Pages:
Author

Topic: Do you think Michael Saylor is a bit dodgy? - page 2. (Read 257 times)

legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 6382
Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!
The overall idea of bitcoin is not particularly complicated to understand (the nitty gritties of bitcoin might complicated but not the general idea). Ideas such as governments printing money, devaluation of currency, bitcoin's fixed supply and incentive driven network aren't foreign concepts to someone like Michael. It's not something that will take years to finally understand.

Yes and no.
Bitcoin is indeed scarce. Bitcoin has indeed limited supply. Indeed, as long as there's demand, with the supply remaining fixed, the price will rise. But imho it's not that easy to grasp why there's such demand for Bitcoin.
All in all, the internals are clearer than its economics, because the economics imply human reactions, which, as you noted, can change over time.

So while I expect him to understand (if he cares) the internals, it could have taken indeed some more time to digest its economics and understand its potential.


Elon Musk

Here's a difference. This guy is posting whatever suits him now, whatever he feels now and doesn't give a shit about the consequences.
Keep in mind that he's a billionaire hence he can live very well with or without Bitcoin ever existing. And he doesn't seem to take anything serious enough.


Edit: fixed typo
copper member
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1305
Limited in number. Limitless in potential.
Give a person a chance, there are lots of huge names that changes their perspective after they realized they were wrong. He's one of the biggest asset on this community imo. Without his company investing bitcoin I doubt that bitcoin will reach such current price at this early. He really understood what bitcoin is.
member
Activity: 159
Merit: 72
We could make a list of people who said contradicting things over the years.

Mark Cuban, John McAfee, Elon Musk, Kevin O'Leary... Some were positive and turned negative, some the other way round.
I don't find Saylor to be dodgy at all. He saw real profits, Bitcoin helped him build his company, so he became bullish.
And what are your thoughts on Mark Cuban, John McAfee, Elon Musk, Kevin O'Leary?

Do you think they're dodgy?

Or do you think they just saw the potential for real losses and became bearish?
hero member
Activity: 2170
Merit: 528
How is doing a 180 on something suspicious?

We could make a list of people who said contradicting things over the years.

Mark Cuban, John McAfee, Elon Musk, Kevin O'Leary... Some were positive and turned negative, some the other way round.
I don't find Saylor to be dodgy at all. He saw real profits, Bitcoin helped him build his company, so he became bullish.
member
Activity: 159
Merit: 72
How about JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon who wrote the bitcoin is a fraud and some years later he admitted that he was wrong? He's also a person with BMA at Harvard.
People can make mistakes in their judgement. Admitting them, learning further, ... and I'd say that educated people have better chances to learn and move forward.
So I don't see anything fishy there. When Saylor finally understood Bitcoin, he also understood that it can easily be a gold mine.
The overall idea of bitcoin is not particularly complicated to understand (the nitty gritties of bitcoin might complicated but not the general idea). Ideas such as governments printing money, devaluation of currency, bitcoin's fixed supply and incentive driven network aren't foreign concepts to someone like Michael. It's not something that will take years to finally understand.

There are FUD-slingers, flip-floppers and genuine people. I'd classify Jamie Dimon as a flip-flopper. He doesn't really have anything useful to say about bitcoin and he just changes his tune to confuse people. It won't surprise me that Jamie already understood bitcoin a decade ago or whenenver he came across it.
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 6382
Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!
This is an educated, intelligent and high profile and long standing CEO basically doing a 180. How does that even happen?


How about JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon who wrote the bitcoin is a fraud and some years later he admitted that he was wrong? He's also a person with BMA at Harvard.
People can make mistakes in their judgement. Admitting them, learning further, ... and I'd say that educated people have better chances to learn and move forward.
So I don't see anything fishy there. When Saylor finally understood Bitcoin, he also understood that it can easily be a gold mine.
mk4
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 3873
Paldo.io 🤖
How is doing a 180 on something suspicious? I personally have a lot more respect to those that realized that they're wrong and changed their mind, compared to those that stand strong to their obviously-wrong narrative just because of their ego.

With that said, I've already watched like more than a dozen interviews of Michael Saylor, and I have no doubt that he knows what he's talking about. Well, except the "borrow money and go all in on bitcoin" thing. That I'm quite against. It's either he's a delusional mega bitcoin bull, or he's trying a bit too hard into pumping bitcoin's price.
member
Activity: 159
Merit: 72
On 19 December 2013, Michael Saylor tweets "Bitcoin's days are numbered. It seems like just a matter of time before it suffers the same fate as online gambling."

How does someone go from this to buying 100,000 bitcoin and starting a mining council?

I understand that anyone's entitled to change their views over time, but am I the only one who thinks he's a bit suspicious? This is not a high school student tweeting random things and then learning about the case for bitcoin a few years later. This is an educated, intelligent and high profile and long standing CEO basically doing a 180. How does that even happen?

In recent interviews, he makes the point that bitcoin is the "apex-predator asset" and that we should go all-in on bitcoin because diversification doesn't make sense when there is a clear winner. This just sounds so dodgy to me and makes in cringe a bit when I hear it. Michael isn't just saying bitcoin is a clear winner out of the cryptos but he is saying bitcoin is the clear winner out of all asset classes and therefore it makes sense to go 100% into bitcoin...
Pages:
Jump to: