He can think he's buying himself time, but in effect, he's buying us time and buying power. 

If he monetizes the asset as a gold-like asset, the network is still permissionless and we can still settle transactions without anyone beig able to stop us. 

Functionally, it doesn't matter that he sleeps on his growing pile, all it does is give a market to settle for dollars at the end of the day. 

He can never have a say about like e-cash settling on Bitcoin or LN or whatever. 

In the end he's fulfilling his role in the ecosystem and we are fulfilling ours. 

nbd really. 

 Unless of course he’s a CIA front as @Magoo speculates..

Still, if I’m gonna look at Saylor on a scale to Bill Gates, whether he is an asset or not, if I’m forced to choose I know which one is getting the guillotine and which is spared.

My point is more, quit blindly trusting him. He’s in this for himself. He has said as much about his legacy. You’re likely to end up in a fork war with Saylor on one side and it will be the side best for him, not best for Bitcoin. 

 let's say he's CIA. now what? 

 Look, the most likely failure mode of Saylor is him blowing up from debt. 

Your current argument is that Saylor can tell us on what to agree on, when we walked in voluntarily agreeing on a certain type of rule. That's just not going to happen. 

The only way anyone cen get this to stick is to wait at least one generation.