Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 22. (Read 18747 times)

Right at this time they would not take the risk of selling the coins like he said and buy back because their average price is still $30k around and they are in accumulation phase at this time with addition of 2500BTC and if they have decision of selling they wouldn't have made the purchase so it's not right.

As already pointed out by @Lucius that account is in rush to attract followers and you can clearly see his pinned tweet saying whosoever actively reply to his tweet grows his account and what his intentions are.And there are some attacks on Saylor as well in other tweets in order to promote his account with such tweets.

The Saylor has also said about bitcoin LN solutions and application in 2023 and have clear agenda in his mind with accumulating more and more bitcoin at every dip so why should he sell at loss and again hold for even more long term to regain his profits position? So this tweet has no meaning as if you follow Saylor Twitter and see his spaces you can have idea about his next moves and holding of bitcoin.

There were already several "dramatic" tweets from the same account that I had the opportunity to see in WO, and when I checked what exactly it was about, I discovered that the person from that account was obviously attracting new followers with even more sensational titles, in order to invite them later to join him on Telegram where he is obviously shilling some shitcoin projects.

Of course, Saylor can sell the entire company if he wants to, but to sell Bitcoins at a time like this does not seem logical at all, especially if he recently made a new purchase.

This piece of information is even more dramatically dubious than the previous tweet.
No way anyone would discover Macro/Microstrategy address(es), unless they are forced to publish it (which I doubt). Even taking all the coins on a single address is a suboptimal practice in so many ways.

it seems the whale chart is trying to suggest he wants to short the market of his 132k coins and put a buy in to create 182k

which basic math suggests
sell at $16.5k =$2.178b
which would need a buy in at the rate of ~$12k/btc to yield 182k coin

its a bit late to be playing games to suggest influencers are going short.
everyone knows this is the era of going long.

I wouldn't comment this tweet.
This is clearly bullshit coming from an anonymous account with a clear agenda in mind.
Micheal Taylor is of course very free to sell his bitcoin, and go short another 50K apparently.
But I bet he's smart enough not to make anyone aware of this.

The source is muddled, not strong even the one providing the information has to clarify that to justify, The market situation when saylor announced the purchase of Btc made on the 24th in Q4 of this year did not have a stronger bullish impact on BTC, well before that the market situation would have been quite good  if saylor had announced about buying BTC at least the upside would have occurred even getting stronger support from traders to enter.

i also got this



but like JJG said they only study 1 hour to say they are experts in this industry.

I am o.k. to leave the other portions of your post for now too.. .. but in regards to your last point, how about you zoom out a wee bit MOAR better to a representative period in your attempted comparison rather than a seemingly self-selected spin period? 

There are a lot of ways to assess bitcoin versus other possible investments/assets.. and I would think that the longer (and more information) will give you better and more accurate pictures/ideas than merely looking at a selected period, such as your chosen past 3 months.

Bitcoin was a baby 13 years ago in 2009, yet I get the sense that it would not be fair to use that.. .. yet even if we go from the late 2013 top (not necessarily conceding such a technique as representative), what do you see with a longer period of around 9 years?  let's say that the starting price point for bitcoin s $1k per bitcoin, then hey.. that should be easier to attempt to assess what is going on, no?   

What are the comparisons that you would like to make with bitcoin? if you start from $1k per bitcoin in late 2013 and compare other assets and/or currencies?  Would you want to compare equities like the stock market? and/or currencies? and/or property and/or commodities, such as gold?  Would those kinds of comparisons be representative of anything? or potentially help to inform you what is going on?    Hopefully you are not wanting to distract yourself and compare shitcoins, but surely there are a lot of folks who want to include shitcoins and other "crypto" projects into the mix - and thinking that those kinds of information points are relevant, and they are not completely irrelevant I would concede, but I still doubt that the vast majority of the meaning is in bitcoin.. and bitcoin is the proper comparison asset (just like Saylor seems to emphasize too.. what a coincidence?  I share frameworks with Saylor (at least for now) and many of the other bitcoin maxis... do you consider yourself a bitcoin maxi, or are you still trying to find yourself with your supposed smarter than everyone else skepticism?  Don't get me wrong.  I don't dislike you.. I am just attempting to argue substantive points.. including one of your main theses in which you believe Saylor going too far on the degenerate gambler side of the spectrum.. to the extent that you have even clarified your vague enough to seemingly wanna-be right positions.

Do you consider that when we may likely have the most significant wealth transfer in history going on, there might be some confusing information that is in the space and even in the mainstream media?  Direct battles against bitcoin but also informational battles against bitcoin. 

Where are you at?   

Do you even understand bitcoin sufficiently well enough in order to understand what bitcoin is and what it offers and/or maybe even how you might allocate your value (time, psychology, financial) into it (if you so choose) as compared with allocating of your value into other assets?

It's your choice regarding both how you allocate for yourself and also how you talk about these kinds of bitcoin-related matters with others (whether in real life or in forums like this)... and I am not trying to misrepresent anything that you might have said, even if some of the times I might have wanted to emphasize in order to make counter-points to the points (if anything potentially interesting) that you may have been making or attempting to make.


FTFY...

In regards to your last question, the figure came out of someone's ass... (which largely means that we should not be treating some of the bullshit very seriously.. merely because someone who seems to be somewhat smart might have said it)... and that someone likely spent less than 100 hours studying bitcoin... but of course, there are a lot of folks with less than 100 hours studying bitcoin who proclaim to be experts.. or at least able to spread purportedly "informed" bitcoin-related newses.

the question

the answer

what they done was sell of a subset of coins
EG

by selling some of the, lets say the [7002 coins at $59187 price] alllotment (id choose those coins if i was tax burden shuffling). they reduced holding down to 6298 via selling that allotment, to declare a 'paper loss'

but now have an extra 810 coins at $16,845

as shown just using those few trades of the screen shots above

which brings down the average

brought those averages down from $47k to $45k

so they managed to use this 2022 tax year status to have a "paper loss" to not pay tax.
while also increase coins and also bring the average down of whole holdings

which is a good business strategy on all fronts

I am pretty sure I have already made this analogy before in this thread.
Do you remember that Berkshire Hathaway was a textile company? Well, Microstrategy is going to be the Berkshire Hataway of the XXI century. In a few decades no one will ever remember that Microstrategy used to sell software.

Bitcoin has been the main business of Microstrategy since their first purchase.

the first time saylor and microstrategy sold their btc holdings and it was only two days apart before saylor made a repurchase. Now from what I understand why microstrategy sells at $16776 and buys at $16845 why did he waste $69 in this case, I mean the difference between the selling and buying prices even though it's not a bad thing at least microstrategy can enter below $16500 or thereabouts. But that's saylor strategy and now microstrategy has held btc 132500 btc and that's a pretty big amount

So, from what I can see, if you look at the average entry, then Microstrategy does it at a price of $30397, the price of BTC today is $16593, which means that Microstrategy has suffered a loss of almost 50% from the average entry of purchases made.

saylor did his best through the DCA strategy he implemented 

You put my post not only under a microscope but a scanning electron one no less, and I'm not sure why but I'm not looking to argue every single nitpicking point you wrote about.  That would just be a waste of mental energy on both our parts.  I already assumed you wouldn't agree with what I was going to post, so basically I'm curious to hear what everyone else who's following this thread thinks (no offense, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree about MSTR and Saylor).

Yes, because that's the last time I posted here.  I'd also mention that there seems to be something lost between what I'm writing and what you think I'm writing.  As an example, I get the feeling you think I'm anti-bitcoin for some reason:

I stated that I was hoping bitcoin would break to the upside, so the above comment just doesn't compute. 

One point I will respond to is you saying that the whole market is down, but so what?  Well, since you like facts, here's a 3-month chart of the NASDAQ:



The prices aren't shown on the chart, but I did the math based on the numbers on my brokerage account and it shows the NASDAQ is down 4.2% in the last 3 months, while MSTR is down 33.8%.  And thus you're saying "so what"?  Eh, OK.

Of course, they are not selling in any kind of meaningful and/or material way - except to be able to harvest a tax loss (as they had explained) - which is also a relatively small amount of sale and/or small amount of tax loss harvesting. 


No it is not strange.


It seems that all stocks are down. Seems like a BIG SO WHAT? to me.


Well our so far bottom for this correction is $15,479, so of course, it is possible to fairly easily break below $16.5k, especially since we have been in that range for nearly two weeks...

Again.. seems like a BIG SO WHAT?


Well.. look.  You are back.

Who would've thunk?

Welcome back!!!!!!

 


If you are responding the same way to everything, then it may well be quite likely you are missing some nuance..

But, hey whatever.  

If you are not buying bitcoin and/or sufficiently/adequately prepared for UP, then that's on you.


Point me to a post, and we will see if I agree or not and if not how I might not disagree.  Anyone can say I told you after the fact.. That's easy peasy.


I don't know.  I stand by my earlier comment (or my earlier probing), if that's why you are trying to verify.  Do I (we?) need to revisit anything?  You are quoting me from late September?  Do we have the same facts or similar facts or how is it that you are wanting to engage at this point?  What's our topic?  You said that you would not be back, and you are back.  So here we are.  

What do you want to discuss?  Saylor gambles too much from your point of view, and I don't think that he is gambling too much, but so what.  Do you want to revisit that?  He can do what he wants, no?  Question is what are you doing?  Are you failing/refusing to sufficiently/adequately stack sats because you fear that there are too many gamblers in the BTC space who still need to be purged before the BTC price can continue UP?


You mean that you want to argue about whether Saylor is gambling too much?  You and I have already presented our points on this topic, no?


Why is there a need to be right?  Everyone assigns probabilities to various events.  Maybe you assign 75% and I assign 65% or there might be some other variation.  Are you wanting to assign 90% or 100%, then maybe that's why I am tending to quibble so much with you.  If you were closer in the ballpark as me then I would likely not even say anything, but for reasons that I have already asserted, many times, I find you to be too extreme in terms of what you are predicting and then for some reason you feel that you want to be right blah blah blah..  

Why does it matter if you are right? What's the difference between reasonable assessments that might be extreme, except if one person is being unrealistic in his/her assessment and assigning way too high of probabilities because s/he thinks s/he is smarter than everyone else?


You can set whatever goalposts that you believe to be relevant to the points/arguments that you are wanting to make.  It's a bit of an extreme to be saying that he is gambling too much and then say.. look at FTX, they were gambling too much too.  You seemed to have had suggested earlier in your post that Saylor and FTX may well be the same, but you do not have any evidence for that beyond a feeling, and also there is plenty of evidence to show both that Saylor and FTX are not even close to the same, but whatever, if you want to make those kinds of lame, fear-mongering and seemingly attention whoring kinds of comparisons, then that's up to you.  

Frequently nuance can make a difference between figuring out if someone's strategy is merely aggressive rather than deranged, even though you would like to treat the two as if they were the same.  Go figure?

Changed my mind about posting in this thread--not to gloat or anything of the sort, but because I was thinking about MSTR lately (and it's on my watchlist of stocks) and realized that everything I see Michael Saylor talking about on Youtube as of late has to do with bitcoin almost exclusively.  In the MSTR news thread on my brokerage's site, I don't think I've seen any statements or press releases from the company regarding their core business.  It's all about bitcoin.

Do any of you think that's strange?  I mean they didn't begin life as a bitcoin investment corporation, but it seems like that's exactly what they've morphed into.

And speaking of the stock, since I last posted here in September:



Right now the price is right around where it was before Saylor started his bitcoin binge, and I'm very curious what's going to happen if BTC doesn't break out of the $16.5k trading range (which I hope it does soon, and to the upside).

I don't do mic drops, and people almost always use that already-outdated phrase when they perform one.

My opinions given in this thread are similar in conviction to any of the others I've written on the forum.  FTX's use of customer funds for their own trading was straight-up gambling.  Is that too "absolutist"?  Is that me wanting to be right?  In the case of MSTR, I think you and some others don't happen to see what's going on and disagree with me.  That's fine, and we could argue forever about it but only time will tell who's right. 

And I'm not sure what goalpost should be set for "right".  Maybe a specific price for the stock?  Maybe MSTR delcaring bankruptcy?  Successful lawsuits?  I'm open to suggestions.

After a long time, Microstrategy is back at what they know best: DCA.



Big news: they actually sold some Bitcoin for the first time!




Recap:

When we describe arguments that people make, we usually tend to describe facts, logic and conclusions. So you can have facts and logic back up your conclusions, or you can choose to describe your conclusions, but don't connect that to facts and/or to logic.

There are differences in the various kinds of arguments that are made, and not all arguments are equal merely because you make them.


Yes, time will tell if your conclusions are correct, and I would imagine if your conclusions are based on facts and logic then they have higher chances of being correct, and in the case of predictions, we are referring to something that has not yet happened, so usually the logic portion will describe various ways in which some outcomes might be more likely (probable) than other outcomes.   The mere fact that a prediction was right or wrong does not necessarily mean that it had good or bad logic and facts.

Of course, I had criticized your earlier arguments (and conclusions) to be lacking in their factual and logical backings, and it is your choice to continue to make them or to fix them, and instead of attempting to buttress your earlier assertions with facts and/or logic, you continue to proclaim that facts and logic do not matter or suggest that your arguments that lack facts and logic are equally sound as if they were to have facts and logic... and yes you might still end up being correct, even if it seems that you have made relatively weaker arguments than you could have done if you had put a wee bit more efforts into supporting such arguments.

Understood, that is, apart from philosophical reflections, there are no arguments and facts?
This is expected. In fact, one can argue a lot about how it was, that it should have been ... But there is an objective reality. A company whose main business is market analytics is making very dubious moves.. No, of course, one can expect that another artificial bitcoin hype will show some growth, it may even be so, but this is an extremely risky step that has no logical justification.
In any case, time will tell, and see what financial performance the company will have in the coming years...

I think I discussed elsewhere I cannot understand how Tesla reported their bitcoin holdings at mark to market.
While I was pretty good (not perfect) at predicting MSTG reports) I have been quite off with Tesla.

Wondering how this is going to fit into this.

Well, apparently this is based on the example of Tesla's financial reports, which have separate articles in quarterly reports that take into account cryptocurrency finance and, depending on fluctuations in cryptocurrency prices, do they eventually affect the profit balance or is it not so?

This was one of the points in the Micheal Taylor Decalogue to allow for a Bitcoin appreciation:


Micheal Salyor decalogue for a 10x Bitcoin Appreciation


Good and bullish news, if they get the law approved. (big if).

Apparently, soon companies that are holders of bitcoins will have to allocate their assets to separate balance sheet items and fix fluctuations in value as an increase or increase in net profit., this proposal was made by American accounting legislators. This also applies to MicroStrategy, which will undoubtedly lead to sharp fluctuations in profits depending on the market value of the cryptocurrency, the final decision on this issue is planned to be made in mid-2023.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/financial-accounting/crypto-value-swings-to-hit-company-income-under-accounting-plan