Why Michael Saylor Should Stop Pitching His ‘Orange Check’ Twitter Plan

Michael Saylor, Please Stop Pitching Your Terrible Bitcoin Twitter Plan

Michael Saylor has a plan to save lots of Twitter from spambots and different unhealthy actors and he needs you to learn about it.

Saylor, the CEO of software program firm Microstrategy, grew to become a number one Bitcoin maximalist in 2020, when MicroStrategy began to construct up its Bitcoin reserves, with Saylor himself shopping for over 17,000 Bitcoin tokens beneath $10,000.

Currently, MicroStrategy continues to be the biggest company holder of Bitcoin, adopted by Tesla’s Bitcoin holdings. On Wednesday, MicroStrategy’s inventory dropped to a $165 per share low, with Bitcoin dropping beneath $30,000.

‘Orange Check’ Plan

The ‘orange check’ plan is one thing that Saylor has been mulling over since at the very least 2021, when the manager first steered that Bitcoin’s Lightning Network might by some means be used to “verify” accounts on Twitter. Specifically, Saylor proposed utilizing orange tick marks on Twitter profiles to segregate bots from precise people.


He has publicly messaged Elon Musk on at the very least 5 separate events about his plan, which additionally included the likes of Twitter CEO Parag Nawal, Cameron Winklevoss, and Jordan Peterson amongst others.

Yet, Saylor made no point out of how the verification course of would work, and for a while, it appeared as if his whole thought was mercifully forgotten about.

Then we entered into 2022, when Saylor determined it was time to mud off the plan and shill it round to Twitter, and anybody who had the power to listen to it.

Plan orange examine is the method by which particular person customers would make use of Bitcoin’s Lightning Network to deposit round $20 to Twitter. In return, these customers would obtain a verified orange examine mark subsequent to their identify. 

If somebody with an orange examine was discovered to behave improperly, the trusted Twitter moderation workforce would take the $20 as a punitive measure. Saylor’s idea is that the chance of dropping this layer would deter spammers and different malicious actors from behaving improperly.

There’s only one small drawback – the “orange check” plan which Saylor persists in shilling, is definitely fairly unhealthy, and easily received’t work as meant.

Users can’t belief Twitter’s moderation course of

In the ocean of explanation why orange checks are a foul thought, the primary is that it misaligns incentives. It doesn’t take an knowledgeable in sport idea to work out {that a} $20 deposit would additional empower faceless Twitter moderators, whereas creating extra dangers to abnormal customers.

For these of you who’ve been lucky to by no means fall foul of Twitter “moderators,” let me clarify how the system works.

Once Twitter finds you “guilty” of an infraction, customers have two decisions.

The first is to confess your guilt and take no matter punishment Twitter deems applicable.

The second is to combat your case, wait by means of an arbitration course of longer than the punishment itself (throughout which your account stays suspended, after which be discovered responsible once more, receiving a worse punishment for protesting your innocence within the first place.

In my expertise, the moderation course of is a phony conflict, and unlikely to contain clever human intervention in any respect. 

For instance, on one event, I used to be discovered responsible of infringing Twitter’s “self-harm” guidelines after I jokingly made a reference to committing seppuku for some minor fake pas. Having defined within the enchantment course of that I didn’t observe Bushido, didn’t dwell in feudal Japan, was not suicidal and didn’t personal a Samurai sword, the Twitter moderation workforce fastidiously reconsidered their clearly improper verdict, discovering me fully responsible another time. 

Now, if $20 of my cash had been on the road, would Twitter moderators have been kind of inclined to be extra sympathetic to my case? I believe much less.

Quite merely, orange examine marks would permit Twitter to revenue from the distress of abnormal Crypto Twitter customers, and would the truth is encourage them to look with much less favor upon pleas of innocence. 

There’s a motive why juries don’t obtain bonuses for delivering responsible verdicts.

Falsely flagging “offensive” posts

In the tradition conflict among the many left wing, proper wing, and regular individuals simply making an attempt to get on with their day, there appears to be only a few honest guidelines of engagement – primarily when opposing factions attempt to falsely flag an “offensive post” that the opposite occasion has posted.

Specifically, people who “falsely flag” an opponent’s submit in the end does this to deprive them of entry to their social media channels. Under Saylor’s deposit scheme, this may in the end hand people a brand new weapon and mechanism to financially harm their opponents.

Rather than stopping unhealthy habits, orange examine marks would as an alternative incentivize it. In different phrases, anybody with an orange examine mark would successfully have a goal on their again, mendacity in wait as a possible sufferer.

A value value paying?

The central thesis of Saylor’s proposal is that his $20 deposit scheme would deter spammers and different unhealthy actors. The drawback is that these unhealthy actors, in contrast to most abnormal customers, submit on social media for revenue.

How many posts does a scammer should make to discover a keen mark and a giant rating? I don’t know, however isn’t it at the very least potential that these scammers would possibly look upon the $20 deposit as the value of doing enterprise? 

Having secured the “legitimacy” of an orange examine mark, would possibly scammers not search to leverage this perceived authenticity to perpetuate their rip-off? I can solely guess on these factors, however there are sufficient inquiries to make me pause for thought.

Musk doesn’t repair this

What about Elon – received’t his Twitter takeover invalidate the substantive a part of my argument?


Even if every part at Twitter was to considerably change because of Musk’s takeover, the numerous issues with Saylor’s plan stay. Incentives stay misaligned, and abnormal customers would want to take a $20 leap of religion. That’s all properly and good till you lose your first $20.

Would you wish to roll the cube once more?

Thanks to his assist for Bitcoin and Dogecoin, Musk has turn into a well known determine within the cryptosphere, however has but to actually pit himself in opposition to one thing actually difficult. So far the world’s richest man has solely ever bothered himself with easy on a regular basis issues like creating self-driving automobiles or launching individuals into orbit across the planet Earth.

Should Musk truly purchase Twitter, the billionaire would possibly even have to begin working for a dwelling.

Just think about how you’ll really feel if Musk “stole” your $20 for a minor (poorly moderated) Twitter infraction?

Not excellent, and Musk should absolutely know this.

It’s not definitely worth the squeeze

While Saylor is among the nice advocates for Bitcoin, with a lot to admire about his dedication to the trigger, it’s for that reason I’d dearly like to cease slapping my palm instantly into my face each time Saylor airs this horrible plan.

So, with all due respect, I say this to you, Michael Saylor:

Please cease pitching your horrible Bitcoin Twitter plan. The juice from this orange examine mark merely ain’t definitely worth the squeeze.

What do you concentrate on this topic? Write to us and inform us!.


All the knowledge contained on our web site is printed in good religion and for common data functions solely. Any motion the reader takes upon the knowledge discovered on our web site is strictly at their very own danger.

Source link


Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.