I first met the Bitcoin codebase as a teenager in Shanghai during the ICO summer of 2017. I wasn't chasing 100x gains. Instead, I spent two weeks dissecting the 0x Protocol whitepaper, not for its tokenomics, but for its argument for an open, permissionless order book. That essay, "Code as Law: Why Decentralization Matters More Than Price," earned 5,000 views on a local tech forum. It was my first realization that blockchain was societal infrastructure, not just a financial instrument. Now, eight years later, I find myself auditing a different kind of debate: Michael Saylor's latest Thread, where he proclaims that any change to Bitcoin's base layer is an attack on his "economic rights."
This is not a technical argument. It is a philosophical ultimatum, and it reveals a dangerous trap for the network we claim to love.
The Context: A Constitutional Crisis in Code
Michael Saylor, Chairman of The Strategy (MicroStrategy), has expanded his opposition far beyond the infamous BIP-110. In his latest Thread, he explicitly rejects covenants, larger blocks, and all base-layer modifications. He compares Bitcoin’s code to a constitution, arguing that altering it constitutes a “constitutional offense.” For Saylor, the code is not a living document; it is a sacred, immutable tablet.
Let me be clear about what this means from a governance perspective. Bitcoin has no formal voting mechanism. Its governance is messy, emergent, and relies on a delicate dance between miners, core developers, and node operators. Saylor, as the leader of the largest publicly-traded Bitcoin holder, is a powerful non-technical stakeholder. His words carry weight. When he declares war on all upgrades, he is not just voicing an opinion; he is attempting to freeze the protocol’s development roadmap.
I have spent the last decade watching this ecosystem. During the 2022 bear market, I spent six months auditing the economic models of failed projects for my series “Anatomy of a Collapse.” I learned that centralization of power — whether in a CEO or a single consensus — leads to moral hazard. Saylor’s absolutism is a form of centralized veto power, wielded not through code commits, but through market influence.
The Core Insight: Immutability as a Weapon, Not a Shield
Saylor’s core claim is that any base-layer change attacks the “economic rights” of holders. He frames this as a defense of sound money properties. But this argument is built on a false premise: that the current state of Bitcoin is perfect and requires no evolution.
Let’s examine the specifics.
First, covenants. Saylor opposes them, but covenants are not an attack. They are a tool for enhanced security. In my work on “ZK-Proofs as Digital Privacy Guarantees” for my “Math for Humans” blog series, I explained that cryptographic primitives like covenants can allow for vault-style smart contracts that protect against theft. Rejecting them outright means rejecting a safer Bitcoin for all users.
Second, larger blocks. Saylor’s opposition to larger blocks is a legacy of the Blocksize War. But the current context is different. Today, we face a liquidity fragmentation crisis. There are dozens of Layer2s, but the same small user base is being sliced into fragments. This is not scaling; it’s slicing already-scarce liquidity. A modest base-layer capacity increase could reduce pressure on L2s and improve user experience without sacrificing decentralization. Saylor ignores this.
Third, the concept of “economic rights” itself. Saylor claims his immutable code protects his rights. But whose rights? The right of a new user to afford a transaction? The right of a developer to build a secure application? The right of a miner to be compensated fairly as block rewards dwindle? By opposing all change, Saylor is effectively prioritizing the rights of long-term holders — those who bought in early — over the rights of future users and innovators. This is not a defense of economics; it is a defense of privilege.
The Contrarian Angle: The Trap of Perfection
Here is the uncomfortable truth: Saylor’s position is more dangerous than any proposed upgrade. My experience auditing the collapse of FTX and Celsius taught me that the greatest risk is not change, but the refusal to adapt. In those failures, the central point of failure was a rigid, unchangeable structure that could not respond to evolving threats.
Bitcoin is no different. Consider the threat of quantum computing. If a practical quantum computer emerges, Bitcoin’s ECDSA signature scheme becomes vulnerable. A quick, soft-fork upgrade to introduce quantum-resistant signatures could save the network. But under Saylor’s zero-change doctrine, such an upgrade would be labeled a “constitutional offense.” The network would be left exposed.
The irony is that Saylor’s absolutism actually creates risk. It creates a false sense of security. It tells holders that the code is perfect, so they need not worry. But software is never perfect. It requires maintenance, patching, and evolution. The most secure code is not the one that never changes, but the one that can change responsibly.
I saw this dynamic in the DeFi summer of 2020, as a MakerDAO community member. Translating governance proposals from English to Chinese, I realized that the best proposals weren’t the ones that preserved the status quo, but the ones that aligned incentives with human values. Change was not failure; it was growth. Saylor’s worldview rejects growth.
The Takeaway: A Fork in the Road
What happens when the thing worth protecting most becomes the thing that prevents adaptation? Saylor is betting that Bitcoin’s value lies solely in its lack of change. But the market and the developers are betting on a more nuanced future: one where the base layer remains conservative, but not so conservative that it cannot improve.
The most likely outcome is continued gridlock. BIP-119 will linger. Covenants will be debated for years. And Bitcoin’s lead in security will slowly erode as other networks innovate. But there is another path: a user-activated soft fork that bypasses the elite. The community, not the capital, must decide.
I built “Verifiable Humanity” — a community initiative to use blockchain-based identities against deepfakes — on the principle that technology must serve people, not the other way around. Bitcoin serves people when it evolves to meet their needs. When it does not, it serves only the narratives of those who hold it.
So I ask you, not as a trader, but as a fellow believer in decentralization: Are you holding Bitcoin for its future, or just for its past?