Michael Saylor published a full-length position paper on X on Saturday afternoon, arriving at one thesis: he opposes BIP-110. The opener frames his opponents charitably. “Many Bitcoiners I respect support BIP-110. They want to keep validation accessible, protect node operators from unwanted costs and content, preserve affordable payments, and keep Bitcoin focused on sound money rather than general-purpose data storage. Those are serious concerns. I share the objectives. I disagree about the remedy.” The 110-reason enumeration sits on GitHub. The X Article stakes the position. This is the Capitalist tier weighing in on a Technologist-tier debate — cap-structure operators normally stay out of protocol politics. Saylor did not. The signal: the operator of the largest public Bitcoin treasury put his byline on a live consensus question in position-paper form. Whether the softfork advances or stalls, the fact that Saylor took the pen is the news. Mempolitics does not pick sides on protocol changes. The BIP-110 supporters and the BIP-110 skeptics both have serious operator-class voices. What we report: Saylor moved, the paper is public, and the debate now has a Capitalist-tier authored position on record. Everyone with standing on either side can read it, and can rebut. The cap is still twenty-one million. Tick tock. Next block.