His logic falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.
The only information we could glean from proved reserves is what key scheme they are using. We already know it’s a multisig - no way 580k coins held by a publicly traded company are under a singlesig - ok great, now what does anyone do with that information? Nothing. It provides no information that is actionable to a hacker. It doesn’t tell you who has those keys. Where they are. How those key holders might be compromised. What signing processes they have, what duress protocols they have etc. It tells you nothing at all.
The only feasible threat is that when he’s forced to liquidate he doesn’t want everyone to see those coins move and front run his selling before a dump. But that has nothing to do with “Security”.
He says shit like “ask an AI to explain security threats and it will come up with a 50 page book” as if that’s a real reason. You can get AI to write a 50-page book on anything, it doesnt make it valuable or actionable information.
And if a hacker could plausibly crack Bitcoin wallets; they’re going after Satoshi first - not Microstrategy.
Saylor is the next Jordan Peterson. Narrowly constrained he can sound quite profound because he does have good subject matter knowledge, but once he strays outside his comfort zone into things that don’t align with his own narrative, the message falls apart.
I understand the threat might be minimal but it's hard for me to accept that providing no information about the coins on chair address adds more threat of loss. It's either neutral to hide address or else it's worse to provide the address from a security standpoint. I see no scenario where security is improved.
To your second point that is completely correct. Any on chain movements could spook the market which is yet another reason he would not want to provide that information.
However I would think in both of these cases him holding this information back is in the shareholders interest. The only fear is they only hold paper bitcoin but I would say most of the capital invested in MSTR is not coming from a "not your keys not your coin" background so this is unlikely to actual impact the majority of investor sentiment.
His AI response was nonsense. Too many people are relying on AI to just validate whatever they want. It's a problem.
The comparison to Peterson is interesting. His downfall has been quite a ride.
You're both making very good points 🤝
Thread collapsed
You’re not wrong, but none of these points back up his “security” claims.
He could have used any of the shareholder interests/market spooking stuff and left it at that, people may or may not believe those points but at least there is some legitimacy to having a business strategy and sticking to it.
There is no legitimacy to his claims that it undermines security though. That’s not how Bitcoin works, we all know it’s not, and that’s the issue because in trying to sound smart, there are idiots who buy into what hes saying and then Bitcoiners have to undo his narratives.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
