Strategy founder Michael Saylor has published a sharp analytical article in which he thoroughly dissects the proposal to change the Bitcoin protocol — BIP-110. In his essay titled "110 Reasons Why BIP-110 Is a Bad Idea," he presents well-reasoned criticism, emphasizing that this initiative threatens the fundamental principles of the network.
Saylor consistently defends the position that any changes to the protocol must adhere to three key principles: neutrality, strict consensus, and open markets. In his view, BIP-110 violates these principles by introducing elements of subjective control and potentially creating a precedent for future contentious hard forks. The businessman stresses that Bitcoin, as a decentralized system, should not become a tool for advancing private interests, even if they come from influential ecosystem participants.
Analyzing the economic consequences, Saylor notes that adopting such changes could undermine trust in the immutability of the network's rules, which is critically important for institutional investors. He compares BIP-110 to a "Trojan horse" that, under the guise of technical improvements, could lead to centralized governance.
In the final part of his analysis, the Strategy founder calls on the community to remain committed to the principle of "code is law" and not to succumb to the temptation of quick but risky solutions. He argues that only strict adherence to the rules of neutrality and consensus will ensure the long-term sustainability and growth of Bitcoin's market capitalization.
My expert commentary: Saylor's criticism is not merely a defense of the status quo, but a strategic view of Bitcoin as an asset whose value directly depends on its predictability. Any change that blurs the lines between network participants and its managers inevitably reduces trust. BIP-110, despite all its technical sophistication, carries precisely this risk.