Riot Platforms’ Pierre Rochard Argues Against the Possibility of a “Better Bitcoin”

At a recent Bitcoin Policy Institute event in Washington, D.C., the debate over Bitcoin’s future ignited as industry leaders clashed over its significance and the potential for a superior alternative. Michael Saylor, CEO of MicroStrategy, underscored Bitcoin’s crucial role in America’s global standing, while entrepreneur Jason Calacanis challenged Saylor’s approach, suggesting it could pave the way for a “better Bitcoin.” Pierre Rochard, VP of Research at Riot Platforms, Inc., countered these claims with a staunch defense of Bitcoin’s unique attributes, arguing that its inherent decentralization and resilience make the need for a “better Bitcoin” highly improbable.

• Bitcoin Policy Institute event, Washington, D.C., March 11, 2025
• Michael Saylor, Jason Calacanis, Pierre Rochard debate Bitcoin’s future
• Rochard defends Bitcoin’s unique position and resilience

The Event

The Bitcoin Policy Institute, dedicated to fostering policy-related discussions around Bitcoin, hosted this pivotal event on March 11, 2025. Bringing together key figures like Saylor, Calacanis, and Rochard, the gathering provided a platform for intense debates on the future of cryptocurrency.

Debating Bitcoin’s Future

Michael Saylor, a vocal advocate for Bitcoin, emphasized its importance to America’s global financial standing. He highlighted that by 2035, 99% of Bitcoin’s total supply will be mined, reinforcing the narrative of Bitcoin’s finite nature and digital scarcity. This scarcity is a key factor driving Bitcoin’s value proposition, making it an attractive long-term investment.

However, entrepreneur Jason Calacanis took issue with Saylor’s approach, arguing that it could damage Bitcoin’s ecosystem. Calacanis criticized Saylor for centralization, hyperbole, and high-risk accumulation techniques, suggesting these actions could set the stage for a “better Bitcoin.” His perspective reflects broader concerns within the cryptocurrency community about the influence of key figures and the potential for centralization within the Bitcoin network.

Rochard’s Defense

Pierre Rochard, representing Riot Platforms, Inc., a leading Bitcoin mining company, delivered a robust defense of Bitcoin. He emphasized that Bitcoin’s design, rooted in decentralization and proof-of-work, makes it inherently resilient. Decentralization means Bitcoin is managed by a network of users worldwide, not controlled by any single entity, which enhances its security and resilience. Proof-of-work is the system that requires computational effort to validate transactions, ensuring the integrity of the network.

Decentralization is inherent to Bitcoin’s design and proof-of-work, and the distribution of nodes around the globe matters more than the accumulation of bitcoins in the hands of one person.

Rochard’s arguments highlight the strength of Bitcoin’s network effects and its historical role in the cryptocurrency space. He also drew a compelling comparison between Bitcoin and gold, particularly in terms of verifiability and auditability. Rochard criticized the opacity surrounding gold audits, such as those at Fort Knox, pointing out a significant flaw in traditional asset verification.

The latest audit that occurred 50 years ago wasn’t a real audit, as it was just a senator who looked at what he visually identified as gold and decided that everything was fine.

In contrast, Bitcoin’s blockchain allows for transparent and verifiable audits by anyone, underscoring its superiority as a digital asset. This transparency ensures that the total supply and ownership of Bitcoin can be accurately tracked and verified by anyone with an internet connection.

Broader Implications

The debate sparked by Saylor, Calacanis, and Rochard reflects broader discussions within the cryptocurrency community about Bitcoin’s future and its role in the global financial system. While some argue for alternatives that could address perceived shortcomings, Rochard’s defense of Bitcoin’s unique attributes suggests that creating a “better Bitcoin” remains a formidable challenge.

Amidst these discussions, the Dogecoin community has responded to Calacanis’ comments, suggesting that Dogecoin could be considered a “better Bitcoin” due to its tokenomics designed for practical payments. However, Bitcoin maximalists like Matteo Pellegrini and Matty Ice from Consensus Pro argue that Bitcoin’s digital scarcity and network effects cannot be replicated, likening the idea of a “better Bitcoin” to reinventing the wheel.

As the cryptocurrency landscape continues to evolve, the resilience of Bitcoin, tested through numerous challenges such as exchange collapses and market volatility, remains a testament to its enduring value and potential. Rochard’s insights remind us that while the debate over Bitcoin’s future continues, its fundamental promise remains uncompromised by the efforts of any single individual or entity.

Key Takeaways and Questions

What was the main argument against the need for a “better Bitcoin”?

Pierre Rochard argued that Bitcoin’s inherent decentralization and robust network effects make the creation of a “better Bitcoin” highly improbable.

How did Pierre Rochard compare Bitcoin to gold?

Rochard highlighted Bitcoin’s verifiability and ease of audit, contrasting it with the challenges and lack of transparency in auditing gold, particularly at Fort Knox.

What is the predicted status of Bitcoin’s supply by 2035?

By 2035, 99% of Bitcoin’s total supply will be mined, according to Michael Saylor’s speech.

What criticisms did Jason Calacanis level against Michael Saylor?

Calacanis criticized Saylor for damaging Bitcoin’s brand through centralization, hyperbole, and high-risk accumulation techniques, suggesting these actions set the stage for a “better Bitcoin.”

What role does the Bitcoin Policy Institute play in this context?

The Bitcoin Policy Institute organized the event where these discussions took place, indicating its role in facilitating policy-related conversations around Bitcoin.