Just hours after the U.S. election results were announced, I received messages from friends filled with striking assumptions. Some congratulated me, mockingly saying, “Congrats, your side won for Bitcoin.” Others expressed disapproval with remarks like, “It’s pathetic!” and “I’m shocked that Americans just voted for Hitler.” One friend said, “You were lucky to find safety in the U.S. as a refugee under Biden’s administration. Refugees and asylum seekers will now face a harder time here, but, hey, it’s still good for your Bitcoin.” Many of these friends work in high-level corporate jobs or are university students.

As a Green Card holder, I was not eligible to vote, but I recognize their huge disappointment in seeing their preferred candidate lose. Their frustrations were directed at me because they know I support Bitcoin and work in the space. I understand that making me a scapegoat says less about me and more about their limited understanding of what Bitcoin’s value represents.

I’m aware that in this highly polarized political landscape, ideological stereotyping becomes evident—not only during election season but also in spaces where innovative thinking should be encouraged. A prime example of this ideological bias occurred during the Ohio State University commencement, where Chris Pan’s speech on Bitcoin was largely booed by students attending their graduation ceremony. I admire the courage it took to stand firm in front of over 60,000 people and continue his speech. My guess is that most of these graduating students have never experienced hyperinflation or grown up under authoritarian regimes, which likely triggered an “auto-reject”’ response to concepts beyond their personal experience.

I’ve encountered similar resistance in my own unfinished academic journey; during my time at Georgetown, I had several unproductive conversations with professors and students who viewed Bitcoin as a far-right tool. Once a professor told me, “Win, just because cryptocurrency (he didn’t use the term Bitcoin) helped you and your people in your home country doesn’t make it a great tool—most people end up getting scammed in America and many parts of the world. I urge you to learn more about it.” The power dynamics in academic settings often discourage open-minded discourse, which is why I eventually refrained from discussing Bitcoin with my professors.

I’ve learned to understand that freedom of expression is a core American value. Yet, I’ve observed that certain demographics or communities label anyone they disagree with as ‘racist.’ In more extreme cases, this reaction can escalate to using influence to have people fired, expelled from school, or subjected to coordinated cyberbullying. I’m not claiming that racism doesn’t exist in American society or elsewhere; I strongly believe both overt and subtle forms of racism still persist and are well alive today.

Although bias and inequality remain widespread, Bitcoin operates on entirely different principles. Bitcoin is borderless, leaderless, and accepting of any nationality or skin color all while without requiring any form of ID to participate. People in war-torn countries convert their savings into Bitcoin to cross borders safely, human rights defenders receive donations in Bitcoin, and women living under the Taliban get paid through the Bitcoin network.

Bitcoin is not racist because it is a tool of empowerment for anyone who is willing to participate. Bitcoin is not Xenophobic because it gives those forced to flee their homes the power to carry their hard-earned economic energy across borders and participate in another economy when every other option is closed. For activists, often branded as ‘criminals’ by authoritarian regimes, it supports them through frozen bank accounts and blocked resources. For women, enduring life under misogynistic rule, Bitcoin offers a rare chance for financial independence.

Going back to the U.S. election context, Bitcoin not only levels the playing field for people in the world’s most forgotten places and darkest corners, but it also opens new avenues for U.S. presidential candidates to engage with this growing community. President-elect Donald Trump has made bold promises regarding Bitcoin, signaling a favorable policy. In contrast, Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign reportedly declined to support the Bitcoin community. Grant McCarty, co-founder of the Bitcoin Policy Institute, stated, “Can confirm that the Harris campaign was offered MILLIONS of dollars from companies, PACs, and individuals who were looking for her to simply take meetings with key crypto stakeholders and put together a defined crypto policy plan. The campaign never took the industry seriously.” I believe this is something most people may be unaware of, and confirmation bias often leads to the assumption that all Bitcoin supporters back every policy of the other side, including potential drastic changes to America’s humanitarian commitments such as refugee resettlement and asylum programs, anti-trafficking and protection of vulnerable populations, and foreign aid and disaster relief.

Most people around the world lack a stable economic infrastructure or access to long-term mortgages; they live and earn with currencies more volatile than crypto gambling and, in some cases, holding their own fiat currency is as dangerous as casino chips, or worse.

The Fiat experiment has failed the global majority. I believe that Bitcoin and Bitcoin advocates deserve to be evaluated on their merits and work on global impact, rather than through the binary lens of political bias, misappropriated terms, or factually flawed yet socially accepted diminutive categorizing, which allows them to opt out of learning and evaluating assumptions.

This is a guest post by Win Ko Ko Aung. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

I have to call BS on this claim that Michael Saylor is now Bitcoin’s overlord and can single-handedly decide its fate. That’s just ridiculous.

During some drama about whether MicroStrategy’s valuation makes sense, Vinny Lingham declared Saylor is the second most powerful person in Bitcoin after Satoshi Nakamoto. He argued Saylor can dictate terms by threatening to dump MicroStrategy’s giant bitcoin stash if he doesn’t get his way.

While questioning MicroStrategy is fair game, the notion Saylor controls Bitcoin’s destiny is intellectually dishonest drama-baiting. Vinny knows better.

Bitcoin is decentralized, permissionless, and based on consensus. No single entity, not even the largest holder, can dictate terms.

If influence correlated to Bitcoin holdings, the asset would have failed long ago. Governments could easily acquire 10% of supply with their printing presses and control Bitcoin — but that’s not how it works.

Saylor can’t force protocol changes on Bitcoin. Even if he demands certain features, node operators hold the real power by enforcing consensus rules. If Saylor forks Bitcoin to make unilateral changes, the main chain persists while his fork dies, assuming that would be a shittier version.

We’ve already seen this play out when early influencers like Roger Ver disagreed with the community. Bitcoin kept on trucking while Ver’s alternative chain became irrelevant.

Bitcoin’s entire value stems from no one party controlling it. If whales could centralise decision-making by buying large portions, the whole experiment would fail. Thankfully, that’s impossible by design.

So, while Saylor provides a valuable perspective, his influence has limits. He cannot compel developers or miners or nodes to follow his preferred roadmap. His Bitcoin stack buys him a voice at the table, not absolute authority.

No matter how many satoshis Saylor accumulates, he cannot unilaterally impose changes on a decentralized, leaderless network. Bitcoin derives resilience precisely from preventing such dominance.

So enough with this bogus narrative that Michael Saylor is now Bitcoin’s dictator. He’s an influential figure, sure — but he doesn’t control Bitcoin’s fate any more than you or I do. That power remains dispersed.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.