Orange tie still in place: Michael Sayer responds to the Bitcoin whistleblower complaint

On Friday, bitcoin rebounded to the $80,000 threshold, prompting investor Jason Calacanis to post on social media that it was a dead cat bouncing back and questioning whether Bitcoin had found killer applications after 17 years. MicroStrategy founder Michael Saylor immediately hit back by saying that Bitcoin is already a successful asset of US$1.6 trillion in size with greater ambitions for cross-generational value creation. The two men collided, again raising the age-old question of what makes bitcoin valuable.

Calacanis: from pirates to orange ties

In his lengthy essay, Calacanis lists several of the criticisms he has made about Bitcoin: it is neither suited for everyday transactions nor good at smart contracts; its user experience is frightening and it no longer stimulates public imagination.

He quipped that now when bitcoin is mentioned at dinner parties, people's reactions are only one sentence: "I remember those years". He noted that the public now expects Bitcoin to be stable and no longer a get-rich-quick scheme.

Calacanis concludes that if Bitcoin can achieve mass adoption and an irreplaceable important use, then it has already done so.

Saylor responds: Digital capital is the killer app

In the face of criticism, Michael Saylor opens with a two-year interlude: "You've been watching Bitcoin grow since 2011, it is now a $1.6 trillion success and the most valuable digital asset in the world".

Saylor's central argument is that "digital capital is a killer app". Preserving wealth across generations is more ambitious than catering for one dinner party. He responded to Calacanis' mockery of the industry image with an orange tie that will leave you hanging.

What does the debate mean for ordinary readers?

It is worth noting the identities of two parties: Calacanis, a well-known angel investor who also held bitcoins in his early years; and Saylor's company, which has been heavily invested in bitcoin for a long time and is one of the most assertive multihead representatives in the industry.

The essence of the debate is a reoccurrence of old topics in Bitcoin's positioning controversy against the backdrop of price retracement: one side believes that bitcoin has failed to fulfill its early promises on payments or smart contracts; the other party argues that its core value was never transaction efficiency, but as a long-term store of value.