Replying to Avatar HoloKat

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.
Avatar
Azz 1y ago

It will be interesting. Big holders are incentivise to stop development and force transactions into traditional banking, which they can profit from holding on behalf of others. Also the harder to move on-chain, the less likely bank runs are.

Miners on the other hand are incentivised to prefer scaling and increase the number of on chain transactions.

Users are also incentivised to control their own keys to prevent fractionally reserved lending which debases the value of their coins.

Fortunately Bitcoin is proof of work, not proof of stake, so it doesn't really matter how much Michael Saylor or Coinbase hold.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.