I can't prove it, but there was a large anonymouse donation made to support some of the recent legal battles bitcoiners were facing. I had a suspicion that Saylor might have had a hand in that...
That said, it shouldn't really matter.
It's on us not to put people on a pedestal. And it's on Bitcoin to stand resiliant, in the face of those who seek to profit from it, whether their motives are benevolent or otherwise.
That is precisely true, but perhaps there may have been attack vectors unforseen up unil now. We are entering a very
delicate phase of Bitcoins trajectory.
Is it not wise to be vigilant?
Without the details, it could be entirely self motivated.
Bill Gates and the Carnegies are renowned for their 'philanthropy'.
The lack of clarity around the details is the issue.
If Saylor approached this with purity of heart, he could actually end up gifting humanity something on a parr with Bitcoin itself...
i.e. the most robust, self soverign way of managing identity in a digital context.
It will be interesting to see which path he chooses, and the extent to which he can pull it off...
I choose to be resolutely sceptical, and therefore, am in the perfect position to be pleasantly surprised.
Seems like a reasonable position.
One positive is that it looks like he's pushing his work to GitHub.
If he maintains the open-source nature of the product, at least we'll be able to vet and verify it, for ourselves, much in the same way we do with Bitcoin.
Unlike other centralised, black box approaches to digital identity, if he aims to shaft folks, at least we'll know about it, and the extent to which he's able to do it...
