Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 17. (Read 14269 times)

Yes, the people under this Michael Saylor tweet began to develop the topic around the ratio of the% indicated by him, well, the context of the tweet is, as it seems to me, regret about what happened, because it is likely that the moment will come when the remaining 25% will cost much more than the 75% that Musk sold.

What important information am I missing in that tweet?  Is it just a blatantly autistic response to Musk's sale, or is there more to it?  This is one thing that bugs me about e-mails, posts, tweets, and basically all forms of written communication: it's very hard to determine the tone of what you're reading.  I don't know if he's being sarcastic or whatever else; it just looks like a weird tweet to me.

But boy, I'm happy for Michael Saylor that bitcoin didn't (or hasn't yet) continue to drop.  He must have been sweating just a little bit when it fell below $20k, no matter how stoic he appears in interviews.  MSTR's stock hasn't overreacted to bitcoin's price, either.

In the second quarter, Tesla got rid of most of its bitcoin reserves by selling 75% of the available ones, now the crypto assets on Tesla's balance sheet amount to $218 million, at one time Michael Saylor thanked Musk for buying bitcoin for $1.5 billion.

Micheal Saylor is pushing the “bitcoin strategy” narrative:





As a bonus, an earlier version of the same tweet, now deleted:

I think this is the right reason.

Microstrategy as a company is basically a zombie company. Have you ever heard of a Microstrategy product before it became known for their bitcoin investment? Me neither.

The vast majority of his buys have been made against issue of new debt or equity. I guess the small buys of 10sh millions are financed from cash flows from company converted into bitcoin.
I guess this is pretty evident from the spreadsheet where I kept track of the source of every buy via a colour coding.

Of course, my statement that you cited was meant a bit tongue in cheek - which means that it was a bit of an exaggeration, and even though Saylor likely is a bit disappointed with BTC's price drops of the last month or more, I doubt that his confidence would have really been shaken in any kind of substantial and/or meaningful way... so maybe that is one of the difficulties in my making those kinds of statements . .because the baloney propaganda continues to be "concerned" about the level of Saylor's ongoing conviction in regards to his already made bitcoin purchases - averaging higher prices.

Of no doubt microstrategy has it best strategy inplace for the bitcoin market and price, they can't just persists on making buys without considering some quogent areas, long term bitcoin investment is one of the most secured ways for the future in cryptocurrency considering it previous history right from inception, from the year 2009 till date and it past events record could attest to the certainty for a rising in price.


Aside from bitcoin being use as digital currency for exchange there are other applicable aspect where bitcoin has more advantage it serves it's investors such as, store of value, decentralized digital assets, profitable investment, medium of exchange and the likes.

He is partly afraid of making bigger purchase but he doesnt want to stop purchasing it otherwise alot of people would question his confidence in all of his bitcoin holdings. Pretty sure that we will get alot more small size purchase like this in the upcoming weeks unless btc somehow climb up to 30k or something then he might be confident afterward to make bigger purchase

or unless he is almost out of cash for now therefore making smaller purchases

You seem to be talking positive about Saylor but also questioning his survivability in terms of the next "extreme market conditions" if they come.  What do you consider "extreme market conditions?"  $18k?  $16k?  $13k?  $10k?  $8k?  $3k?  If you pick a number for how far down would be "extreme market conditions," then how long would the BTC price have to stay down there in order for it to rise to the level of "extreme market conditions?"

Furthermore, how likely do you believe various levels of "extreme market conditions" to be?  Is it possible that the bottom is in? Is it possible that we still might get some additional failures of various other "highly leveraged" companies in the bitcoin space by merely staying down in our current prices for a certain extended period of time?  3-9 months?

I know that none of us understand all of the various facts or even the various hypotheticals that could end up playing out from what might be going on behind the scenes, whether we know some of the facts or not.  At the same, time there are some forum members who seem to create impressions and implications that they know more than they actually know.. so in that regard, sometimes it might be helpful to figure out what kinds of "extreme market conditions" do you believe are going to start to cause someone like Saylor to start to have to show weakening signs?  Some of us might speculate that he has already shown a wee bit of weakening signs by the lower amounts of his most recent BTC purchase - adding ONLY a mere little $10 million of additional BTC at around $20k.

Don't you see that Saylor is already panicking by being so whimpy with his additional purchases of ONLY $10 million?  He flinched, no?  He's showing weakness?  and lack of confidence, no?

To be precise, we're not speculating what Saylor did. but his problem is in managing his finances in maintaining the mstr market cycle with the investment he makes in btc. If we follow Saylor steps, we are not at all surprised because he is an expert in IT and even his knowledge is a role model for big investors. Now this situation might be interesting to discuss when extreme market conditions recently occurred where btc could drop quite deep to reach $17k due to massive sell-off by big investors and can Saylor survive in such situation if extreme market conditions happen again, Especially if he uses the Leverage strategy.

No, I also read it differently so that found the contradictory intent of @DU18 explanation, we can simply conclude that Saylor is not at all in a state of emergency as some assumptions from the previous page post, in fact Saylor has added another $10 million by buying bitcoin on the price is lower and supposedly $10 million can be added to the reserve assets to sustain the liquidation of the previous bitcoin purchases.

So we can't speculate to compare the amount of Microstrategy investment with the current price, their commitment to hold bitcoin as much as they can for the long term, maybe 10 or 20 years from now they are getting high profits based on the historical cycle of the Bitcoin market movement from year to year and very Bitcoin potential could reach ATH in the long term.

Am I the only one who reads it differently, if an ardent believer in Bitcoin’s value in the future made a purchase for 10 million then we can’t expect many cash payments in the next 6 months.

In general, the idea of buying and not selling is in itself reassuring to the markets, but these people invest in the long-term, so these currencies will be sold within 10 to 20 years, and therefore unless they are forced, there is no reason to sell them.

Bitcoin does not need to get to ATH for Saylor to be profitable from BTC and/or to even had made a good investment decision by putting money into bitcoin.

Of course, there are direct price considerations in which there may well be goals/preferences that bitcoin holds its value better than the dollar.. and that seems to have really great likelihood - almost like a no brainer.. so if the dollar ends up devaluing 10% per year, then he should at least want Bitcoin to appreciate by that much (as well to include whatever costs that he had incurred to service various bitcoin-related debts that he incurred by accumulating and holding BTC)..  

Another thing is that if his average cost per BTC is $30k.. then that may well be the measuring starting point in terms of figuring out where he would prefer BTC to be in order to be profitable (or even break-even profitable)..   Perhaps $60k by August 2027?  which would be 7 years from the time that he started buying BTC.   I think that there are pretty decent odds that BTC prices will be $60k or greater by August 2027, and of course, you have the right to believe that the odds are not that great and/or you believe that it is not a good bet..  There are a lot of people (including but not limited to no coiners) who either believe that or they feel really uncertain about bitcoin, and a large majority of them have hardly any clue about what bitcoin is and/or how bitcoin is differentiable from other assets and currencies.  

So, it seems that knowing bitcoin's value proposition and also being able to act upon such value proposition is a good thing for Saylor/MSTR and any of the other BTC HODLers and accumulators out there in the world... still a small part of the population.. Oh and by the way, in recent times some of the real real real true BTC believers got reckt as fuck in recent times and that is not because of their belief, but instead their choice to bet like degenerate gamblers - and sure Saylor/MSTR has been truly aggressive in his BTC accumulation strategies, but his level of aggressiveness is not even close to the level of gambling that many of the folks currently getting reckt (and actually some of those getting reckt currently are likely innocent bystanders who just did not realize the amount of risk that they were taking with some of the products that they bough because they were trying to receive yield on their bitcoin.. which truly should not be necessary with an investment like bitcoin. at least not with large portions of your BTC stash)...

The nature of any asymmetric bet to the upside is that the potential is likely to go way beyond the minimum break even price points (such as going beyond $60k in August 2027).  Of course, using leverage changes some of the calculations, too.. in terms of weighing downside versus upside risks and calculating the various expected values based on expected BTC price performance.


Saylor has already unambiguously proclaimed that his investment timeline for bitcoin is longterm, and several of his bitcoin related debts are structured 4-7 years from the time that they started, so some of those could start coming due in 3-5 years... but still there is no sign that he is even thinking about the matter in 1-2 year time horizons as you Tomohisa seem to consider some kind of relevant calculation that he is not even framing the matter in that kind of way.. which seems to be that you are trying to place some kind of different framework upon the supposed dilemmas that exist for Saylor/MSTR.

And, why is what Saylor/MSTR doing NOT some variation of DCA?  Go ahead explain.  Do you think that since he is using leverage, then that is not DCA?  Do you think that DCA has to come in some kind of specific increment or a some kind of expected amount?

I agree that there may well be something going on beyond DCA, such as buying on dips and lump sum investing, but there is also ongoing regularity to the process (and there is no selling or fucking around with selling), so I have troubles understanding how what Saylor/MSTR has been doing in the past 2 years is very much different from DCA and cannot be referred to DCA in a kind of short-hand descriptive overview of what is mostly happening?

Well, he bought it at spot so at least he can still convince his investors to keep it for around a year or two more. But he is slowly running out of time if Bitcoin price back to below $10k which put him at loss for all of his DCA (21,454 BTC @$11k and 16,796 BTC @$10k). Can we even call all of his investments in Bitcoin as DCA?

MicroStrategy's investments in bitcoin for the long term are confirmed by the senior director of cash operations and investor relations Shirish Jajodia. When asked about what steps the company is planning to take in the current situation (the company's assets in bitcoins fell by $3.4 billion from $5.9 billion to $2.45 billion), he replied that MicroStrategy does not plan to sell bitcoins and that this the position is supported by investors.

https://fortune.com/2022/07/02/microstrategys-bitcoin-holdings-take-a-record-3-4-billion-hit-the-company-says-its-playing-the-long-game/

It's still hard to know how Saylor thinks about his investments right now, because what he's done for Bitcoin and microstrategy companies isn't a bad thing. Because he sees the price of Bitcoin which is now very far from ATH so he has the confidence and courage to put the company's money into Bitcoin with the hope of greater profits even though it also has risks. And I think he definitely understands that

I've tried to understand it well, but that's my assumption so far about the situation. But I never said Saylor was in a pinch about her decision to invest in bitcoin. He had something to keep him going and it wasn't going to liquidate his position so easily. I'm just imagining the kind of emergency that might happen to him if there's a lot of pressure from MSTR shareholders that coincides with a drop in the bitcoin price lower.

I'm also sure that he's not as panicked as I thought, of course that's true because he has indicated holding 129,699 bitcoin as of 06/28/2022 and that equates to $2,466,874,980 at current prices. So I still believe he's not in big trouble yet especially since bitcoin still has a pretty big potential to give him big profits in the long term.

From several sources that I have read, until now I see Michael Saylor is still very optimistic that MicroStrategy will not be at risk of being liquidated even though the price of Bitcoin is going down.
In this case I admit that I do not understand in detail like your thoughts regarding MicroStrategy and after I read your post, I believe as you will say that sooner or later legal problems will occur if conditions do not change.

I can't imagine what his underlying thought was that if the Bitcoin price dropped below $3,562, the company could provide other guarantees.

It seems to me that you might need to read this thread a bit better in terms of actually attempting to understand what Saylor is doing and including understanding what I had posted in terms of my own situation.

You make it sound as if Saylor is about to have some kind of an  emergency... which is not the case. Saylor has already indicated that he has holds enough bitcoin that are unencumbered to cover his various positions down into the $3ks (just like DU18 mentioned), and even if BTC goes into the $3ks that would not mean that he is going to get liquidated because he has other things that he could do. including that the company has other assets beside bitcoin.. he is not in any kind of a panic situation - as you seem to be implying.

Regarding his disclosure to the public (since he is running a public company), it seems that he has bent over backwards to disclose and to over-disclose and even give shareholders notice regarding changes in the company's choices to take bitcoin onto its reserves in August 2020.  Sure minority shareholders can sue, but  they are likely going to have a lot of difficulties coming anywhere close to have a case that will not get dismissed under summary judgement or some other cursory dismissal because there is no evidence that Saylor did anything wrong, even if you and some members are proclaiming that he is being reckless blah blah blah.. but he already said that was what he was going to do.. he does not have further obligations, and if they are going to get anywhere they are going to need to show more evidence than the fact that the BTC price has been coming down and whining about it... whining does not win those kinds of cases, you have to show pretty damned reckless or deceitful conduct more than the baloney superficial whining that you and some other forum members have been postulating to be sufficiently adequate in order to not get laughed out of the court,... even if they could find an attorney to file such a lame and likely baseless (absent way better evidence of wrongdoing) claim in the first place..

Saylor's investment system might be like you say some kind of DCA system but I don't think he does that but he does it instantly when he has money just look at the chart you uploaded. maybe the chart you uploaded isn't very complete because it doesn't include the date and time when Saylor bought BTC. But it's not a big deal because he really wants to withhold btc from the first purchase.

So behind all this, does Saylor really think that the DCA strategy will help offset the company's balance sheet a bit, because now microstrategy companies rely heavily on Bitcoin price movements because their finances are invested in bitcoin.