Bitcoin’s identity crisis returned to roar this weekend after Galaxy Digital (GLXY) announced that it had facilitated a sale of $ 9 billion more than 80,000 bitcoin for an investor in the Satoshi era. The firm said that the sale – one of the largest notional transactions in the BTC – was part of the seller’s inheritance planning strategy.
The transaction was immediately considered symbolic. For some, he marked a practical rebalancing. For others, it was a worrying sign that even the first believers of Bitcoin are money. Crypto analyst and commentator Scott Melker attracted the flames with a post strongly written on X.
“Bitcoin is incredible,” he wrote on July 26. “But it was obviously co -opted to a certain extent by the very people who were created as a hedge. Many of the most ardent whales saw their faith shaken and sold these prices.”
The comment launched a fierce debate that lasted influencers, traders and cryptographic ideologists – many of which disagreed on what the release of the whale meant, and if Melker’s framing was correct.
Some reject concern
The criticisms of the interpretation of Melker argued that a transaction – without any size – does not mean ideological abandonment. They noted that the sale was explicitly linked to inheritance planning, and not to a loss of conviction. Others have stressed that portfolio movements can be misleading, and the sale does not automatically mean that an investor has abandoned the long -term asset.
Some members of the community have even called the speculative remark, pointing to OGs like Adam Back and others who continue to accumulate. Melker later said that he “simply emphasized what I heard”, not declaring his own point of view.
Others see a model
The supporters of taking Melker saw the exit of the whale as emblematic of a wider change. With Bitcoin increasingly absorbed by traditional finance – via the ETF, corporate treasury and childcare solutions – some fear that the assets have derived from its Cypherpunk roots.
For this group, the transformation of Bitcoin into a negotiable, regulated and largely out of chain instrument is a distortion of its founding vision. If the first believers lose their interest, they argue, it can be a symptom of bitcoin more and less on individual sovereignty and more on financial engineering.
Bitcoin’s open access design defends
Another group postponed the premise that institutional participation is equivalent to an ideological failure. In their opinion, the value of Bitcoin lies in its neutrality – its rules apply to everyone, be it retail users or Wall Street funds. Resistance to censorship, and not exclusion, is the foundation.
These commentators argued that the rise of the FNB and the adoption of the guard was inevitable, and even necessary, if the bitcoin must reach a large monetary relevance. From this point of view, whale outings are simply part of the maturation of capital flows – not a sign of philosophical surrender.
Security and use questions
The debate also triggered deeper concerns about the Bitcoin function. If most BTCs are kept as a passive reserve of value and rarely transactions, how will the network continue to be secure after research? With the drop in mining awards and the drop in chain use, some fear that transaction costs only support the transaction costs in the long term do not support the integrity of the network.
A revealing moment
Although the Melker post did not move the markets, he highlighted a critical question: what does that mean when the first believers sell? Is it a warning signal or a natural redistribution? A loss of faith – or a sign of progress?
The transaction of $ 9 billion in Galaxy did not offer any final response. But the reactions that followed revealed to what extent the evolutionary role of Bitcoin is unstable. Between the vision of which he was born and the institutions that shape him now, the ideological rift is no longer theoretical – it is played in real time.
