ONE OF THE BIG ETFS WAS GOING TO DONATE TO OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
SAYLOR TOLD THEM IF THEY DID IT HE WOULD CRUSH THEM SO THEY PULLED OUT OF THE COMMITMENT.
Login to reply
Replies (100)
Verified?
That sounds like a huge BS
Kill tour heroes
View quoted note →
Saylor kind of sucks these days
He is on the Opensats board. if anyone's going to hear about it first, it'd be him.
@ODELL I would like to understand the intention … there is nothing more positive than supporting devs or is this about influence?
WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED
ONE OF THE BIG ETFS WAS GOING TO DONATE TO OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
SAYLOR TOLD THEM IF THEY DID IT HE WOULD CRUSH THEM SO THEY PULLED OUT OF THE COMMITMENT.
View quoted note →
Can you give us any details on this?
I see Bitwise as guilty as Saylor's in this
It is his right to do what he considers wise to do.
Wise that🌅
Next interviewer or conference moderator should ask about this
ONE OF THE BIG ETFS WAS GOING TO DONATE TO OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
SAYLOR TOLD THEM IF THEY DID IT HE WOULD CRUSH THEM SO THEY PULLED OUT OF THE COMMITMENT.
View quoted note →
Wtf
A screenshot of this is going around on Xitter. 😅
You need a hobby.
I am assuming his position is development at this point is more risky than freezing or ossifying? Also … do you really think he has been focusing time and energy on killing small donations? Idk man - respect for living your convictions either way and not simping for anyone
Sauce?
oh my 👀
Here to see the comments of Saylor bigots in disbelief …🫢
Few weeks ago he also said, BTC is not money but property only. BS. Sailors bags are full. So no more developments needed? GFY
Ark?
Proof?
where's the sauce? Don't become Pennis Dorter
A lot of the influencers on twitter are using this post. But also, a lot of ppl are asking where you got this info??
When you troll the twitters from afar this is what happens. lol
I am requesting a response please
Don't trust, verify.
Sounds bullshits, already denied by VanEck on X. Let’s see!
there is a contrarian position on this... the Bitcoin Core clique of devs is very hermetic and exclusive, and one could argue that giving too much money to the same clique of people is counterproductive in the long term but if this was true one would also fund other groups of devs simultaneously (e.g. Knots, BDK) and especially one would also fund non-protocol developers as well. I have no confidence in the Bitcoin Core development process at all (especially since speedy trial).
View quoted note →
If i were investing in VanEck ETF, i don't think i would want to be donating fees to Open source. To me it's confusing why the ETF provider would do this in the first place.
Saying something like this without source is kind of douchey
🫂💪
Potential capture attempt...?
How does saylor crush an ETF? Sounds like bs
He's an arbitrary data fan so I doubt it'd be 5D chess of that nature.
Heard the same. Crush may be a bit overdramatic though.
whats the motivation?
What is your problem with Saylor man? Chill
He told 'em they weren't going to be invited to his yacht party
The idea is that Bitcoin should be left alone, no devs control or bias. At the end, Bitcoin needs nothing else but consensus between nodes and eventually some soft fork in about 241 years from now.
What does “crush an etf” even mean? Crush them personally?
As many other said, it would be best to have more context. I am neutral on Saylor, not simping, but I don’t see the logic behind that position either
- is he afraid ETF sponsors will decide development?
- is he afraid of any development?
- is he afraid of a specific development which was to be sponsored?
- the crushing part is weird, crushing “how exactly”?
Odd. Wonder what’s up Saylor’s sleeve.
But that’s just a very basic misunderstanding of open source development. It’s like getting upset because there’s a grant for Linux or WordPress
If its true then its on the head of the etf changed their mind.... They basically admitted they prefer going to a yacht party then fund devs.
I don’t know for sure, but if he has this motivation, I suspect he’s for protocol ossification.
I’m personally concerned with how the protocol is being developed. I don’t get the impression that devs are making the most limited code changes. As a dev, I know the temptation to add expansive Swiss-army knife technologies which are very powerful but come with a high risk of undesirable consequences.
View quoted note →
If he is a spook with CIA behind him, not so overdramatic. I mean they have been toppling governments for the past 50 years.
In theory, if he dumps, ETFs get crushed.
1) He's done fuck all for Bitcoin development. At the very least he is an affinity scammer.
2) his competition? LoL. Microstrategy is a shit software that had lost in the market a decade ago. No new business, just milking vendor lock-in renewal revenue
ONE OF THE BIG ETFS WAS GOING TO DONATE TO OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
SAYLOR TOLD THEM IF THEY DID IT HE WOULD CRUSH THEM SO THEY PULLED OUT OF THE COMMITMENT.
View quoted note →
🤣
what is saylors issue with open source? perhaps I missed something
Does it though?
No one is denying his right. How could we even?
Straw man this.
Sauce?
That's infuriating. Even if someone is against any further consensus change, the code of bitcoin needs maintenance. Bugs need to be found and fixed, p2p layer improved, attacks found and mitigated, mempool and block construction improved, documentation and tooling improved, lightning network improved, new layer2 designed, tested and developed. The list of non-consensus work is endless.
WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM? GIVE US THE SAUCE IF THERE IS ANY BECAUSE THIS JUST SOUNDS STUPID.
I have concerns about this too. Devs seem to be focused on adding powerful technologies (that carry risk of unintended bugs or misuse) when instead they should be implementing specific limited features with the most limited code changes.
Eg, we shouldn’t add “covenants”. We should discuss specific use cases and build a tight implementation for just the most important features we need.
Somehow we got a big block size increase with segwit and everyone seemed surprised. Then we got the inevitable spam.
hmm…
spicy 🌶️
![Daniel [dnabg]'s avatar](https://cdn.satlantis.io/1r4rkttvdg7ejak5sfn0vemdkv7rq4r07xyfgd9klwhvl8r65a95s0x98k3-1762702876066-d2430224-775f-44bc-b31d-bf79b1556fd9_02a155a134377ae404344720385884e6a885bf8a188410b04aa21b718d374f46.jpg)
Fidelity or Ark...or both lol
Probably wise not to have an ETF directly fund devs directly though. Science was captured through grants. Devs could begin to work for those that fund them. Better to have a decentralized funding mechanism
As for me - head down, stacking, and focusing on what I can control.
Stop drinking ODELL
sucks kinda odells and saylors these days
If Saylor dumps his bitcoin?
I don’t know if you’re joking, or just offering an improbable hypothetical but regardless…
1) He has never given any indication of selling, let alone dumping
2) ETF’s wouldn’t be “crushed” if the price dropped due to selling pressure. It doesn’t work like that. They earn fees on order flow.
He needs to out them.
Thanks very much for sharing this Matt.
Completely hypothetical.
1) Agree
2) I think you have this backwards. ETFs aren’t making money on order flows. MMs and APs are paid for sourcing liquidity (e.g. bitcoin) for the ETFs, and then the ETF issues make their money on fees charged to the underlying holders. Less holders = less fees.
At least that’s how I understand it - happy to be corrected if I have this wrong.
No source, no specifics. Just farting it out as a ’trust me bro’ Saylorman bad
DID THE ETF WANT TO FUND POS DEVELOPMENT?
fidelity? this has to be talked about.
👀
Source?
2) Right. But there are no management fees to charge AUM at the moment. I called it order flow as a short hand (which, yes, is incorrect (since that more accurately describes how market makers earn revenues)) just to indicate that they are not the ones buying/selling. It’s their *clients* who are. So, the logic of Saylor dumping his ₿ to crush an ETF provider who chooses to support open devs doesn’t hurt the ETF as much as it would temporarily hurt all ETF shareholders with depressed prices, as well permanently hurting Microstrategy for shifting away from the “Bitcoin is our primary reserve asset” position he’s built up.
See? It just makes no sense and I don’t know why Odell is posting this type of stuff. It’s disconcerting.
![[ARCHIVED] Jay's avatar](https://i.nostr.build/9NquibWjyPXiz2Q4.png)
NEW ETHOS: TRUST, DONT VERIFY.
You again? Them $mstr bags must be heavy, my friend
It's clear from Saylor why:
He doesnt want to add resources that have potential to make changes to the perfect asset.
If you listen to him enough, the above would be his logical reasoning.
I disagree with it. Funding bitcoin devs does not necessarily mean changing fundamentals of bitcoin.
Man, that was one of the dumbest posts I've read in a while. Geez man.. Can we go a day without throwing feces at eachother?
I have no clue how much is true or other sources just what i got told.
Saylor definitely not on my list of things to care about.
View quoted note →
Why would he do that?
ODELL is a grown man and can do what he wants
How have I never heard Pennis Dorter before?! 🤣🤣🤣
Fanboy
Nah. Slay all the heroes
, 🙏💜
Saylor is a scammer. 
ONE OF THE BIG ETFS WAS GOING TO DONATE TO OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
SAYLOR TOLD THEM IF THEY DID IT HE WOULD CRUSH THEM SO THEY PULLED OUT OF THE COMMITMENT.
View quoted note →
yeah, I cant seem to find anything on this...
In SLP 404, bitcoin maintainer, Gloria Zhao says more than 70% of bitcoin development work is maintanance work, not stuff like Taproot.
"**And so even if nobody was opening pull requests to request new features or point out things to Bitcoin Core, you would still have the job of finding bugs, fixing bugs, monitoring things upstream, updating dependencies, making sure we support things continuously downstream, cutting releases — to do that on a regular cadence, taking care of what happens on the GitHub repository** — responding to issues and triaging pull requests and all those things, running CI — testing things. And so every software project requires maintenance."
I'll admit I got a bit heated last night. Saylor's up to some shady shit for sure.
How does saylor have leverage on Ark? How are these games played, wtf!
Yeah, what does it even mean lol
Meh. There's NO way Saylor would say he'd crush any of them, nor could he crush them. I don't doubt he talked to them, maybe convinced them to chsnge their minds but this accusation sounds BS to me.
He did the same in January with accusations against Swan Bitcoin. It's not a good look for Matt & he needs to cut it out or he'll have very few peopke wanting to work with him in the future.
EVERYONE SUCKS 😂
Devs must have been pissed off. Saylor has too much invested to do something that would be bad for the protocol. He must have his reasons. I do hope they r good