STKR News0 of 3 free this monthMichael Saylor is taking a hardline stance against BIP-110, arguing that preserving Bitcoin's simple architecture is more important than adding new technical complexities.
Originally on The Block →Adrian Boysel
Contributor
Jul 19, 2026
4 min read
Photo illustration / STKR News
Michael Saylor has never been one for half-measures. While most of the industry is focused on price targets and ETF inflows, the MicroStrategy founder is pivoting back to the core of the machine. He recently dropped a massive 110-point critique of BIP-110, throwing a wrench into the momentum of a proposed soft fork that was heading toward an August showdown. This isn't just a technical dispute; it's a fundamental disagreement about what Bitcoin is supposed to be.
For those of us building in this space, these governance battles are often more important than the market cycles. BIP-110 represents a change in how the protocol functions, and Saylor’s long-form rejection highlights a growing divide between those who want Bitcoin to be a programmable platform and those who want it to remain a pristine, unchanging digital vault.
Saylor’s essay focuses on risk. Every time you change the code of a trillion-dollar network, you introduce attack surface. His 110 points essentially scream one thing: don't touch it. He views Bitcoin as an apex property, not a software sandbox. By introducing new features via a soft fork, he argues we risk the long-term integrity of the network for short-term utility.
Builders often want more features. We want smarter contracts, better privacy, and more throughput. But Saylor is looking at this from the perspective of a dual CEO and a massive treasury holder. To him, Bitcoin’s main feature is its reliability. If the protocol remains static, it is predictable. If it starts changing to accommodate every new technical trend, it becomes just another piece of software that can fail.
The timing of this critique isn't accidental. August has been circled on the calendars of Bitcoin developers for months. This is when the community expected a clearer signal on whether BIP-110 would move toward activation. By flooding the zone with 110 specific objections, Saylor is effectively slowing down the process. He is forcing developers to answer hard questions about long-term stability.
We saw something similar with the SegWit2x battles years ago. The Bitcoin community has a history of rejecting change that feels forced or rushed. Saylor is leveraging that history, reminding everyone that consensus isn't just about a majority of miners—it's about the ideological core of the holders and the builders who believe in 'sound money' above all else.
Bitcoin is not a tech platform like Ethereum or Solana. It is a monetary protocol. If you want to build complex applications, do it on a layer above, not inside the foundation.
If you are building a company on Bitcoin, this debate matters because it dictates your roadmap. If BIP-110 is rejected, it sends a clear signal that Bitcoin will remain 'slow and steady.' It means that innovation has to happen on Layer 2 solutions or sidechains, rather than at the base layer. For founders, this is actually a bit of a relief. Building on a moving target is a nightmare. A static base layer allows you to build with the certainty that the rules won't change under your feet.
However, it also means we have to stop waiting for Bitcoin to 'catch up' to newer chains in terms of native functionality. We have to build our own infrastructure. If Saylor wins this argument and BIP-110 is sidelined, the burden of innovation shifts entirely to the developers building on top of the protocol.
I’m always a bit skeptical when a single massive holder wields this much influence over technical debates. MicroStrategy owns so much Bitcoin that Saylor’s voice can drown out the actual developers who spend their lives in the code. We have to ask: is his 110-point essay based on pure technical merit, or is it a protective measure for his balance sheet? Probably both.
Change is scary when you have billions on the line. But we also have to be careful not to let Bitcoin become a museum piece. If the network becomes too rigid to fix actual problems, it risks becoming irrelevant to the next generation of users who expect more than just a store of value. That said, Saylor makes a strong case that most 'improvements' are actually just distractions.
Adding to the tension is Saylor's cryptic social media activity. His 'What's next?' tracker posts ahead of MicroStrategy's financial disclosures suggest he's not just talking about code—il’s about the integration of Bitcoin into the traditional financial system. If he can prove that Bitcoin is a viable corporate reserve asset specifically because it is hard to change, he wins the argument for corporate adoption.
The pushback against BIP-110 is a reminder that Bitcoin isn't a startup. It doesn't need to 'move fast and break things.' In fact, if it breaks things, it fails its primary mission. Saylor’s 110-point manifesto is a call to return to minimalism. For builders, the message is loud and clear: if you want new features, build them yourself on a higher layer. Don't expect the base layer to bend for you.
We are heading into a period where the 'ossification' of Bitcoin might become a reality. If we can't agree on a soft fork now, we might never agree on one again. That might be exactly what Bitcoin needs to survive as a global reserve, even if it makes the lives of developers a little harder in the short term.
Read the original at The Block →
A six-minute morning dispatch on the markets and the technology shaping them.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Earn $STKR for published stories on markets, protocols, and culture.
Comments
24 reader responses
