Ponzi tactics. Sure in a short term it can add a lot of value.
That is IMO far away from a decentralization mindset. Saylor wants to control Bitcoin mining, he wants to be the top holder. Looks like Justin sun attacked and the stupid Bitcoin community doesn't realize this?
I mean, Chinese miners leave the game. So it becomes more centralized.
He called it the "Mining council" with green energy.
I really don't know what the point is to hold that much.
That's old men thinking. Community is value and not the asset itself. Really strange way to think about bitcoin.
I would love to have a discussion on that topic. Because I think this can become really relevant in the future.
I completely disagree with you. :)
If you want to know what his goals are I would recommend watching his videos and interviews about bitcoin. There are many of them. They are very interesting and educational.
Consensus in Bitcoin is reached via proof of work algorithm, and not delegated proof of stake like on Hive. On Hive acquiring more Hive and powering up may give you influence in the governance of the network. In Bitcoin, amount of bitcoins you have doesn't give you influence of the network. Amount of bitcoins you have can only influence the price of the bitcoin in the market based on your what you decide to do: sell or buy.
Sayor has been very clear about his goals on acquiring more bitcoin. And he has to be a CEO of a publicly traded company. There are legal consequences for being publicly deceptive when talking about financial assets for officers of publicly traded company.
He has a strong conviction that bitcoin is most important innovation of the century, is the hardest money, and is the best long term investment. That's why he went all in with his personal funds and his company funds. He has stated many times that his vision is long term, and doesn't have any short term plans on selling any of the bitcoins. Now, if he was in for short term and were to sell his bitcoins that would cause significant drop in bitcoin price. Instead, he keeps buying as much as possible with whatever money he has available. That's a good thing.
Not only he has been buying, he has been telling other companies and CEOs to do the same thing. He has offered to share his playbook and strategy with those who are interested and has done so. He was the one who convinced Elon Musk to invest in bitcoin with Tesla's funds.
No he doesn't own 1%. Also, whatever he bought with Microstrategy funds belong to the company and its investors. Not necessarily one person accumulating bunch bitcoins.
There is no money attack. He is not interested in controlling anything. He sees a great investment and goes for it. He is very transparent about it.
If you are worried about money attack, you should be worried about the 120k+ bitcoins MtGox will end up dumping.
As far as mining council, that is just some advisory panel to put together information on mining so they can be presented to potential bitcoin investors who are concerned about how bitcoin is mined. A lot funds in the US have some criteria set up when considering what they legally invest in or not. This creates a lot of confusion for many potential big investors that are some trusts or funds who would otherwise choose to invest in bitcoin, at least some percentage of their funds as a hedge.
He has no ambitions in getting into mining or controlling what miners do whatsoever. But he has passion about is educating people, companies, and other entities about bitcoin. So they too can take advantage of this opportunity.
Thanks for that response :)
I also disagree, haha :P
True in terms of chain security, wrong with real-world connection. If you own 1% of an asset ( or control). You become a price maker.
Miners want higher prices ( money). So in the end the bitcoin becomes Zimbabwe's $ if he follows that road and acquires more.
The second is, he has already invested in mining. Centralize it even more.
makes it worse because "making money" becomes even a higher reason.
Control and owning are in terms of power are the same. There is no difference between owning an asset or controlling an asset. The worldwide real estate sector works like that.
I think, and now it becomes more clear, we talk about 2 different things. You talk about future prices. I talk about Bitcoin and the security itself.
The price doesn't matter to me, I think he will boost it because that's what he does. Reduce the circulating supply and pump it.
It's exactly what a Ponzi is. With the difference, he tells everybody " my average price is 29k$".
Centralization that's it. Not today. But with expansion it becomes.
And remember I don't talk about what happens today. I talk about the road bitcoin is going.
Some South American dictator starts mining with vulcanos, in north America billionaires and energy companies invest in bitcoin and so on.
Because running the network is too expensive means centralization at the finest in the endgame ( and i don't talk about market manipulation, because leverage buying needs a sell point).
Overall thanks for your viewpoints, I think discussions like this can be really valuable if more time goes on.
This is a very good discussion that is needed. The exchange of ideas and viewpoints is essential to learning.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Very good comment and you raise some very good points that add much to this discussion. We need this type of discourse to learn and understand this topic better.
Thank you
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
A thought few have had, very interesting, good to talk about it.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Thank you, I really appreciate it!
That is an interesting topic. It does seem that he continues to add regardless of price and he seems to keep getting unlimited funds to do so. I never thought about the mining issue but it could very well be an issue.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Special the case of unlimited funds + 1% holdings + already some huge mining control.
What if he invests x amount in mining software too?
IMO the power shift from the people to the top. On a greater scale, it can become dangerous.
Another thing we already know. Billionaires know each other. That can be the money attack on bitcoin in the worst case.
Yes but I have already considered BTC to be the institutions. It's not really us who controls BTC at this point. Things like HIVE and the smaller coins are where we still have control because most people who bought in early to BTC have most likely already sold out.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Not so micro after all.
crazy right?
Ha Ha Ha
I love the play on words, but it is also illustrative that his strategy is not micro...
His writing about Bitcoin and his belief in Bitcoin are both impressive. His accumulated Bitcoin is also very impressive. I respect him for putting his money where his mouth is and for publically sharing his Bitcoin Playbook as he has done.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Hello @urun
This is a very interesting topic for discussion.
I haven't seen anyone raise this question before, however it is still a poignant one. After all decentralization is dependent on wide distribution and when one person owns large percentages of something, it is the opposite of decentralization, and is in effect centralization.
It is illustrative that many considered Bitcoin centralized when the Chinese were thought to hold the majority of the miners. If the Americans become the majority of Bitcoin miners does this not also suggest centralization?
And as you allude to above, if Micheal Saylor holds the majority of Bitcoin. does it not suggest centralization?
Perhaps he loves Bitcoin to much?
It is written somewhere, that if you love something, sometimes you have to let it go. Perhaps he should encourage it's ownership by others, instead of attempting to own so much of it himself.
@shortsegments
https://leofinance.io/@urun/microstrategy-now-holds-1-out-of-every-173-bitcoin
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
If he holds to much, it will produce problems around it. The road is IMO really dangerous for Bitcoin. Special in the long run.
Thanks for your comment. I hope we become as much as possible to see many different viewpoints.
Upvoted, shared and tagged #shortsegments
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
https://twitter.com/PowerGames8/status/1465405962039308301
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the person sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com.