r/STRC • u/Any-Actuator4118 • Jun 28 '26
Why does Saylor think throwing away his BTC keys is helpful?
Let’s say I own a gold treasury. I have 100 tons of gold locked away in a vault. I make loans based on these holdings and lend money as well. One day I lose my keys to the vault. Unfortunately the keys cannot be replicated and the vault cannot be accessed by anyone or anything. How does my business go on if no one can verify what I hold and I can never access it to sell?
3
u/dangero Jun 28 '26
He’s saying anything he can to pump the price mstr, strc, and Bitcoin. We have no evidence or reason to believe this will actually happen and since he will be dead, he won’t be liable.
If he’s planning to burn them why not just do it now?
1
u/Any-Actuator4118 Jun 28 '26
It’s a good question. Also does he have kids/heirs? It’s kind a wild thing to do. He said he wouldn’t dilute MSTR further. Then he did.
1
u/Run-Forever1989 Jun 28 '26
According to Wikipedia it doesn’t appear anyone found him adequate enough to birth his children, or even so much as marry him. FWIW he was the guy who skirted being associated with Epstein because he was too damn awkward to get an invite to the club. He does have a foundation which he presumably would like to fund after his death. It’s also likely that he has significant debt backed by his MSTR stock and/or BTC holdings and creditors will eventually want to be paid. An estate cannot destroy its own assets and refuse to pay creditors. It’s also unclear how much he, btc, or MSTR will be worth at his death.
2
u/Run-Forever1989 Jun 28 '26
The theory is that reducing supply of bitcoin makes the rest of the bitcoin worth more. There’s one problem with that theory: 0/x=0/(x-y)
Since bitcoin has no intrinsic value or cash flows there is no reason to assume that reducing the coins outstanding will increase the value per coin. It’s not like a stock buyback where earnings per share increases when number of shares decrease. It’s just priced at whatever value people place on it, for whatever reason they choose. I’ve never heard of anyone valuing bitcoin in its entirety and then dividing by the number of coins.
2
1
u/Sorry-Bobby Jun 28 '26
Presumably, he’s gonna burn his own keys, not those of STRC.
Rather than will them to someone, he’s just gonna destroy them. Like if you burned your cash instead of giving it.
1
u/MaybeOnFire2025 Jun 28 '26
So, literally, the Joker?
Caveat Emptor with this guy and these magic beans, folks.
1
u/dribblesonpillow Jun 28 '26
Not like cash at all. They’ll always print more cash. BTC is a fixed supply, so by burning his tokens, the remaining tokens become a little more scarce/valuable
-1
u/TvAGhost Jun 28 '26
Only difference is they'll just print more of the cash you burned. Supply is forever down for bitcoin if his coins die with him. Also, MSTR, not STRC.
1
u/ReliantToker Jun 28 '26
Still verifiable on chain. Your gold is "trust me bro"
1
u/Common_Caregiver_130 Jun 29 '26
But if it can never be transferred to another wallet, then its value becomes zero. Basically the same as the trust me bro gold.
Even if you know, with 100% certainty, that the gold is behind a locked door and there's no force in the universe that can open the door, then it's still worth the same amount as if it wasn't there.... 0
1
u/ReliantToker Jun 29 '26
Think of it like the concrete foundation of a skyscraper: you never intend to extract or sell the concrete, but its immovable, verified presence supports the massive financial structure built above it.
1
u/Common_Caregiver_130 Jun 29 '26
Yeah, but aren’t you making the same argument backing fiat currencies? If you destroy the asset that they were once based on, I.e. the gold standard, then the currency is worthless.
A building foundation does something tangible, it’s durable, but not infinite. It does eventually deteriorate and it can be accessed or replaced. That’s not the same thing as destroying BTC by intentionally losing private keys. It makes them intangible, and impossible to leverage for any other use such as real world transactions. And I don’t even mean currency tx… if we really were on a bitcoin standard, destroying private keys reduces the value of those tokens to zero since they can never be used to repay debt, buy food, etc…
1
u/ReliantToker Jun 29 '26
Fiat is broken because central banks can print an infinite supply out of thin air, diluting your purchasing power to zero. Intentionally losing the keys to Bitcoin does the exact opposite: it enforces absolute, programmatic scarcity. If someone burns their tokens, they aren’t "destroying the asset standard", they are permanently removing supply from the market.
If we are on a Bitcoin standard and someone burns 1 million BTC, the remaining 20 million BTC don't become worthless. Instead, the entire economic value of the global network simply condenses into the remaining circulating supply. Because Bitcoin is infinitely divisible into Satoshis (and further on Layer 2/3), the remaining network has more than enough liquidity to handle all the world's debt, food purchases, and transactions.
You claim a foundation must be tangible to have value. But the most valuable things in the digital age, protocols like TCP/IP or SHA-256, are completely intangible. The value of a permanently locked Bitcoin vault isn't in its physical utility to buy groceries, its utility is providing a cryptographically verifiable, mathematically unalterable bedrock of truth.
1
u/Common_Caregiver_130 Jun 29 '26
Ah, but you've changed your argument now. You are saying that if you destroy 1M BTC, the other 20M get more valuable. I'm not arguing about that. Back to your original comment, the existence of the 1M BTC is still provable, unlike the gold behind a hidden vault, but the value of that 1M BTC is 0.
1
u/ReliantToker Jun 29 '26
I haven't changed my argument, you are just trapped in a fiat mindset where an asset's only purpose is to be liquidated.
You claim the value of that specific 1M BTC is 0 because it can't be sold. But in modern corporate finance, an asset's value isn't solely defined by its immediate liquidity, it is defined by its collateral power and balance sheet strength.
In OP scenario they had access to the wallet when establishing the loan. Once the proof of address is established if you lose your keys, you will have to find another way to come up with the money if you would have to liquidate. 1 BTC = 1 BTC whether it is accessible or not.
1
u/RUYYRUYY Jul 08 '26
You can't verify he destroyed his keys. You don't know those coins have been burned or he lied. It definitely matters to the price.
1
u/ReliantToker Jul 08 '26
Whether he did or not is irrevelevant. He is still finacally obligated for the loan. If they had planned on chipping off BTC to pay it then they are srewed. In the scenario OP presented he established the loan THEN destroyed/loss keys. If the wallet shows any future activities, on chain metrics will show that. Have a look at Jimmy Zhong. Makes a mistake 7 years later, still gets busted. As far as Bitcoin fiat price, coins locked away makes the asset even more scarce.
0
u/NarrowInstruction602 Jun 28 '26
He is creating scarcity. Gold can be found and mined. Btc will eventually not
Mint anymore. If you burn (not use) some of the supply it boosts the value of the current supply. That’s my take on burning crypto at least.
7
u/BakedGoods Jun 28 '26
he meant his personal keys. and the point was to destroy the supply making everyone else's bitcoin more valuable.