Bitcoin-maximalism is an excessive love of Bitcoin, which also implies a sceptical attitude towards other cryptocurrencies. It is common for BTC-maxims to blame altcoins for early investors, allegedly unfair distribution of assets among people, and other far-fetched points that are not particularly relevant given blockchain’s evolution. On top of that, it seems ridiculous when you consider that today’s networks offer users far greater opportunities than Bitcoin’s blockchain.

MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor

Be that as it may, Saylor continues to adore Bitcoin and actively buys into it. Most recently, on 29 June 2022, MicroStrategy bought 480 Bitcoins for $10 million. With that in mind, the company already has 129,699 BTC, for which it has spent $3.98 billion. Accordingly, the average value of each bitcoin as a whole is $30,664.

For some reason, however, Michael Saylor has now decided to concentrate on criticising other blockchain projects.

What other cryptocurrencies are being criticised for

A key message in Seylor’s statement is the allegedly correct definition of terminology and therefore the regulation of digital assets. He disagrees with the views of US members of Congress Kirsten Gillibrand and Cynthia Lummis, who have previously recognised Bitcoin and Etherium as commodities. Accordingly, cryptocurrencies in their view are not subject to the same regulation as securities.

MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor

According to Cointelegraph sources, Saylor sees several fundamental differences in BTC and ETH. Here’s a quote from his interview with Altcoin Daily.

I think that Etherium is a security, which is quite obvious. It was released in an ICO, it has a management team, there has been pre-mining, there have been hardforces, there is a complexity bomb that keeps getting delayed.

In the end, Seylor's argument essentially boils down to the fact that Etherium continues to evolve, rather than operating solely on the precepts of Satoshi Nakamoto, as is the case with BTC. However, we disagree with the ICO argument. The fact is that the pre-sale of ETH to early investors was conducted exclusively in bitcoins, not dollars. And if Saylor doesn't consider Bitcoin a security, then why should an asset in exchange for a non-security be considered one?

Etherium exchange rate

Saylor argues that the constant need to update the network, run by a team or organisation, is an indication that ETH just needs to be classified as a security project. For a digital asset to be classified as a commodity, it must be backed by “a fully decentralised protocol in which no one can change anything”.

However, Bitcoin itself also changes from time to time. A relatively recent example is the activation of the Taproot upgrade, which took place in November 2021. Of course, BTC does not have any company, but it is also being worked on by independent developers, just as in the case of Etherium.

As a reminder, according to generally accepted criteria of traditional finance, securities are usually referred to as interchangeable and tradable financial instruments that are used to raise capital in public or private markets. Commodities, on the other hand, have value in and of themselves.

Sailor also does not exclude all other altcoins from his classification, thus only confirming his previous statement. He believes that altcoins should not be on a par with Bitcoin.

I think all Proof-of-Stake projects are securities and all are very risky. Regulators will decide whether they should allow these very startups to continue, or stop them for good.

We think this statement is totally inappropriate for someone who supports Bitcoin and supposedly decentralisation along with it. Proposing a centralised authority to review what is happening with a particular blockchain protocol and, if so, ban it from operation is in no way consistent with the ideals of decentralisation and equality of network participants. It also sounds like a lack of confidence in the future of the first cryptocurrency and a desire to create problems for its more modern "competitors".

Bitcoin’s exchange rate and the timing of MicroStrategy’s investment announcement

It’s not hard to see why Sailor is so actively defending Bitcoin – his company has already invested billions of dollars in BTC. At the same time, the amount of its unrealised loss due to the fall of the crypto market is also very high. In such a situation, Seyloru has no choice but to “go all the way” and maintain its Bitcoin-maximalist position.

As we have already noted, putting all altcoins in the same category, with the threat of strict regulation, is rather silly. With such tactics, the market would lose billions of dollars in capitalisation, which could only exacerbate the bearish trend. And in general, modern projects based on Solana, Avalanche and other new blockchains do help people by allowing them to lend money, interact with NFT and do other things. Bitcoin does not help in any way.

Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko

There’s also no point in targeting Etherium, because even the definition of a security is virtually impossible for it. Yes, Sailor claims that this project was created thanks to an ICO and has many upgrades. But Bitcoin has also been upgraded more than once since its inception, some of the upgrades we’ve written about in previous articles. So even such a formulation is unlikely to be valid.


We believe that proposals to ban a blockchain project are absurd in and of themselves, unless its developers originally intended to defraud investors and steal their money. Otherwise, such rejoinders are contrary to the ideals of decentralisation and resemble a desire to isolate "competitors" out of their own financial interest. One would like to believe that Sailor will still draw conclusions from this situation and assess the risk prospects of such remarks for the reputation of its own company.


What do you think about it? Share your opinion in our Millionaire Crypto Chat. There we will discuss other important developments in the blockchain world.