Does Ethereum Need Its Own Michael Saylor? A Look at the Crypto Community’s Reaction

Anthony Sassano, a prominent Ethereum advocate and educator, posed an intriguing question on X (formerly Twitter) on Dec. 22, 2024: Does Ethereum (ETH) need a Michael Saylor-like figure to promote it? This refers to Saylor’s role as a Bitcoin evangelist, whose outspoken support and corporate strategy at MicroStrategy have helped popularize Bitcoin as a store of value. Sassano’s question sparked a lively debate, with responses from across the crypto community offering a wide range of perspectives.

The Case for an Ethereum Advocate

Several respondents expressed enthusiasm for the idea, highlighting the potential benefits of having a high-profile figure champion Ethereum. @Infrablix called it an “incredible opportunity,” noting how one person’s influence can create significant impact in the crypto space. Similarly, @CloutedMind proposed a decentralized effort, suggesting that collective action by Ethereum supporters and whales could achieve similar results.

Others, like @iamnapenjoyoor, argued that a centralized figure or strategy could help boost Ethereum’s price through structured mechanics. They suggested a model involving treasury and liquidity provider bonding, token boosts, and borrowing mechanisms to create upward momentum for ETH’s value. @BaseNFTMaxi expanded on this, asserting that yield integration would make such strategies more effective.

Potential Candidates

Some users speculated about who could fill this role for Ethereum. @Chase_Freedom_ suggested Samir Tabar, CEO of Bit Digital, as a likely candidate, citing his company’s strategy of mining Bitcoin to accumulate Ethereum and its promotion as an ETH proxy. Others proposed unconventional candidates like former U.S. President Donald Trump, with @rayzhueth noting that Trump’s media presence and recent pro-crypto stance could bring significant attention to Ethereum.

Challenges and Skepticism

Not everyone agreed that Ethereum needs a figure like Saylor. Some raised concerns about the risks of centralizing influence. @jimpeiko pointed out that Saylor’s massive Bitcoin holdings—approximately 2% of BTC—may deter widespread adoption, particularly by sovereign entities or institutions wary of concentrated ownership. They argued that a similar figure for Ethereum could face the same backlash.

Others questioned the feasibility of creating an Ethereum equivalent to MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin strategy. @Chuck.T.eth noted that Ethereum’s pre-sale, in which 75 million ETH were distributed, creates unique dynamics that may discourage a single entity from taking such a role. Furthermore, @btcyid raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, suggesting that large Ethereum holders or validators might resist such efforts to protect their own positions within the network.

Broader Implications for Ethereum

Some responses shifted the conversation to Ethereum’s broader ecosystem and unique characteristics. @FreerangeCitizen expressed disappointment that Ethereum lacks a high-profile champion but suggested that media personalities from Bankless could help fill that role. However, others, like @DustinRizzo, implied that Ethereum’s foundational principles of decentralization and open governance make it less reliant on centralized figures for advocacy.

The conversation also touched on Ethereum’s relationship with Bitcoin. @Chuck.T.eth argued that Bitcoin’s hard cap of 21 million coins makes it more suitable for institutional hoarding and collateralization, while Ethereum’s inflationary potential adds uncertainty to its role as a store of value. This difference, they suggested, makes Ethereum less attractive for the kind of large-scale accumulation strategies championed by Michael Saylor.

Featured Image via Pixabay