Michael Saylor’s Bitcoin Gambit: The Prisoner’s Dilemma of Holding and Selling

Much has been written about Michael Saylor’s use of bonds to create a Ponzi-like mechanism for buying Bitcoin for $MSTR. Rather, I would like zoom out and examine the more fundamental strategy behind this gambit.

Michael Saylor’s Bitcoin strategy is focused on trust and coordination. Bitcoin works best when holders cooperate by holding—creating scarcity, driving up prices, and reinforcing trust. But the temptation to sell first creates a classic Prisoner’s Dilemma:

• You and another large Bitcoin holder (Player 2) each hold enough to influence the market.
• You must both decide: Hold (cooperate) or Sell (defect).

The outcomes depend on what the other player does—both for your individual payoffs and for Bitcoin itself.

Nash Equilibrium 1: Player Outcomes

Let’s first examine the payoffs for the two players:

Breaking Down the Player Outcomes

1. Both Hold (Cooperation): Big Win for Both Players
   • You and Player 2 hold, scarcity drives the price up, and both of you win as your holdings appreciate.
   • Best outcome: Trust pays off.
2. You Hold, Player 2 Sells: You Lose, Player 2 Wins
   • Player 2 defects and sells, cashing out gains while their selling pressure pushes the price down. You’re left holding the bag as your Bitcoin loses value.
   • Outcome: Player 2 wins, and you take a loss.
3. You Sell, Player 2 Holds: You Win, Player 2 Loses
   • You sell first, locking in gains. Your selling puts downward pressure on the price, hurting Player 2, who trusted you to hold.
   • Outcome: You win, and Player 2 loses.
4. Both Sell (Defection): Moderate Loss for Both
   • If both you and Player 2 sell, the price collapses due to combined selling pressure. Neither of you suffers catastrophic losses because you cashed out, but you both miss out on future upside.
   • Outcome: Damage control—everyone loses moderately.

The rational outcome? Sell, Sell—even though holding would have been better for both players.

Nash Equilibrium 2: Impact on Bitcoin’s Price

Now let’s examine the same game through the lens of Bitcoin’s price. Here’s what happens to BTC itself:

Breaking Down the Price Outcomes

1. Both Hold (Cooperation): Big Win for BTC
   • If both you and Player 2 hold, Bitcoin’s scarcity creates upward price momentum. Confidence grows, and Bitcoin solidifies its role as a store of value.
   • Best-case scenario: Trust leads to price appreciation and market stability.
2. You Hold, Player 2 Sells: Moderate Loss for BTC
   • Player 2’s selling introduces downward pressure, but the market doesn’t completely collapse—yet. The price drops moderately, and trust in Bitcoin becomes shakier.
   • Outcome: A single defection weakens Bitcoin’s narrative but doesn’t destroy it.
3. You Sell, Player 2 Holds: Moderate Loss for BTC
   • Your selling pressures the price lower, but Player 2’s cooperation prevents a full collapse. Trust in Bitcoin takes a hit, but stability remains for now.
   • Outcome: One player’s defection damages confidence but doesn’t break the system.
4. Both Sell (Defection): Big Loss for BTC
   • If both players sell, Bitcoin’s price collapses. The combined selling pressure triggers a self-reinforcing downward spiral, where falling prices lead to more selling, eroding trust and adoption.
   • Worst-case scenario: Trust breaks down, and Bitcoin’s price craters.

The Fragility of Cooperation

The Sell, Sell outcome is the Nash equilibrium for both players—it’s the rational, self-interested move:

• If you expect Player 2 to sell, you sell first to avoid losses.
• If you expect Player 2 to hold, you’re still tempted to sell and lock in gains.

But the Sell, Sell equilibrium has devastating consequences for Bitcoin itself:

• Prices collapse.
• Trust in Bitcoin’s narrative as “digital gold” is eroded.
• Future adoption and confidence take a major hit.

Saylor’s Gambit: Engineering Trust

Michael Saylor’s entire strategy is to shift the game toward the Hold, Hold outcome—the only scenario where Bitcoin thrives:

1. Reframing Holding as Rational: By promoting Bitcoin as “digital gold” and the ultimate store of value, Saylor positions holding as the smart, long-term move.
2. Signaling Commitment: Saylor’s massive, public Bitcoin purchases (and refusal to sell) serve as a signal to other large holders: “I’m holding, so you should too.”
3. Creating FOMO: Rising prices incentivize holding, as players fear missing out on future gains. This self-reinforcing cycle makes cooperation feel more natural.

The Limits of Trust: Buyers Aren’t Infinite

The challenge is that cooperation has limits:

• Finite Buyer Demand: Eventually, every buyer who wants Bitcoin will have bought all they can. Once demand slows, prices stagnate, and the game becomes more fragile.
• Trust Decays: If one large holder sells, it introduces doubt. Other holders start to ask: “Should I sell before everyone else does?”
• Self-Interest Prevails: Even if holding is best for the group, self-interested players will defect (sell) if they think others might sell first.

Once trust breaks, the system shifts back to Sell, Sell, and that’s when shit hits the fan.

Conclusion: Cooperation vs. Collapse

The two-player Bitcoin game highlights how fragile cooperation can be. When both players hold, Bitcoin’s price rises, trust grows, and everyone wins. But the rational move is to sell first, creating a Nash equilibrium that leads to Sell, Sell—mutual losses for the players and a big loss for Bitcoin.

Michael Saylor’s gambit is to delay this equilibrium by promoting trust, commitment, and the long-term benefits of holding. But trust isn’t infinite, and buyers eventually run out. When that happens, the question becomes:

“Who’s going to sell first?”

Because once someone does, the game flips—and that’s when shit hits the fan.

Enjoying our content? Be sure to subscribe to the GreenSight Newsletter! You won’t hear from us much.