“It’s primarily paranoid crypto anarchists making that claim.”
With these eight words, shared on the “Markets with Madison” podcast this week, Microstrategy CEO Michael Saylor sparked outrage among nearly everyone in the Bitcoin community.
Shinobi labeled him a “spook.” Carvalho expressed his confusion. Svetski argued this could ignite the next Fork Wars.
In short, Saylor made a controversial statement. He broke the long-standing taboo. He suggested that trusting the state with your Bitcoin is better than managing your own private keys, going so far as to denounce all businesses involved in custody projects as essentially charlatans.
It was, let’s say, a “big oof,” a “footgun,” reminiscent of a scene in a cartoon where the protagonist is struck by an anvil.
Here’s a clip from Adam Simecka highlighting the full video:
Saylor thinks you are a paranoid crypto anarchist if you hold your own keys and don't trust the government. 😏 pic.twitter.com/6owj7LzrdM
— Adam Simecka (@AdamSimecka) October 20, 2024
Yet, ironically, I confess it might be the most fascinating thing Saylor has ever articulated.
For years, Saylor and the Cyber Hornets functioned like “Grut and the Minions,” with Saylor using his platform to regurgitate whatever bullish sentiment was trendy, without contributing anything original.
Others would voice ideas, and then Saylor would echo them. He assumed the role of the “people’s champion,” a “man of the plebs,” a characterization even echoed in his mundane AI-generated tweets as he tagged various artists, often random pseudonyms.
So, despite the anger, I find myself, for once, genuinely trying to comprehend what Saylor is positing.
From what I gather, three key ideas are at play here:
- This introduces a new perspective on boosting Bitcoin adoption through public markets – Saylor is presenting the self-custody debate not as a problem to innovate around, but one to mitigate. His stance: It matters less how individuals own Bitcoin, and more that they do. He appears to advocate for utilizing the stock market as a significant means for purchasing Bitcoin and trading the exposure.
- This perspective may actually address how to engage with the crypto market – This is one of the more intriguing facets of Bitcoin “Season 2,” the notion of “co-opting the crypto apparatus” to draw in retail participation. Here, Saylor seems intent on leveraging his collection of Bitcoin stocks for this purpose, believing that retail investors will turn to Microstrategy and Metaplanet instead of memecoins, perpetually chasing beta on Bitcoin.
- This presents a fresh argument for persuading the government to embrace Bitcoin – A scenario where Bitcoin becomes the reserve asset for regulated entities suggests a landscape where onerous regulations become less enforceable. After all, in such a reality, Bitcoin would have direct ties to the U.S. economy (at least from the perspective of politicians who care). You must admit: “You can’t ban Bitcoin, it will negatively impact the stock market,” has a catchy appeal.
Of course, perhaps the commentators are correct. Saylor’s incentives appear to diverge from the network. He may be prioritizing his company’s mission to accumulate Bitcoin above all else, and it certainly warrants scrutiny of his motives at this juncture.
Some contend that self-custody is, at its core, the essence of Bitcoin—trusting no one but yourself to protect your wealth.
However, in Saylor’s perspective, inflation is the ultimate adversary, the erosion of purchasing power, a far more significant concern.
Could this be an elaborate government psy-op, with Saylor flying too close to the sun, pressured by regulators to speak this way?
Certainly, Microstrategy collaborates with intelligence agencies, but nonetheless, those agencies and their pension funds require investment avenues. A hyperbitcoinized world is one where these funds would inevitably also invest in Bitcoin.
But I must admit, as someone who has never found Saylor particularly intriguing… for the time being, I’m at least paying attention.
I’ll leave it at that.
This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
