Hello @urun
This is a very interesting topic for discussion.
I haven't seen anyone raise this question before, however it is still a poignant one. After all decentralization is dependent on wide distribution and when one person owns large percentages of something, it is the opposite of decentralization, and is in effect centralization.
It is illustrative that many considered Bitcoin centralized when the Chinese were thought to hold the majority of the miners. If the Americans become the majority of Bitcoin miners does this not also suggest centralization?
And as you allude to above, if Micheal Saylor holds the majority of Bitcoin. does it not suggest centralization?
Perhaps he loves Bitcoin to much?
It is written somewhere, that if you love something, sometimes you have to let it go. Perhaps he should encourage it's ownership by others, instead of attempting to own so much of it himself.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
