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.