Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 23. (Read 17191 times)

MicroStrategy is going through both administrative and financial repositioning to be able to face current realities. According to reports splitting the roles of Chairman and CEO will enable the company to effectively pursue its two corporate strategies of acquiring and holding bitcoin and growing their enterprise analytics software business. As Executive Chairman Micheal Saylor will be able to focus more on bitcoin acquisition strategy and related bitcoin advocacy initiatives, while Phong will be empowered as CEO to manage overall corporate operations. Another administrative restructuring is appointing Andrew Kang in May this year as the new Chief Financial Officer. Andrew is more financially grounded or experienced than the former CFO Phong Le who is more administratively sound.

Like you rightly predicted @fillippone about the financial report. The report is not as bad as I assumed it would be. Although last year's second quarter financial position was better than this year in some areas but the report shows that the company is still solid considering that MicroStrategy has a long-term time horizon. And the firm's core business is insulated from near-term bitcoin price volatility because it has sufficient liquidity to cover interest payments and has no near-term debt maturities. The Company still remains one of the biggest believer and supporter of Bitcoin holding about 129,699 bitcoins acquired for a total cost of $4 billion, or $30,664 per bitcoin with zero interest to sell them.    

Microstrategy published its quarterly Filing.
Pretty much intense:



Firstly, the news:

Micheal Saylor is stepping down as CEO. He will retain the Chairman title:


As per financial highlight, my forecast was quite on point:


Here's the presentation Result



I will comment on the main result in the following posts.

I think, investors should typically not be influenced by optimistic tweets, but rather figures. Saylor did share some figures recently about how Bitcoin coped when compared to other assets since microstrategy bought in; doesn't reflect their personal numbers, as they have bought at different times over the past months, but it shows the market is not as bad when compared with other markets.

IIRC, the plan was to hold for 100 years, so if the market goes well, he should not need to defend the investment after the next 5-10 years

Same thing with Micheal Saylor. He has to prove his strategy valid, so he must keep this "Bitcoin Maximalist" stance in order not to scare Microstrategy's investors.



This is why there is a constant stream of upbeat tweets.

I don't think so, I can't believe Elon Musk's influence on bitcoin he needed during the hype alone.

But what I believe is Michael Saylor who is steadfastly consistent with bitcoin and so fully believes in what he does in his MicroStrategy investments.

Just look at the tweets he's still cheerful with bitcoin and a bitcoin maximalist.

I believe it must be within me.

All this time we have always been waiting for sweet tweets from elon musk that might affect crypto movements such as bitcoin and doge, but now what elon is doing is really quite painful in my opinion, realize it or not, elon musk does have a strong influence on the development of crypto including the idea of ​​being the first to accept Tesla payments with bitcoin and I think that at that time Elon speech about adoption of bitcoin had opened the eyes of the world, especially large companies to glance at bitcoin.

Must have said some stuffs bout him( Elon Musk's ) But, he is a very smart and Intelligent person, taken such decisions are for him and the company you know. As said they needed fiat which was more affordable and available for them since they layed off some of them workers.

 I feel they are currently carrying out experiments on holding Bitcoin which shouldn't bother anyone one to panic sell. Also if you notice, selling those Bitcoins didn't affect the market and Bitcoin price in anyway ( But even if it did,get those available fiat currencies and buy those little SATs )

The more one is focused on Bitcoin the more you tend to see the futuristic views bout it. Avoid those fiat currencies that are not backed by anything, just the government which we all have seen how the fiat currencies have and has failed in the turbulent times.
It clear enough, if you're investing in Bitcoin to get it back after a month it's kinda a bit bad, Bitcoin should really be held for like 10+ years and above. Don't be carried away by what happened, the media won't speak about how the fiat currencies have failed humans truthfully.
See that Bitcoin is the Fvckn Bigger Picture.

There would be more such people who ignore the opinion of public figures, like Elon. This would reduce the level of manipulation of public opinion.

Of course, Elon acts purely in his personal interests, and the sale by Tesla of 75% bitcoins is no exception.

What do we care what Elon believes in: bitcoin, doge, or something else. What matters is what each individual believes in. In this case, does he believe in bitcoin.

I don’t know and I don’t care about what Elon thinks about bitcoin.
What I know is that I believe in the Bitcoin, and that Elon sold because he needed a positive cash flow in his balance.
That’s it. No heroes.

Tesla and elon musk have shown us how much he believes in bitcoin , all this time he kept saying that bitcoin is the asset of the future but actually he has sold almost 75% of the bitcoins they have now, So do you still believe that elon musk is a man who believe in bitcoin?
But I don't know, we don't know what is on Elon Musk's mind right now because maybe this is his strategy to profit and give negative issues to bitcoin so that later he can buy again when the price drops after the bitcoin sale.

The quarter has ended, and it's time to recap on the effect of this Bitcoin Dip on Microstrategy balance sheet.
This is my projection:



They are going to report on Aug 2, after the bell.

You can consider the matter in any way that you like, and if you believe that Saylor is trying to sell bitcoin upon people rather than educate people about bitcoin, then that is your choice to see the matter like that... and maybe with the passage of time, you will be proven to be correct.  Alternatively, you could be proven to be wrong.. in the sense that bitcoin is not snake oil, even if you personally believe bitcoin to be lacking in substance.

No one can cause you to do your research and to come to any conclusion other than the conclusion that you have chosen to see for yourself.


If you really consider the matter, the adoption of bitcoin and the various network effects of bitcoin have been building for the past 13.5 years.  Sure, there are way more institutions coming into bitcoin in recent times, and quite likely there were way smaller institutions in bitcoin for many years back.  If you want to create a defeatest attitude and frame bitcoin as if it were failing in adoption, then again you may well be proven to be correct, but then again, you may well be proven to be incorrect.

I doubt anyone is going to convince you to account for facts before you reach your conclusions that bitcoin is not growing as fast as you believe that it should grow.

Even if you were to try to figure out the extent to which bitcoin's network effects are growing or not, you could spend a whole hell of a long time studying each of the network effects, and still you may well end up coming to your own conclusion, in which you believe that bitcoin is not growing as fast as you believe that it should be growing.  No one is going to stop you from being a no coiner or a low coiner based on your various likely to be false assumptions.

One of the earlier frameworks for network effects came from Trace Mayer, and surely there has been a lot of discussions around various aspects of how bitcoin becomes more powerful and even unstoppable by ongoing building of network effects.

Michael Saylor is a salesman, or I should say a snake oil salesman. When Musk bought, he sold it as good news, and now that Musk is selling, he wants to sell it as good news too, or at least as neutral or not so bad.

For me this is bad news, because this cycle was known as the institutional adoption cycle, and if Tesla has sold to obtain liquidity, I wonder if there are other companies that are not nearly as famous that have also sold but without appearing in the news, as in this case.

It seems to me that stating the fact that selling 75% of your BTC results in ONLY having 25% of what BTC that you used to have is a reminder of the importance of building a BTC position.. I understand that it is not really saying anything, it is like if someone does or says something that you may agree with or you don't agree with, and you merely assert, "that was an interesting choice."  You have not really said anything, but you acknowledged that you know that something had happened.  

You can agree with Saylor's largely making of neutral statements or not.. it still serves as a reminder that people noticed that Musk sold 75% of his stash.. and people will likely notice again down the road whether such selling of 75% ended up working out well or not... Time will tell.. Time will tell.. and sure, Musk/TESLA might take some actions in the meantime in terms of buying some or all of the sold BTC back,,, Perhaps? perhaps?.

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.