No, Saylor Isn’t Killing Bitcoin—Expert Fires Back

In a post on X, tech entrepreneur and podcast host Jason Calacanis leveled pointed criticism at Michael Saylor’s aggressive Bitcoin strategy. According to Calacanis, “Saylor’s relentless pumping of bitcoin, and his high-risk accumulation techniques, are damaging the Bitcoin ecosystem and brand. Too much centralization, too much hyperbole and too many conflicts. He’s actually setting up the perfect opportunity for someone to launch ‘a better bitcoin.’ I don’t know what that would look like, but he’s set the stage perfectly.”

These remarks come on the heels of Saylor’s keynote at the Bitcoin For America event, organized by the Bitcoin Policy Institute, where US Senator Cynthia Lummis announced her intention to re-introduce a proposed “Bitcoin Act.” Under this legislation, the US government would purchase one million BTC over five years.

The timing also coincides with the announcement by Saylor’s company, Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) that it will continue buying massive amounts of BTC, even though it already owns nearly 500,000 BTC. Earlier this week, Saylor revealed that Strategy would raise additional capital through an at-the-market (ATM) stock offering of up to $21 billion in preferred shares, largely to continue its treasury practice of accumulating more Bitcoin.

Is Saylor Hurting Bitcoin?

Saylor’s enthusiastic advocacy of BTC has propelled unprecedented corporate investment into BTC. Yet Calacanis worries that such heavy concentration of BTC in the hands of one entity—and the rhetoric around it—could threaten Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos and open a pathway to alternatives.

However, veteran Bitcoiner and VP of Research at Riot Platforms, Inc., Pierre Rochard, refuted Calacanis’s claims in an extensive post on X. He argued that BTC’s core architecture inherently protects it from being commandeered by any single influential figure—no matter how much BTC that individual might accumulate.

Rochard underscored BTC’s resilience and decentralization, stating: “Bitcoin’s design is inherently decentralized, with a proof-of-work mechanism and a globally distributed network of node operators. No matter how large an individual’s BTC holdings may be, they cannot unilaterally modify the consensus rules or coerce node operators and miners to accept any changes to the protocol.”

He added that this “rules-based architecture means the system’s security relies on a transparent, open-source protocol, which anyone is free to inspect and run. Even a high-profile advocate or a single large holder is subject to the same validation and consensus processes as all other users.”

He then turned to what he sees as the genuine sources of BTC’s strength, emphasizing the technology’s predictable issuance model, cryptographic security, and deeply rooted community: “While it is true that a prominent figure like Michael Saylor can attract attention and bring more capital into the market, Bitcoin’s value proposition does not rest on a single spokesperson. Instead, it flows from fundamental properties such as a predictable issuance schedule, global accessibility, cryptographic security, and a robust community of decentralized node operators. Large-scale accumulation or aggressive ‘pumping’ cannot override the network’s neutral treatment of all transactions or inflate Bitcoin’s supply beyond the consensus rules.”

Addressing the risk that large holders might distort or undermine the ecosystem, Rochard highlighted BTC’s past resilience in the face of various crises—ranging from major exchange collapses to high-profile forks: “Critiques that such behavior could ‘damage the ecosystem’ overlook Bitcoin’s track record of resilience. Over the years, Bitcoin has withstood major exchange collapses, market volatility, and protocol disagreements, all while remaining online with no downtime.”

Rochard emphasized that the BTC ownership distribution is much broader “than headlines suggest,” adding “ownership itself does not bestow control over consensus rules, and the public’s ability to self-custody coins means they can opt out of any custodial or intelligently leveraged entity.”

He also dismissed the idea that an alternative cryptocurrency could easily supplant BTC: “The notion of creating a ‘better Bitcoin’ by forking the code or inventing a new cryptocurrency is theoretically possible but practically challenging. Bitcoin holds a unique position as the first successfully implemented decentralized digital currency, bolstered by network effects, global liquidity, and a long history of secure operation.”

Rochard’s statement reinforced BTC’s permissionless nature and the principle that network participants operate on open-source rules. He stressed that incidents prompting skepticism often spur heightened community efforts around self-custody and independent validation:

“Any scrutiny ultimately reinforces the ethos of independent verification at the heart of BTC. The maxim ‘not your keys, not your bitcoin’ has guided users to reduce reliance on centralized platforms and custody services, fostering a robust culture of education in hardware wallets, node operation, and best practices for holding one’s own private keys.”

Ultimately, he concluded that BTC’s governance rests in its code and a global community dedicated to peer-reviewed upgrades and protocol integrity: “In this light, Bitcoin’s long-term resilience and decentralization rest on the principle that anyone can participate and verify the ledger according to open-source rules. The code and the global community enforcing it remain. The protocol’s core properties—secure, permissionless, and verifiable by anyone—ensure that Bitcoin’s fundamental promise is not compromised.”

At press time, BTC traded at $82,404.