The Bitcoin identity crisis focused this weekend after Galaxy Digital (GLXY) announced it had promoted more than 80,000 Bitcoin sales to Satoshi-ERA investors. The company said the sale (one of the largest conceptual BTC transactions to date) is part of the seller’s estate planning strategy.
The transaction was quickly considered symbolic. For some, it marked a practical rebalance. For others, it was a worrying sign that even the earliest followers of Bitcoin were cashing out. Crypto analyst and commentator Scott Melker fanned the flames with his sharply expressed posts in X.
“Bitcoin is amazing,” he wrote on July 26th.
The comment launched a heated debate that spans crypto influencers, traders and ideologues. Many of them were sharply opposed as to the meaning of the whale exit and whether Mercer’s framing was accurate.
Some dismiss concerns
Critics of Mercer’s interpretation argued that one deal (not equal to size) does not imply abandonment of ideology. They pointed out that the sale was explicitly linked to the estate plan, rather than a loss of conviction. Others pointed out that wallet movements can be misleading and sales do not automatically mean that investors have given up on their assets for a long time.
Some community members were called speculative statements, referring to OGs like Adam Back and others who continue to accumulate. Mercer later revealed that he was “just pointing out what I’m hearing,” but did not declare his own view.
Others see patterns
Supporters of Mercer Take saw the whale exit as a symbol of wider change. As Bitcoin is increasingly absorbed into traditional finance through ETFs, corporate finance and custody solutions, some worry that assets have been drifted from Cypherpunk’s roots.
For this group, the conversion of Bitcoin into a tradable, regulated, largely chained device is a distortion of its founding vision. If early followers are losing interest, they argue, it may be a symptom that Bitcoin will be less about individual sovereignty and about financial engineering.
Bitcoin’s open access design has been defended
Another group opposed the premise that institutional involvement corresponds to ideological failure. In their view, Bitcoin’s value lies in neutrality. That rule applies to everyone, whether it’s retail users or Wall Street funds. It’s not exclusion, it’s censorship resistance.
These commentators argued that the rise of ETFs and adoption of custody would be inevitable and even necessary for Bitcoin to achieve broad financial relevance. From this perspective, the whale outlet is simply part of a mature capital stream, not a sign of philosophical surrender.
Security and Usage Questions
The debate also sparked deeper concerns about Bitcoin’s functionality. If most BTC is held as a passive store of value and is rarely traded, how do networks get protected after harving? With mining rewards and on-chain usage declining, some people worry that trading fees alone won’t maintain network integrity in the long run.
The moment I talk
Mercer’s post did not move the market, but it put the spotlight on critical questions. What does that mean when an early follower sells? Is it a warning signal or a natural redistribution? Loss of faith – or signs of progress?
Galaxy’s $9 billion transaction did not provide a definitive answer. However, the subsequent reaction revealed how unstable the evolving role of Bitcoin has become. The ideological rifts between the facilities that have been born and are now shaping it, are no longer theoretical – it plays in real time.
