Disclosure

The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial.

Michael Saylor plans to burn all of his Bitcoin (BTC), an act that symbolizes destroying a lifeboat for the sake of inflation, benefiting only a select few. Saylor’s MicroStrategy intends to increase its BTC holdings, raising concerns about Bitcoin’s scarcity, especially when a few entities control a large percentage of the supply.

Saylor intends to secure 1% of the overall Bitcoin supply, indicating a personal accumulation strategy. His plan to burn his entire stash should have elicited more critical discourse regarding Bitcoin’s resilience.

While it’s not my place to dictate actions, I believe there are compelling arguments against Saylor destroying his Bitcoin, especially given his prominence as a Bitcoin advocate and holder through MicroStrategy.

Burning Bitcoins: A Titanic Analogy

Burning Bitcoin is the act of permanently removing BTC from circulation by sending it to inaccessible addresses. Instead of burning his Bitcoin, Saylor could use them to enhance his legacy by supporting Bitcoin developers and contributing to public projects like libraries and hospitals.

Many Bitcoins have already been lost due to factors like lost private keys, totaling approximately 17-23% of all BTC, which increases its scarcity. Once Bitcoin is sent to an irretrievable address, it is gone permanently. This property exemplifies Bitcoin’s brilliance, emphasizing control resistance and financial freedom.

Burning Bitcoin undermines its purpose, reducing the available supply that provides a hedge against inflation. Saylor’s actions could incite speculation about arbitrary supply cuts, shaking trust in Bitcoin’s predictable issuance.

If Saylor were to burn his Bitcoin, it would reduce the circulating supply, potentially disrupting Bitcoin’s monetary function. This arbitrary action could diminish confidence in the cryptocurrency. Instead, by retaining his holdings or allocating them wisely, Saylor could reinforce Bitcoin’s value and encourage broader adoption.

Saylor should ensure that Bitcoin remains a part of future economic orders, aligned with Satoshi’s vision of sound money. By preserving his Bitcoin for heirs or charitable efforts, he would promote private property rights and economic productivity.

Ultimately, while Saylor can choose whatever fate he wants for his Bitcoin, burning them would only exacerbate scarcity issues and limit Bitcoin’s potential to assist the wider population.

Read more

Silent Payments: The upgrade Bitcoin can’t afford to ignore | Opinion

Kadan Stadelmann is a blockchain developer with extensive experience in operations security and technology startups. He has been involved in blockchain since 2011 and joined the Komodo team in 2016.