Michael Saylor Owns 1% of all Bitcoin
Could this be a bad thing? Or not?
I first caught wind of this through Pomp’s news letter. He wrote to his investors the below passage (and podcast):
“To investors,
Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy are now the proud owners of 140,000 bitcoin. This makes them the largest corporate holders of bitcoin in the world. It is impressive to see Saylor’s conviction, especially when you realize that the company’s initial purchase of $250 million got them just under 22,000 bitcoin in August 2020.”
This got me thinking… is this a bad thing?
I have gone back and forth on how I feel about this. So let’s expand on it.
I believe that Saylor and MicroStrategy owning ~1% of all bitcoin in circulation could be bad, but it also could be a good thing. If you came to this blog post for a definitive answer, I am sorry to let you down. I don’t think there is a clear cut answer because it depends on the context. When I say, “is Saylor owning 1% of bitcoin a good or a bad thing” you need to ask the question, is it good or bad for “who”?
So here is my perspective.
Why Saylor owning 1% is a bad thing.
If 1% of the global economy was owned by a single person, we would be concerned. But why?
Someone with that much ownership ultimately has more control than those with less ownership. That said, Bitcoin isn’t a product, or a government, or an entity that can be manipulated. It isn’t like Saylor has a 1% claim to nuclear codes. He just owns 1% of BTC in circulation.
The only real downside that I think we could see come from this is if something happens to Saylor. If he were to become terminally ill or encounter a life threatening event, then his 1% ownership stake could ultimately be at risk. The ripple effects would impact the market and ultimately impact the masses of investors.
One other scenario would be if Saylor were to make some unsavory business or personal decisions. From a PR perspective, his ownership claim comes at a cost… which is public scrutiny. If he somehow came out as an unethical person or made unethical decisions it would most definitely have an impact on the overall value of the BTC economy.
Why Saylor owning 1% is a good thing.
The inverse of my last point on why his ownership claim could be bad, is exactly why I think it is good. Saylor has put an entire global community on his back, whether it was wanted or not. He has become the “poster boy” for Bitcoin. Some say he may be the most influential investor of the digital currency era.
By becoming the face of bitcoin investing, Saylor has put his money where his mouth is. Unlike most investors, he wasn’t only seen and heard when his investment was up nearly 300% in November 2021. Saylor has stayed consistent when things looked bleak. He stays true to the fundamentals of bitcoin and the purpose behind the project from the very beginning.
Another reason why Saylor owning his 1% stake is that he has reduced the amount in circulation… ultimately increasing the value of Bitcoin. There is no denying that this is a good thing. By increasing the value, we increase the interest of investors. By increasing the number of investors, we increase the amount of coverage bitcoin receives. Ultimately, we increase adoption and we increase the value of bitcoin.
All of this is related.
In Summary, there could be some negative results of Saylor owning 1%, but ultimately it is a good thing. His positive impact outweighs the possible negatives.