I value freedom, so MS is free to buy as much BTC as he wants.

But I see more pitfalls than benefits in him owning so much:

. Generally speaking (for any assets), whales are more hurting the market than protecting it. The only thing they will protect is their money, and they certainly dont' give a dam about others, especially small fishes. So, for the average bitcoiner owning less than 1 BTC, it's seriously misleading to think that MS is "on their side". MS will dump his bags when he sees fits or when he needs to.

. Considering that many BTC are gone forever, MS probably owns more than 1% of the supply, and it's enough to influence the market. Plus, let's not forget Saylor's famous tweet in 2013, predicting that "Bitcoin days are numbered".https://twitter.com/saylor/status/413478389329428480 I doubt that MS could change his mind about Bitcoin, but still. The world changes, situations change, people change.

.The media exposure of MS is both legit and problematic. For the media, he is, de facto, a kind of "Mister Bitcoin". And that's not good. MS doesn't represent Bitcoin or bitcoiners, and the idea that he has become an "incarnation" of Bitcoin is worrying. I'm a Bitcoiner for longer than MS, and I don't like him to speak on my behalf.

The chief benefit is that Saylor is very smart, was already rich, and his fate is now clearly chained to btc's success. By 'fate' I don't mean his wealth, which I'm sure is secure; I mean going down in history as an epic and world-tilting visionary and entrepreneur, which is the windmill that guys of that calibre chase. He's got a billion dollars, wtf else is there for such a person? So that's probably good, on net. He's a baller, he knows how to play the game.

What's bad is the concentration of wealth and influence. It's popular for bitcoiners to talk about how "bitcoin doesn't care" about how much of it anyone holds, but this is the typical error of people who don't know much about human beings or the world. Does the entity that owns 1% of the airplanes have any influence on airplanes, even if they don't make airplanes themselves? Obviously. The influence is broad and diffuse, invisible tendrils sent into the world. It manifests in a thousand ways. This is as true of bitcoin as it is of apples, radio stations, potassium nitrate, and ham. It's as true of intangibles like taste in music or which art is popular.

If a dude shows up to watch a screening of Barbie, and he has a billion dollars in his pocket, is he irrelevant to what unfolds there, even though he has no formal relationship with Barbie, the theatre, the public perception of the movie, or any of the people inside? "Influence" doesn't mean large holders pull strings like puppet masters. But are power and wealth disparities irrelevant, esp as they pertain to some nascent subculture / industry? Clearly not. Bitcoiners should know better.

M. Saylor / Microstrategy with his 150k BTC is just a small fish...

There are many others OGs that have much more than Saylor. But they do not want to appear in public like Saylor. Saylor is our "marketing department", let him be the front man talking all days. We are doing "other stuff" behind the scenes.

Just think about these facts:

People always forget that in the early years you could mine BTC with your dumb PC at home 50BTC/10 min ! Just do the math, because those times weren't so many bitcoiners. Stop bringing Saylor as a god of stackers. He's peanuts and his stash it doesn't matter.

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY BTC SOMEBODY WILL HAVE! It will not affect in any way Bitcoin.

A reminder here:

A. Hodling takes coin off the market, similar to bitcoin that is lost, which makes the value go up (however insignificantly) for all. That means, by buying up coin, Saylor is increasing everyone else's bitcoin net worth.

B. Spending previously hodled coin puts it back on the market into the hands of others, which supports the bitcoin economy according to how the money is spent.

C. Either way (by mechanism A or B) the value is distributed to other participants. The more bitcoin is hodled OR spent, the more the wealth is dispersed.

D. The only advantage wealthy bitcoiners have is the starting advantage, because they have more wealth that they can choose when/where to spend. But over the long term, wealth is automatically distributed to the best value producers (through mechanisms A and B).

No one knows how it will play out. AFAIK MicroStrategy BTC is held with coinbase as they aren't allowed to take self custody. Has the potential to be seized, stollen, sold or lost.

In the whole scheme of things it does not effect my DCA stacking.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Saylor doesn't own 1% of all bitcoin right? He owns a lot but Micro Strategy owns nearly 1% right? Not him directly. I know this might seem like a minor difference but I think its important.

My take on it either way. It doesn't matter. He is front running the market and his peers. Really the biggest threat he has to bitcoin is his influence as an influencer not how much he has. Worst case he sells and short term the price dips and we can all buy at a discount for some time. Long term it doesn't matter in my view.

Michael Saylor isn't 100% stakeholder of MicroStrategy.

The Winklevoss twins also acquired 210000 BTC (1%) back in the days and pre-Gemini were strong bitcoin supporters, do they still own them?

This is the price of something that is permissionless.