IF Saylor is actively discouraging development, my theory on that is that he probably fears the "bitcoin as currency" narrative so much because that invites a shitstorm from US govt. and he probably thinks it will set back "bitcoin is an asset" narrative in some way that meaningfully hurts his investment.
Stopping development might be beneficial to him as it halts any potentially regulatory challenging developments. To him, bitcoin is good as it is and it doesn't need any new development. He's probably thinking "leave it the f alone!".
Just a theory, hinging on a big IF. I don't know what the reality is.
But there is tons of development that is not Bitcoin protocol development. Make better, more secure wallets for example.
Please Login to reply.
I agree, but he probably doesn't want to think about which development he'd be funding.
The claims are they stopped others from funding, too.
Sus. Both ways. I'm curious to learn more, but don't see any details.
