Welcome to Slate Sundays, CryptoSlate’s new weekly feature showcasing in-depth interviews, expert analysis, and thought-provoking op-eds that go beyond the headlines to explore the ideas and voices shaping the future of crypto.
On Wall Street and Crypto Twitter, few names spark debate like Michael Saylor and his Bitcoin-hungry software company, Strategy.
Gone are the days when MicroStrategy was just a business intelligence software vendor. Today, “Strategy” stands as the world’s biggest corporate Bitcoin holder, packing away more than 638,900 BTC (3% of the total circulating supply).
For some Bitcoiners, Saylor’s conviction is a validation of the king of crypto’s coming-of-age as an institutional reserve asset.
For critics, it’s a warning: centralization risk, wrapped in a narrative. So, where does the truth lie, and just how much supply is too much for any single entity?
Crossing the 3% rubicon
It wasn’t always clear this day would come. In the early days, Bitcoin was for nerdy devs, quasi-religious cypherpunks, and early adopters. Today, one NASDAQ-listed firm sits atop a pile of digital gold that overshadows that of BlackRock, Tesla, and Coinbase combined.
It’s not just about numbers. As Nic Puckrin, CEO and founder at Coin Bureau, points out:
“Having a NASDAQ-listed firm owning such a large allocation of BTC shows that Bitcoin has moved from the fringe to the spotlight of mainstream corporate finance… For institutions still hesitant, Strategy’s holdings act as a powerful signal, telling others that a publicly traded firm can allocate billions of dollars to BTC, and so can you.”
Bitcoin has firmly entered the institutional era. For treasuries and pension funds searching for alternatives to cash, Strategy’s lead acts as a proof-of-concept.
But this milestone also swings the conversation back to first principles. Bitcoin was designed as a decentralized network, immune to the grip of any single company, country, or billionaire.
What happens when one firm not only holds a massive position but relentlessly targets more? Saylor has alluded to ambitions as high as 7% of the total supply on numerous occasions.
Ecosystem impact: boon or bastion?
Make no mistake, Strategy’s holdings have shifted market dynamics. The float is tighter, and with so much supply boxed up in long-term corporate treasuries, the supply shock theory is very real. And that’s a double-edged sword. Tony Yazbeck, cofounder of The Bitcoin Way, comments:
“MicroStrategy owning over 3% of Bitcoin isn’t a threat to the network itself, but it does carry some market implications. The main concern is influence. As a large holder, he may be able to sway sentiment and trigger price swings.”
For institutional Bitcoin evangelists, Strategy’s success is a green light, the mainstream embrace they’ve argued for since Bitcoin’s early days. Investment veteran and e-Cobalt founder Mitchell DiRaimondo says:
“Others will catch on, and when they do, 3% will seem like just the beginning of a much larger shift in capital.”
DiRaimondo sees Saylor’s conviction as transformative:
“His approach has always been solid: stock up on hard money, ignore the noise, and get ready for long-term adoption.”
While Puckrin also celebrates Strategy’s achievement, he warns that cascading liquidations could be a real threat:
“Despite the positivity, we can’t ignore the clear risks here… If, for any reason, Strategy is forced to liquidate even a fraction of its holdings, the impact on market confidence would be profound.”
And that risk isn’t just theoretical. The last few years have seen failed treasury plays, sudden liquidations, and gut-wrenching moments when Bitcoin’s price fell off a cliff triggered by the actions of a few unscrupulous firms. FTX anyone?
Concentration risks and the centralization of Bitcoin’s supply
What are the other risks of concentrated holdings? As long-time Bitcoin advocate and security expert Jameson Lopp previously told Slate Sundays:
“If too much Bitcoin gets concentrated in too few hands, we run the risk of essentially recreating a highly centralized system.”
That’s why Lopp decided to invest in David Bailey’s Bitcoin Treasury company, Nakamoto, to prevent Strategy from pulling so much further ahead.
“It’s not because I think that corporate Bitcoin treasury adoption is the best thing since sliced bread. It’s because I felt like we needed to have a broader and more diverse group of corporate treasuries to compete with Saylor, to try to slow down how much he can continue accumulating.”
Bitcoin was built to withstand centralized attacks, but the question isn’t whether one company can break Bitcoin. It’s about how market perception changes when one player becomes the story. Wes Kaplan, former Cointelegraph CEO and current CEO of G-Knot, comments:
“Unlike individual holders who sell gradually, these entities operate with fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders and creditors. When market stress hits, these companies can face margin calls and creditor demands regardless of their Bitcoin conviction. Multiple leveraged players selling simultaneously could create cascading liquidations.”
This isn’t just about market drama. It’s about dilution, fragility, and interconnected risk.
Matt Mudano, CEO of Arch Network, sees the bigger picture, questioning how the centralization of the Bitcoin supply affects miners. He notes:
“As more trading migrates to ETFs, centralized venues, and OTC desks, fewer coins actually settle on-chain. That siphons liquidity from the on-chain market that funds miners via fees. With block subsidies shrinking, a durable fee market is what keeps miners profitable, and a broad mining base is key to Bitcoin’s decentralization.”
The institutional era: friend or foe?
Macro analyst and Bitcoin advocate Lyn Alden holds a different view. She’s not concerned about the centralization of the Bitcoin supply, pointing out that the dynamics have always been this way: Mt. Gox had over 800,000 coins, a bigger percentage than BlackRock or Strategy has now.
Alden looks to leverage as the main culprit for systems to unravel, telling Slate Sundays:
“MicroStrategy has pretty low leverage relative to their Bitcoin. Metaplanet has relatively low leverage relative to their Bitcoin. We’ll see how the others come as they go. I certainly think that we’ll see a washout. We’ll see a lot of altcoin treasury companies get washed out, and some Bitcoin ones that are poorly managed are going to be at risk in the next downturn.”
Alden’s thoughts are echoed by OG Bitcoiner, CEO, and cofounder of BitcoinOS, Edan Yago. He says:
“I don’t see Strategy’s move of buying BTC as a problem. In fact, it reflects a long-term alignment with Bitcoin’s principles. Unlike speculative holders, this puts a lot of BTC in the hands of a long-term holder. Strategy is showing the world that Bitcoin is an institutional-grade treasury asset. This provides a stability that creates stronger demand dynamics and actually makes Bitcoin’s supply more resilient.”
Mudano’s take is somewhat more cautious, reminding Bitcoiners to see the bigger picture rather than get blinded by NGU.
“Cheer conviction buyers like Saylor, but watch the plumbing: how encumbered those holdings are, who the custodians are, and whether miners’ fee share of revenue is rising. Deep on‑chain activity, not just big holders, is what ultimately secures the network.”
Institutional buying on overdrive
2025 is a certainly a year of inflection for Bitcoin. Strategy remains the largest non-sovereign treasury by a country mile. Metaplanet in Japan is stacking BTC as “Asia’s MicroStrategy.” And Nakamoto is grabbing headlines with the annihilation of its shares, down a horrifying 96% from their May highs.
Meanwhile, governments, ETFs, and exchanges now command close to a third of all circulating Bitcoin supply, and data from Glassnode shows that only 14-15% of Bitcoin is truly liquid, adding gravity to every move by the major players. The risk? Systemic fragility if one or two whales face margin calls or liquidity constraints.
Are we building the very vulnerabilities that Bitcoin was designed to eliminate? Counterparty risk, custody structures, and treasury strategies will all face their moment of truth.
Decentralization versus adoption
So, is Strategy’s position good or bad? The answer, as ever, is nuanced. For some, it’s the clearest sign yet that Bitcoin is maturing; a reserve-grade asset fit for institutional balance sheets. For others, it’s a warning to stay vigilant about concentration, transparency, and systemic risk. As Yago points out:
“Bitcoin thrives because it’s held by those who understand its scarcity and value… Bitcoin cannot be ‘controlled’ by one entity… It is designed to be completely decentralized, and ownership concentration does not change that.”
What matters most? Not whether one company can buy its way to dominance, but whether ownership (and stewardship) remains diverse.
The ethos that started this revolution was decentralization. If corporate and sovereign funds dominate the ledger, Bitcoin’s next chapter will depend on how they wield their power and what happens when the tides inevitably turn.
Alex Gladstein, Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation, succinctly sums up the mood:
“Let’s remember why we are here
Cypherpunks write code
Thank an open-source developer today
Wall Street didn’t create and sustain NGU, Satoshi and the cypherpunks did and will”
In the end, Bitcoin’s resilience won’t be measured by how much Strategy owns, but by how well the ecosystem adapts, expanding supply across corporates, institutions, and individuals. That’s what keeps Bitcoin true to form, and what will define whether it remains the people’s money… or the plaything of the corporate elite.
The post Strategy and the centralization question: what happens when one firm holds 3% (or 7%) of all Bitcoin? appeared first on CryptoSlate.
