MicroStrategy now owns 1 out of every 150 #bitcoin that will ever exist š¤Æ
Discussion
Heās taking all our korn!!! š½
Can I get some haha
Don't let him have it all, stop it ! š®āšØ lol
Iām not so sure this is good for Bitcoin.
It literally has no effect on anyone else. Holding more Bitcoin gives you no more control over the network than someone with less.
Bitcoin is not proof of stake. This doesnāt affect bitcoin at all.
š
Centralisation is bad, even in Bitcoin.
It could allow some manipulation of the exchange rate, for example.
Learn what centralization is. Someone holding more money than you is not centralization.
Chose the word you prefer, but someone controlling 1 out of 150 coins gives him too much power to change the available liquidity and manipulate the exchange rate.
And that's not good.
So you want central banks.
Exactly the opposite.
I don't want anybody, nor Central Banks, nor influencers, nor rich people, nor private Enterprises to control too much of a commodity to being able to control its exchange rate.
That's concentration of power, and that corrupts.
We have seeing it again and again.
So you want Socialism AND central banks.
Less power more responsibility type of request.
"That's concentration of power, and that corrupts."
Excuse me, when do socialists agree with the idea that concentration of power (even in the State hands) is a bad idea?
What concentration of power over bitcoin have you described or identified? None that Iāve seen. Rather you have implied that someone or something should control the exchange rate of bitcoin and prevent anyone from owning ātoo muchā bitcoin. You are advocating for central control of money policy and property ownership, so how do you achieve that?
I'm advocating for what?!?!
Sorry, at this point I don't know if I'm not able to express myself in english (it could be that, as it's not my mother language), or you are having problems to understand my words.
Itās the logical conclusion for what youāre saying is a ābadā thing ā someone owning ātoo muchā bitcoin, and wanting the exchange rate to be immune to the effects market forces. From my angle you appear to have a very flawed fundamental understanding of what youāre even saying. You need to start there. Until then this is a useless conversation.
Excuse me, but that's YOUR conclusion, not mine.
Do I think it's good for someone to control a big stake of bitcoin? Nope.
Do I think it's good for someone to control a big stake of political power? Nope.
Do I think it's good for someone to control a big stake of oil production? Nope.
Etc...
Do I propose something to change any of those things? Nope.
Not everything that I think it's not good should be changed!
So, please, don't apply your central planner logic to my opinions.
It's clear that my logic doesn't work like yours.
I am not advocating to anything you said.
š«
If you really think Bitcoin can be ācontrolledā by one party you have a lot of studying to do. Sorry thatās just not how that works. Thereās 21 million coins, thatās all you need to know. āAvailable liquidityā is a short term fear if someone dumps spot on market it will be eaten up by holders. change your time preference
I'm not saying controlling 1 out of 150 coins is controlling Bitcoin.
It's not. Far from it. That's the beauty of Proof of Work over Proof of Stake, of course.
I'm just saying that it's not good for the exchange rate.
Someone controlling 10% of the liquid supply of any other commodity (i.e. oil) is neither good for its price, as it could allow for market manipulation.
1/150 is less than 1% of total supply.. again exchange rate in the short term (if someone dumps their stack on the market price go down for a day) is not fundamental to bitcoin being decentralized
Again, it's not about the total supply, but about the liquid supply.
I'm not saying that at this level Saylor stack is a risk for bitcoin. Far from it.
But it's not something good for bitcoin either.
Bitcoin is much stronger as its more distributed among more and more people.
Bitcoin is your enemy's money.
The liquid supply is the supply on exchanges though. Liquid supply is being eaten up and distributed by hodlers. There will be much larger fish than Saylor but this would just make the supply more illiquid and price will go up.
Exactly.
The supply will become more and more illiquid as time goes, so people controlling a big stake nowadays will get more and more percentage of the liquid supply.
And I don't consider it as something good.
Can I do something about it? Of course not.
Does it change bitcoin features and decentralisation? Of course not.
Does it suppose a risk for bitcoin? I don't think so.
Is it something good for bitcoin? Not really.
That's all.
Concentration of #Bitcoin holdings is a non-problem. If the holder holds, then itās no different from lost coins. If the holder spends, then they donāt have it anymore.
The key is that having more Bitcoin does not give you any special privilege over the rules of the network nor the issuance of new coin, as it does in a politicized (fiat) currency.
Everything you said it's true.
But we are social beings, and nocoiners don't know about bitcoin features (yet).
So, some influencer could be viewed by them as some kind of authority in Bitcoin.
And that could goes against Bitcoin education efforts.
The second best thing Satoshi did was disappearing.
Bitcoin doesn't need heroes.
> nocoiners don't know about bitcoin features (yet).
> So, some influencer could be viewed by them as some kind of authority in Bitcoin.
Sounds like we agree that concentration of Bitcoin is not a real problem, and people who think it is are misinformed.
Itās good for me because now I want moreā¦.wait noā¦I NEED moreš«
Insane numbers
The thing isā¦he wonāt stop. Ever. And heās just one major entity. So many more are going to copy his approach over the decades.
Never stop accumulating. #[0]
Make them pay their bitcoin by creating services that microstrategy might use for Bitcoin. Logistics for example.
Isnāt Microstrategyās possession of so much Bitcoin centralization? Doesnāt that run counter to Satoshiās vision? Maybe Saylor needs to spend some of it or donate to the plebs here. Iād appreciate a zap from his stash.
1% Owns 140 out of 150 Fiat ever exist.
1:150 is way way way better and eventually he has to spend it in coming bitcoin company to make it worth more as a fund.
He has more than he or his entire familyās lineage will ever need. He can chill now.
Imagine his surprise when he thought he took care of the company's self-custody by having his executive secretary arrange it all. Fast-forward 15 years, and says, "Where's my stash?" MicroStrategy shares go to zero. Yeah, he's not that stupid.