Bitcoin’s identity crisis focused again this weekend after Galaxy Digital (GLXY) announced that he had facilitated a sale of $ 9 billion more than 80,000 bitcoin for an investor of the Satoshi era. The firm said the sale, one of the largest notional BTC transactions in history, was part of the seller’s patrimonial planning strategy.
The transaction was immediately seen as symbolic. For some, he marked a practical rebalancing. For others, it was a worrying sign that even Bitcoin’s first believers are winning. Crypto analyst and commentator Scott Melker fueled the flames with a very written publication in X.
“Bitcoin is surprising,” he wrote on July 26. “But it has obviously been co -opted to some extent by the same people who was created as coverage. Many of the most ardent early whales have seen their shaking faith and have been selling at these prices.”
The comment began a fierce debate that covered influencers, merchants and cryptographic ideologues, many of which did not agree with what the whale exit meant, and if Melker’s frame was precise.
Some download concern
Critics of Melker’s interpretation argued that a transaction, without taking into account size, does not mean ideological abandonment. They noticed that the sale was explicitly linked to patrimonial planning, not a loss of conviction. Others pointed out that wallet movements can be misleading, and the sale does not automatically mean that an investor has renounced the long -term asset.
Some community members even called the speculative comment, pointing out OGs such as Adam Back and others who continue to accumulate. Later, Melker clarified that he was “just pointing out what I have been listening to”, not declaring his own point of view.
Others see a pattern
The supporters of Melker took the exit of the whale as emblematic of a broader change. With Bitcoin more and more absorbed by traditional finances, through ETF, corporate treasures and custody solutions, some are concerned that the asset has derived from its Cypherpunk roots.
For this group, the transformation of Bitcoin into a negotiable instrument, regulated and largely outside the chain is a distortion of its founding vision. If the first believers are losing interest, they argue, it can be a symptom that Bitcoin becomes less about individual sovereignty and more about financial engineering.
Open Bitcoin Access Design defendant
Another group delayed the premise that institutional participation is equivalent to ideological failure. In his opinion, the Bitcoin value lies in its neutrality: its rules apply to all, whether they are retail users or Wall Street funds. Censorship resistance, not exclusion, is the base.
These commentators argued that the increase in ETF and the adoption of custody was inevitable and even necessary, if Bitcoin must achieve broad monetary relevance. From this perspective, whale exits are simply a part of mature capital flows, not a sign of philosophical surrender.
Safety and use questions
The debate also triggered deeper concerns about the Bitcoin function. If most BTC remains a passive value store and rarely is done, how will the network safe after hearing? With the fall of mining rewards and the use of the chain in the chain, some concern that transaction rates alone may not maintain the integrity of the network in the long term.
A revealing moment
While Melker’s publication did not move the markets, he highlighted a critical question: what does it mean when the first believers sell? Is it a warning signal or natural redistribution? A loss of faith, or a sign of progress?
The transaction of $ 9 billion of Galaxy did not offer definitive responses. But the reactions that followed revealed how restless it is still the evolutionary role of Bitcoin. Among the vision of which he was born and the institutions that now shape it, the ideological crack is no longer theoretical, it is developing in real time.
