Michael Saylor Opposes BIP 110, Emphasizes Bitcoin Needs Neutral Guardians
Michael Saylor stated that many Bitcoin supporters he respects back BIP 110. He understands the desire to protect Bitcoin but believes the proposed solution is more dangerous than the problem itself.
He listed 110 reasons why Bitcoin needs neutral guardians.
Market mechanisms indicate that governance disputes affect investor confidence, with funds weighing the stability of the Bitcoin core protocol against potential fork risks. Beneficiaries are long-term holders who adhere to neutrality and decentralization principles, while those under pressure are proponents seeking rapid changes to meet specific demands.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Michael Saylor has long been one of the largest corporate holders of Bitcoin and has publicly defended Bitcoin's fundamental attributes multiple times. His opposition to BIP 110 continues his stance on maintaining protocol stability, similar to past community debates on controversial upgrade proposals.
In terms of capital flow, Saylor influences community and institutional funding through public statements, motivated by the desire to protect Bitcoin's nature as a neutral store of value and to avoid centralization risks introduced by governance changes, focusing resources on education and long-term holding strategies.
Similar to historical cases of soft forks and governance disputes in Bitcoin, the current Bitcoin ecosystem is at a mature stage where institutional adoption is deepening but protocol changes are approached with caution.
The essence relates to capital concentration: opposing radical proposals reinforces Bitcoin's neutrality, with the mechanism being to protect the protocol's invariance to attract long-term conservative capital, thereby maintaining its pricing power and hedging attributes as digital gold and avoiding value dilution from forks.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
The best way to protect Bitcoin is to safeguard its neutrality.
Well-intentioned proposals can sometimes be more dangerous than the problems themselves; governance requires extreme caution.
The more neutral guardians there are, the more stable Bitcoin's pricing power becomes.