On March 11, 2025, a significant assembly of prominent Bitcoin advocates took place in Washington, D.C., with arrangements made by a leading Bitcoin think tank.
Michael Saylor delivered a passionate address regarding Bitcoin’s role in the United States. Following the speech, a video shared on X ignited discussions about the necessity for a “better Bitcoin.” Pierre Rochard from Riot Platforms joined the conversation, sharing his perspective on the impossibility of improving Bitcoin.
The controversy began when podcaster, entrepreneur, and angel investor Jason Calacanis reacted to Saylor’s remarks. Saylor’s address asserted that as a superpower, the U.S. needs to dominate the digital realm to maintain its global standing, elaborating on Bitcoin’s significance and the necessity for America to possess a substantial amount of it.
Calacanis reposted the video, stating that Saylor’s actions were harming the Bitcoin ecosystem and brand through his persistent promotion and high-stakes accumulation strategies. He argued there is “too much centralization, too much exaggeration, and too many conflicts,” concluding that Saylor has laid the groundwork for the emergence of “a better Bitcoin.”
Bitcoin maximalists did not ignore this remark, asserting that launching “a better Bitcoin” is impossible, suggesting that Calacanis simply lacks a proper understanding of Bitcoin. Matty Ice from Consensus Pro responded, emphasizing that one cannot “duplicate the network effects, security, decentralization, origin story, etc.,” and argued that Saylor’s significant Bitcoin ownership does not equate to centralization.
Enter Pierre Rochard
Pierre Rochard, Vice President of Research at Riot Platforms, offered a thorough rebuttal to Calacanis’ concerns. He posited that decentralization is woven into Bitcoin’s design and proof-of-work, and the global distribution of nodes is far more critical than Bitcoin’s concentration in any one individual’s hands. He asserted that owning a large amount of BTC does not grant power to manipulate the network. Rochard highlighted the consensus rules, stating that “even a prominent advocate or a single large holder must adhere to the same validation and consensus processes as all other users.”
Rochard contended that Saylor’s activities have less impact on Bitcoin’s value than factors such as its predictable issuance schedule, global accessibility, security, and the decentralized community of node operators. Regardless of how aggressively one influencer promotes Bitcoin, every participant is treated equally, with no individual or institution enjoying special privileges. To reinforce his argument, Rochard pointed out that Bitcoin has withstood various major disruptions, including significant exchange failures and market fluctuations, without compromising its functionality.
While Rochard did not directly claim that a “better Bitcoin” is unachievable, he did emphasize that its creation is improbable. Producing a “better Bitcoin” would necessitate challenging Bitcoin’s unique historical significance and its prevailing position regarding liquidity, security, and other traits. He observed that existing alternative coins and tokens possess long-standing vulnerabilities, and attempts to replicate Bitcoin’s structure have not succeeded.
In summary, Rochard reiterated that independent verification, decentralization, and a permissionless nature have always been more critical to the Bitcoin network than any crises or the credibility of particular influencers. “The core properties of the protocol — secure, permissionless, and verifiable by anyone — ensure that Bitcoin’s fundamental promise remains intact.”
In a response, a user known as “Chad” attempted to bolster critiques of Bitcoin, arguing that figures like Saylor are tarnishing the brand, distorting the market, and jeopardizing Bitcoin’s “decentralized ethos.” These concerns, however, were met with dismissive responses.
Rochard’s comprehensive response effectively wrapped up the discussion, and interestingly, Calacanis did not reply to Rochard afterward.
What Points Did Rochard Make in His Speech?
Pierre Rochard also took the stage at the Washington, D.C. event, delivering a talk aimed at asserting Bitcoin’s superiority over gold. His points added depth to the ongoing debate regarding Bitcoin’s qualities.
Rochard’s remarks centered on the uncertainty surrounding whether the gold in Fort Knox still exists. He asserted that the last audit, which happened 50 years ago, was insufficient; it merely involved a senator visually inspecting what he claimed was gold and declaring everything satisfactory.
Rochard estimates that Fort Knox must contain approximately $425 billion worth of gold and expresses a desire for a legitimate audit involving detailed processes like assays and sonograms to confirm the gold’s purity. He noted that such procedures would be extensive and require specialized knowledge.
Furthermore, he argued that even if all the gold in Fort Knox is genuine, we still cannot ascertain how much of the global supply is stored there, particularly when gold could be sourced from outer space. In contrast, Bitcoin’s purity can be verified by anyone with internet access. The process of calculating how much of the total supply corresponds to any given amount of Bitcoin is straightforward, and auditing Bitcoin is relatively simple. Additionally, securing and transporting Bitcoin is far more efficient and cost-effective than managing gold.
Overall, Rochard’s comments reflect sentiments previously expressed by Saylor and other Bitcoin advocates, all of whom promote a more aggressive approach to purchasing BTC. In his address, Saylor suggested that by 2035, 99% of Bitcoin’s total supply would be mined, and that the U.S. must consolidate its dominance in Bitcoin by then.