Amid intense debates around two technical initiatives that have split the crypto community, Strategy chairman Michael Saylor publicly outlined his position on how Bitcoin's future should be shaped. His post on X was immediately supported with a repost by Blockstream CEO Adam Back.
Whether Saylor's statement is connected to real disputes over possible forks in the Bitcoin network remains a matter of speculation.
Inside the battle for control over Bitcoin
Right now the leading cryptocurrency has indeed found itself at a crossroads, facing two radical proposals:
- BIP-110 (Transaction Spam Filter): An update designed to block transaction spam, which some developers are pushing without miners' consent.
- BIP-361 (Quantum Hack Protection): An actively discussed proposal to forcibly block old "dormant" wallets, including Satoshi Nakamoto's addresses holding 1.1 million BTC, in order to protect the network from future quantum hacks.
Saylor, as the world's No. 1 corporate Bitcoin holder with a pool of 847,363 BTC equivalent to $52.6 billion, set out a clear position: in a decentralized network, capital does not grant the right to a single decisive vote.
He directly pointed out that investors have only "economic power," which is balanced on equal terms by the transaction power of nodes and the computational power of miners.
According to Saylor, any external factors — including political, legal, or institutional pressure — create only second-order influence. They can persuade, coordinate, or pressure participants, but they cannot independently determine consensus. Protocol changes win only when validation, security, and capital align.
This reminder about external pressure coincided with a difficult period for Strategy itself, whose unrealized losses reached $11.5 billion due to the gap between its average purchase price of $75,646 and the current Bitcoin price near $62,000.
Against criticism from Wall Street, Saylor seems to be projecting his own formula onto the company's position — external financial and regulatory factors may complicate the debate, but the long-term consensus of the network and the positions of major players are still determined exclusively by the rules of the protocol.
