Bitcoin’s identity crisis after Galaxy Digital. Announced It provided the facility of selling $ 9 billion of more than 80,000 bitcoins for the Satoshi-era investor. The firm said that sales – the largest virgin ever BTC transaction – was part of the seller’s property scheme strategy.
The transaction was immediately seen as symbolic. For some, it marked a practical reinforcement. For others, it was a worrying indication that even early believers of bitcoin were being redeemed. Crypto’s analyst and commentator Scott Malkar fenced the flames with a sharp word Post On X.
“Bitcoin is amazing,” he wrote on 26 July. “But this is clearly somewhat coexaged by somewhat people that it was made against a hedge. Many of the most enthusiastic early whales have seen their faith shaking and selling at these prices.”
The comment discontinued a terrible debate, spreading the crypto -influencers, traders and ideologies – many of which disagreeed on what the whale used to get out, and what the framing of the reconciliation was accurate.
Some dismiss anxiety
Critics of Melker’s interpretation argued that a transaction -shaped ego – does not indicate ideological abandonment. He said that sales were clearly associated with the property scheme, not the loss of punishment. Others reported that wallet movements could be misleading, and selling it automatically does not mean that an investor has left the long term of the asset.
Some community members also called the comment speculative, which pointed to OG, such as Adam Back and others, who continue to accumulate. Melker later clarified that he was “just indicating what I was listening to,” did not announce his own idea.
Others see a pattern
Melker’s supporters saw whale’s exhaust as a symbol of a broad innings. Traditional finance with bitcoin was rapidly absorbed – through ETF, corporate treasury and custody solutions – some concerns that the property is washed away from its cipherpank roots.
For this group, a traditional, regulated and large-scale off-chain instrument of bitcoin is a deformity of its founding vision. If initial believers are losing interest, they argue, it can be a symptom of bitcoin that may be less about personal sovereignty and more about financial engineering.
Bitcoin’s open-access design defends
Another group pushed back against the base that institutional participation is for ideological failure. In his view, the value of bitcoin lies in its neutrality – its rules apply to all, whether it is retail user or wall street funds. The censorship resistance is not the foundation, not exclusion.
These commentators argued that the rise of ETF and Custodial adoption was unavoidable, and even necessary, if bitcoin had to achieve broad monetary relevance. From this point of view, whale exit is only a part of maturing capital flow – not a sign of philosophical surrender.
Questions about safety and use
The debate also triggered deep concerns about bitcoin work. If most BTCs are held as a passive store of value and are rarely transacted, how will the network be post-freeing? With a decline in mining prize falling and on-chain use, there is some concern that the transaction fees alone cannot maintain network integrity in a long time.
A moment of moment
While Melker’s post did not move the markets, it highlighted an important question: what does it mean when selling initial believers? Is it a warning signal, or a natural redistribution? Loss of faith – or sign of progress?
Galaxy’s $ 9 billion transactions did not give any definite answer. But the subsequent reactions showed how unresolved the developed role of bitcoin is. It was born visually and now in institutions that shape it, the ideological crack is no longer theoretical – it is playing in real time.
