what happens when one firm holds 3% (or 7%) of all Bitcoin?

Welcome to Slate Sundays, CryptoSlate’s new weekly feature showcasing in-depth interviews, expert analysis, and thought-provoking op-eds that go beyond the headlines to explore the ideas and voices shaping the future of crypto.

On Wall Street and Crypto Twitter, few names spark debate like Michael Saylor and his Bitcoin-hungry software company, Strategy.

Gone are the days when MicroStrategy was just a business intelligence software vendor. Today, “Strategy” stands as the world’s biggest corporate Bitcoin holder, packing away more than 638,900 BTC (3% of the total circulating supply).

For some Bitcoiners, Saylor’s conviction is a validation of the king of crypto’s coming-of-age as an institutional reserve asset.

For critics, it’s a warning: centralization risk, wrapped in a narrative. So, where does the truth lie, and just how much supply is too much for any single entity?

Crossing the 3% rubicon

It wasn’t always clear this day would come. In the early days, Bitcoin was for nerdy devs, quasi-religious cypherpunks, and early adopters. Today, one NASDAQ-listed firm sits atop a pile of digital gold that overshadows that of BlackRock, Tesla, and Coinbase combined.

It’s not just about numbers. As Nic Puckrin, CEO and founder at Coin Bureau, points out:

Bitcoin has firmly entered the institutional era. For treasuries and pension funds searching for alternatives to cash, Strategy’s lead acts as a proof-of-concept.

But this milestone also swings the conversation back to first principles. Bitcoin was designed as a decentralized network, immune to the grip of any single company, country, or billionaire.

What happens when one firm not only holds a massive position but relentlessly targets more? Saylor has alluded to ambitions as high as 7% of the total supply on numerous occasions.

Ecosystem impact: boon or bastion?

Make no mistake, Strategy’s holdings have shifted market dynamics. The float is tighter, and with so much supply boxed up in long-term corporate treasuries, the supply shock theory is very real. And that’s a double-edged sword. Tony Yazbeck, cofounder of The Bitcoin Way, comments:

For institutional Bitcoin evangelists, Strategy’s success is a green light, the mainstream embrace they’ve argued for since Bitcoin’s early days. Investment veteran and e-Cobalt founder Mitchell DiRaimondo says:

DiRaimondo sees Saylor’s conviction as transformative:

While Puckrin also celebrates Strategy’s achievement, he warns that cascading liquidations could be a real threat:

And that risk isn’t just theoretical. The last few years have seen failed treasury plays, sudden liquidations, and gut-wrenching moments when Bitcoin’s price fell off a cliff triggered by the actions of a few unscrupulous firms. FTX anyone?

Concentration risks and the centralization of Bitcoin’s supply

What are the other risks of concentrated holdings? As long-time Bitcoin advocate and security expert Jameson Lopp previously told Slate Sundays:

That’s why Lopp decided to invest in David Bailey’s Bitcoin Treasury company, Nakamoto, to prevent Strategy from pulling so much further ahead.

Bitcoin was built to withstand centralized attacks, but the question isn’t whether one company can break Bitcoin. It’s about how market perception changes when one player becomes the story. Wes Kaplan, former Cointelegraph CEO and current CEO of G-Knot, comments:

This isn’t just about market drama. It’s about dilution, fragility, and interconnected risk.

Matt Mudano, CEO of Arch Network, sees the bigger picture, questioning how the centralization of the Bitcoin supply affects miners. He notes:

The institutional era: friend or foe?

Macro analyst and Bitcoin advocate Lyn Alden holds a different view. She’s not concerned about the centralization of the Bitcoin supply, pointing out that the dynamics have always been this way: Mt. Gox had over 800,000 coins, a bigger percentage than BlackRock or Strategy has now.

Alden looks to leverage as the main culprit for systems to unravel, telling Slate Sundays:

Alden’s thoughts are echoed by OG Bitcoiner, CEO, and cofounder of BitcoinOS, Edan Yago. He says:

Mudano’s take is somewhat more cautious, reminding Bitcoiners to see the bigger picture rather than get blinded by NGU.

Institutional buying on overdrive

2025 is a certainly a year of inflection for Bitcoin. Strategy remains the largest non-sovereign treasury by a country mile. Metaplanet in Japan is stacking BTC as “Asia’s MicroStrategy.” And Nakamoto is grabbing headlines with the annihilation of its shares, down a horrifying 96% from their May highs.

Meanwhile, governments, ETFs, and exchanges now command close to a third of all circulating Bitcoin supply, and data from Glassnode shows that only 14-15% of Bitcoin is truly liquid, adding gravity to every move by the major players. The risk? Systemic fragility if one or two whales face margin calls or liquidity constraints.

Are we building the very vulnerabilities that Bitcoin was designed to eliminate? Counterparty risk, custody structures, and treasury strategies will all face their moment of truth.

Decentralization versus adoption

So, is Strategy’s position good or bad? The answer, as ever, is nuanced. For some, it’s the clearest sign yet that Bitcoin is maturing; a reserve-grade asset fit for institutional balance sheets. For others, it’s a warning to stay vigilant about concentration, transparency, and systemic risk. As Yago points out:

What matters most? Not whether one company can buy its way to dominance, but whether ownership (and stewardship) remains diverse.

The ethos that started this revolution was decentralization. If corporate and sovereign funds dominate the ledger, Bitcoin’s next chapter will depend on how they wield their power and what happens when the tides inevitably turn.

Alex Gladstein, Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation, succinctly sums up the mood:

In the end, Bitcoin’s resilience won’t be measured by how much Strategy owns, but by how well the ecosystem adapts, expanding supply across corporates, institutions, and individuals. That’s what keeps Bitcoin true to form, and what will define whether it remains the people’s money… or the plaything of the corporate elite.

Mentioned in this article