Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 25. (Read 18590 times)

^ $500,000,000 is no small buy. It shows confidence that the Bitcoin price is close to the bottom. I’m glad that Saylor isn’t letting the tax attacks against him slow his role in acquiring BTC. Now that Microstrategy is buying again, I think that eases the concern that they were having liquidity issues.

The news said about microstrategy preparedness for another buy on bitcoin to worth about $500million and not that it has acquired it yet, but what I suspected to have contributed to this decision made could have been as a result of this week dip on bitcoin price falling to about $18.5k and according to some experts, it was believed that since it tasted such range, there's more tendencies to return with such an experience again the second time on $18k or abit below which by then could have enough resources to make the buy and hodl in other to constitute more on it holding capacity, well these are all assumptions but i think Michael should have something similar to it all as part of it plan.

Maybe you should attempt to explain a bit more about what you are saying?

Of course, we know that Saylor and MSTR have been buying BTC through the past two years, and they have used a variety of ways of buying bitcoin including various kinds of ways to finance their additional BTC purchases and to raise money. 

Which MSTR purchase of $500 million (or raising of funds) are you referring?  I remember they raised something like $500 million last year.  Is there a new fund raising of $500 million that was disclosed in 2nd quarter 2022 8 K report that you linked?  or are you talking about something else?

Despite Bitcoin's long-term potential, MicroStrategy is making big bets on it. They look past short-term price collapses and intense volatility to see Bitcoin for what it is: a winning currency for doing business. If other businesses take a similar approach, we may indeed be witness to the beginning of a major revolution in the way we do business as a society.

And who can really blame them? Cryptocurrencies are the hottest trend in financial technology right now, and their growth is unlikely to slow down any time soon. It's hard to argue against betting on the future of Bitcoin, especially when the bet has a potential payout of nearly nine figures.

Quoting from Twitter that MicroStrategy has raised $500 million to buy that much bitcoin, could the price go up on the basis of this good news?

Even SEC chairman "Gary Gensler" says Bitcoin trading is like a rare store of treasure.

Sources I know of -

https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1568335573449953286
https://seekingalpha.com/filing/6711158?source=content_type%3Areact%7Csection%3Amain_content%7Cbutton%3Abody_link%7Cfirst_level_url%3Anews

Of course, I am not trying to follow you or your ideas in any kind of detail because I am just attempting to respond to the points that you have been making rather than having any concerns about you on any kind of personal level or your ideas specifically.. so even if it might seem that I am on the attack towards you, that surely has not been my intention.

In any event, from my perspective, from the earlier posts that you have been making in this thread you have been highly skeptical of Saylor and the various strategies that Saylor has taken to buy BTC - and surely your criticism from the beginning has been about your perceptions of him being too aggressive in his approach and using company funds and resources, and it seems that I have been regularly opposing several of your various assertions because it seems to me that you have been ongoingly imposing some morality on Saylor and suggesting that he is a bad player or that he is being abusive of his position in his company (MSTR).. when the evidence really does not seem to support such assertions in anywhere close to the extent that you have been suggesting that Saylor has been violating some standards that you believe exist in regards to Saylor's seemingly risk-taking approach to BTC investing. In other words, you have been ongoingly making accusations that are neither sufficiently supported by facts and or logic.. and that has been my ongoing sense of the matter.  


I was not really trying to do that, but I have frequently asserted that you do not seem to know his enough about various aspects of what Saylor has said or done historically in order to be leveling valid criticisms, so your comments have come off as largely uninformed, and you frequently even have admitted from time to time that you are going into your rants without studying into various specifics.

I don't really like to go down the road of trying to figure out whether someone might be smarter than someone else because people are smart (or dumb) in different kinds of ways, yet I ongoingly get the sense that you are quite lacking in first-hand information regarding what is being attempted and various legal obligations that company owners (leaders have), and you seem to be ongoingly impose requirements on Saylor that are not required by law - given Saylor's ongoing approach to the Bitcoin education matters (or at least his pretty much out their public stances regarding the topic).

Sure, I understand your position that you believe that Saylor has been being reckless in terms of how aggressive he has been in regards to his bitcoin position, but so what? in regards to your view that he is reckless because company leaders have a pretty fucking wide range of reasonableness that they can employ in regards to carrying out company objectives, and his position is no where even close to being outside of a wide range of reasonableness, even if you happen to disagree with his approach and you believe that he should be less aggressive in his investment approach to bitcoin...

By the way, I happen to agree with you in regards to Saylor being overly aggressive in his BTC investment approach.. but I still think that the extent to which he invests is way within his rights/discretion to do carry out those kinds of investment decisions and to take such a posture in regards to bitcoin - even if there are shareholders involved (because MSTR is a public company) and blah blah blah. because like I already said, Saylor has been more than public in regards to what they are doing, and if the shareholders do not like what Saylor is doing or planning to do, then they can get the fuck out or lessen their position or refuse to take a position in MSTR.   Shareholders have plenty of information available to them, and based on Saylor's ongoing public posturing and ongoing disclosures, the shareholders likely have way more information than they usually would have (and yeah, I suppose that Saylor's public disclosures do not necessarily serve the same purpose as the quarterly 10-k reports that public companies are required to file by law).


My statements do not rely on my knowing either you or Saylor.  I responded based on what you had posted.  Over the past couple of years, I have followed quite a few of Saylor's presentations and activities, though I would not claim to be any kind of Saylor expert (or even a fanboy as you would like to suggest) - even though his materials and discussion points and interviews are in the Bitcoin space quite a bit, so it is pretty easy to get exposure to him.. especially for someone like me who spends on average around 4-6 hours daily keeping up with bitcoin-related matters.. ..

Otherwise, I stand behind the various comments that I already made.. and I don't have any problem going back and forth with you in regards to my various assertions, if you want to do that.. even though I believe I already backed up what I said fairly well (which has been criticizing you for failing to back up and spouting out information that is not backed up - even though you want to get protections because it is merely your "opinion").


You are attributing arguments to me that I am not really making, and surely historically, I have been critical of several of Saylor's various positions on a variety of topics including but not limited to his investment aggressiveness, his stances regarding energy and regulation and some other matters.  

I do believe that Saylor is quite smart, but I have been in bitcoin much longer than him, so I have recognized what I believe to be some of the errors in his thinking and presentations of information from time to time, but at the same time, I recognize and appreciate him as a pretty fucking quick study and able to present a lot of quite sophisticated ideas in a pretty short period of time (that are even beyond my own ability to present in similar kinds of ways, since he seems to be quite well studied and versed in areas that are not within my own areas of study).  If we take Saylor at his word that he really only got interested in bitcoin after the March 2020 liquidation event, then yeah of course, he was a pretty quick study to be going on interviews in August and also to be giving seminars to businesses in January/February 2021... and for sure, Saylor also has some experiences in life prior to learning about bitcoin, including his Rocket Scientist education and some of the other interesting stories that he has told about his background. and I don't want to attempt to reiterate the various interviews in which I heard him tell details.. but they are likely available and aspects of his background stories are repeated in several places for anyone interested in knowing (you might not be interested, The Pharmacist, since you seem to not want to study actual information.. hahahaha)..   Many of us know that Saylor has been a guest on quite a few podcasts, and several of those podcasts were in my regular listening feed.. so I got exposure to aspects of Saylor's history and his various ideas through various podcasts, too.. and I am not even claiming to study Saylor like any sycophant as you would like to suggest, but getting such information through my regular exposure to the bitcoin space.


I have been attempting to respond to your substantive points to the extent that I see that you make anything in which I would like to respond, and hopefully explaining aspects related to why I agree, disagree or otherwise want to comment on something that you said.  

I don't consider my responses to be about whether I like you or not or whether I like what you have said or not.  

My responses could potentially allow you to possibly clarify some of your points rather than getting worried about whether you or your points are likable.. and maybe my responses could inspire you to figure out if you sufficiently understand the extreme aspect of your spouting out various supposed "opinions" that you have that come off as only loosely connected to either facts or logic..

Sure, it's all fine and dandy for folks to have opinions on topics, but it seems quite strange to be spouting off seemingly fantasyland nonsense when certain opposition facts and logic are staring you in the face... and then failing/refusing to confront the nonsense that you had said in order to account for actual facts and logic when they are presented to you.


Yes.. and your opinion seems to be going against actual facts and logic, but you persist with such opinions anyhow because you have a right to spout out your "opinions."


Fair enough.  Who says they are not conducting themselves in the interest of their shareholders? You realize that each company has its own structures too that outline obligations and discretionary areas?  Are you suggesting that you know that they have not already said in their constitution and guidelines that Saylor can do what he is already doing?  Oh yeah, and isn't Saylor about a 70% shareholder?  Yeah, he has obligations to minority shareholders (related to disclosure), but still by definition, he is acting within the interest of the shareholders when he acts within his own interests and makes his disclosures (to the extent require) while doing that.  Saylor/MSTR announced what they were going to do and largely are doing what they said that they were going to do, shareholders can get in or out of their shares based on Saylor/MSTR announcements about what they are doing and what they are planning to do.


MSTR is not any other company, so they do not need to do what other companies are doing (because other companies are likely structured differently and other companies also have different goals and objectives, too).  Saylor/MSTR announced what they were doing in advance.  They have no further obligations, and they surely do not have any obligation as you seem to suggest to not engage in "extremely risky" behavior - especially if that is what they said that they were going to do.


Subsequent performance of BTC's prices is not going to suddenly cause Saylor/MSTR to have had shirked their responsibilities as you should be able to figure out that all actions do not necessarily result in positive outcomes, and some actions are based on uncertainties and probabilities, such as investing.  You should realize that prices of all kinds of things (including but not limited to our lil fiend - aka bitcoins; aka dee cornz) go up and down and companies are not precluded from engaging in various kinds of risky behaviors or risky investments merely because they are public.


I know it because Saylor sufficiently and adequately disclosed what he was doing in regards to bitcoin prior to doing it and at several stages along the way.. So the shareholders do not have any legal recourse absent showing that Saylor (or the company through its 10k disclosures or any other legal disclosures that they are required to make) withheld significant and material information or that he engaged in deceptive practices in regards to his disclosures..

By the way, in my first response I had missed your point about Saylor/MSTR engaging in gambling rather than investing, and surely there is some correctness in your position that certain kinds of risky behavior does start to rise to the level of gambling rathe than investing.  The concepts of investment versus gambling is on a spectrum rather than being absolutes, and the fact that Saylor is able to justify his position and to provide a lot of rationale for it should allow you to consider that he is not engaging in similar kinds of gambling as spinning a roulette wheel and sure he is not engaging in conservative investments either.. so your blanketedly asserting Saylor/MSTR's position as gambling seems to be biased based on your own risk averseness rather than attempting to objectively figure out how Saylor/MSTR's conduct may well still be considered as investing rather than gambling.


If shareholders (minority) are going to prevail in a legal claim, they are not going to be able to sustain any kind of legal claim based on their failure/refusal to read disclosures that had been sufficiently and/or adequately made.  If you (or any claimant) is going to assert that some kind of disclosure was not sufficiently/adequately made, then the claimant (plaintiff) will have the burden of proof and production to show such inadequacies and to make such arguments to support their claims.  You cannot proclaim that the 10-Ks were not sufficiently/adequately disclosing what Saylor/MSTR was doing without producing some evidence to establish your position as to why it was not sufficient or adequate (or the position of the purported disgruntled shareholder). The mere fact that the BTC price went down 75% (or maybe BTC will go down more or go to zero?) would be far from sufficient/adequate on its own absent some other supportive facts/arguments.


I am not sure what your reference is here.  I thought that you were referring to either the rights of minority shareholders or to some legal obligations that Saylor/MSTR would have to make disclosures to anyone who is a shareholder or who might become a shareholder (or disclosures to the public that are required by public companies).  We had already been working with some factual presumptions that Saylor owns quite a bit more than the majority of shares (maybe around 70%-ish) in MSTR, so we would not be referring to majority shareholders in this case (but instead to the rights of minority shareholders), as far as I understand the facts to be.


How relevant are feelings?  Shareholders are presumed to be adults and must live with their decisions including their allocation choices in regards to any of their investments.. so how relevant are their feelings - except maybe their feeling that they might have made a mistake? Or their feelings that this is surely a tough period?   They have obligations to figure out if they want in or out at each stage, and merely because something moves against them, is not going to rescue them.. so their feelings seem like a BIG so fucking what?  We all feel bad when the BTC price (or anything else that we invested into) goes down so long as we are holding bitcoin, and in that regard, I already responded to your point to the extent that it might be getting at anything that is somewhat relevant (and perhaps actionable?).


Well, you have been ongoingly suggesting that Saylor has been doing something wrong in regards to the aggressiveness of his various ways of exposing his company to BTC and suggesting that he may well be engaged in conduct that is illegal and/or unethical for its level of recklessness (and or negligence).  Whether that rises to the level of "slamming" might be up to interpretation.

As I already asserted, I doubt that you sufficiently appreciate standards upon which claims against Saylor and/or MSTR would have to meet to have a colorable cause of action in the direction that you seem to be suggesting the irresponsibility of Saylor/MSTR and not be dismissed outright (laughed out of any court).. and I also have acknowledged that claims still may well be brought against Saylor/MSTR even if they are largely meant to harass and are likely frivolous claims that could be brought by shareholders and/or by the government.. but hey, we need to see the evidence first before coming to such judgement if such claims were to be filed against Saylor/MSTR (besides the already existing tax residency claims against Saylor/MSTR that seem to have had been initiated in DC).
 

Why would I want to do that?  So far, I have not put anyone on ignore. I see no reason to start with you, and if you are making statements/assertions/"opinions" that I believe are interesting or in need of response(s), then I will exercise my discretion regarding whether to continue to respond to your posts to the extent that I decide to do so.. or not.  

I don't have any problem with you, even if sometimes I don't agree with some of your ideas on some topics (including this one apparently)... and your ongoing perspectives on Saylor do not seem to be improving with the passage of time (in terms of improving your facts and/or your logic) - though maybe in your earliest of posts in this thread, there may have been some justification to give you a pass on your lack of knowledge based on the then newness of the topic, but for you, you continue to repeat similar themes that likely need to be addressed, and sure maybe someone else could address some of your points in a better way than me, but so far it seems that I am the ONLY one who feels inclined to respond to your points..

I don't know and I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the topic.. I am merely giving my response based on information that I have at the time that I am responding to you..   I am also not set in my beliefs on this topic if you were to actually provide decent facts and/or logic in support of your current seemingly lame conclusions.

Part of the reason that I come to this forum on nearly a daily basis is to have communications with other folks (members) who are interested in bitcoin (and sometimes related topics, but I prefer bitcoin, as you might have noticed), and sure it is nice if there is agreement in regards to some of the topics, but agreement is not any kind of prerequisite in terms of my own choices whether or not to participate in a back and forth exchange.

In bitcoin spaces, frequently there is not agreement - even with some members who I find to be quite agreeable, substantively speaking... Sometimes members disagree, and that seems to be part of the interactive process in a forum like this.. and especially with posts that are in public threads - versus some communications that might be taken to the personal message level.. but largely I prefer to have most of my communications with forum members in the public threads (absent some reason to take aspects of the conversation to PM), even if we disagree, and sometimes I hope other members will chime in on any topic that seems to be disagreeable, which chiming in does not necessarily occur in all cases... ain't nobody got time for that.. especially if the posts are long and involved.

Edit - 12 hours after original post: read back through the post and made some clarifying edits and added a bit more context (and responses)

To the first statement above, I would tell you that I'm not making up conspiracy theories about Saylor.  As to the second, if you're implying that my opinion is invalid because I'm less educated and/or sophisticated than Michael Saylor....you know neither him nor me, so you know not whereof you speak, sir.  That's a silly argument to make, and it makes me wonder how this man has you so much under his spell.  If you don't like what I have to say in this thread, please skip to the last sentence of this post.

I'm not making anything up.  That's in your head, not in my words.  I speculated about what Saylor's perception of MSTR is--and I could very well be wrong about that, which is why I made it very clear that it was my own opinion.  What is clear is that MSTR is a public company and as such it has the obligation to do everything in the interest of its shareholders.  Saylor's decision to buy bitcoin was an extremely risky one to say the least, and not one that I've seen any other company do.  And what has it accomplished for those shareholders so far?  A stock price that peaked in 2021 and promptly fell back to where it was in 2020 (though it's higher than that now).  Do you know why other corporations don't replace the cash they keep in their treasuries with bitcoin?  Because they'd be engaged in gambling with company funds.  If you can tell me with a straight face that Saylor's bitcoin buys weren't gambling, you ought to take up poker as a profession.

You sure?  You know this how, because you haven't yet heard any of them complain about it?  Tell me, I'd love to know.

I'm sure all of those large institutional investors did indeed read all the relevant documents.  After all, they make up the majority of shareholders, not whoever it is you think you're referring to in such a juvenile manner. 

I have to think you don't comprehend the English language very well--and I'm not saying that to be insulting.  If I knew shareholders and how they felt, I wouldn't have have written "I wonder how they feel right now..".  Your response to my post is overwrought to say the least.  I don't think I've ever slammed Saylor in this thread, though I've been critical of his moves with respect to purchasing bitcoin. 

If that's something that makes your blood boil just put me on ignore, OK?

Sure, that is possible.  Without some kind of reasonable evidence, I am not going to assume that MSTR is engaging in deceptive (underground) practices mere because they could be engaged in such practices.. I am also pretty sure that the legal standard would still be that the filing of any timely lawsuit would start from the point of time that such deceptive practice is found out (or reasonably should have been known).   


I am not naive to that fact either.  I have not problem with people being skeptical and/or taking disclosed information with a grain of salt, yet I am still not going to pursue conspiracy theories for the mere sake of it.. when there seems to be a lot of information (maybe even overwhelming amount of information) that Saylor is a pretty damned straight shooter. Sure, there always can be something, but when someone is so public about matters as Saylor has been, there should be some need to attempt to take his various public representations at face value - to the extent that they get into specifics... and surely very sophisticated players will be more careful in some of the ways that they phrase matters, especially if they are regularly consulting with attorneys and other sophisticated consultants, which seems to be the case with Saylor.. so in that regard, sometimes he will pretty well coached on some things to say or not to say, but merely the fact that he is a well coached representative does not automatically mean that he is hiding significant and/or material facts. 

I know that there are some folks who get really skeptical of people who are more educated and more sophisticated, and frequently those kinds of seemingly unfounded skepticisms are getting caught up in the weeds rather than sticking to the main themes.

I am reminded of an interview that Saylor gave in July on the Not investment advice podcast in which he was criticizing ethereum and even calling it immoral.  Afterwards, the not investment advice podcast guys had podcasts episodes (at least one) in which they were criticizing Saylor... and seemingly that they were way less informed about the whole matter than Saylor because they are believers in shitcoins... so in essence I understand them as not really understanding and therefore trying to find fault with Saylor's assertions based on their own lack of sophistication analysis and likely their being biased by their own bags.  I know that I have had some posts in which I had made comments about the first interview, but this is the first time I said anything about the subsequent comments of the not investment advice podcast hosts.


You are just making shit up.  Saylor has talked about his various obligations on several occasions, and he especially talked about those issues towards the beginning of his getting involved in bitcoin with the Company's name and money and describing how he (the company) did it.  You might want to look at some of that early information.. the company went overboard to buy shareholders out of their position or to allow them to get out before they made their early purchases of BTC.  Saylor had been pretty public about all of this, so your proclaiming that he may well have been sneaky about all of this is way contrary to the facts in which the company went overboard in regards to their procedures and even their publicly describing the way that they did it.


He does not have to take it private.  We already know that he already has the company set up in a way that works for him quite well, and he can do whatever he likes in terms of having something like 70% ownership (fillippone described this dynamic several times in this thread), and yeah, while the company is public Saylor has obligations to follow disclosure requirements, and he has been already doing that for more than 20 years that the company has been public.  Sure, he could take his company private again in order to change its structure and sure he already has the votes (namely himself) to take the company private if he wants, but he has no obligation to take the company private, and there is no meaningful evidence to describe that he is in any way being abusive of the legal system that allows him to maintain a public company with overwhelming majority ownership retained by himself.  Your ongoingly not liking that Saylor is an overwhelming majority shareholder in such a public company, choosing to have his company structured that way and feeling uncomfortable about Saylor's ongoing chosen company structure seems quite strange.  You are ongoingly accusing him of possibly abusing the mandate of the company because he is buying bitcoin with the company's treasures but really NOT having any evidence beyond the fact that he is buying a lot of bitcoin (and leveraging and all of that) and your feeling uncomfortable with what he is doing, so it must be wrong, right?


Yes.. they are o.k. with Saylor buying bitcoin with MSTR treasuries, MSTR debt, MSTR equity and whatever other "creative" financial instruments that Saylor/MSTR has chosen to create/employ.. Otherwise such shareholders could have gotten out (or refused to get in) or maybe read the disclosures a wee bit moar better or maybe watched some of Saylor's videos/tweets in order to decide whether they wanted to get into such a well known company or not.

Hey The Pharmacist, maybe you should buy some MSTR shares in order to be able to file a lawsuit against them?  or do you know anyone who owns MSTRs who are disgruntled beyond your imagining that there are likely people who fit into such category?


They probably do not feel very good.. just like any bitcoin HODLer who has any sufficiently and meaningfully sized stake does not feel too good right now, even though it is likely a great BTC buying opportunity right now, if any of us has any money left for buying? 

If you are underinvested in BTC, then maybe you don't feel bad right now (or anything, except a critical posture towards bitcoin accumulators/HODLers)... and if you are feeling that way, then maybe you should get some my lil precious in case it catches on?

Um, sure....but how many companies have we seen over the years that weren't looking out for their shareholders, weren't honest about their business practices or accounting, and/or that engaged in blatantly illegal activities that their shareholders couldn't have known about? 

I'm not saying the above statement applies to MSTR; my point is that corporations often don't heed obligation you mentioned and will take their chances with lawsuits in order to take unwarranted risks in order to boost their profits (and the compensation of the head executives, mainly).

I really don't know how Michael Saylor thinks, but with respect to his purchases of bitcoin by MSTR, it could very well be that since every other shareholder except him is a minority one, he believes it to be his own company to do with as he wishes.  The truth is that it isn't.  If he wanted it to be, he should take it private.  Again, I haven't heard any outcry about his bitcoin purchases but I can't help wondering if MSTR shareholders would have wanted him to sink so much of MSTR's money into an extremely volatile, relatively new type of asset/currency.  I also wonder how they feel right now with bitcoin sitting under $19k and the stock continuing to slide.

I cannot see that we are deviating too much from the thread topic, especially since how much attention Microstrategy / Saylor is getting regarding his tax issue and even the potential for minority investors to raise issues likely relates to the ways in which Saylor/Microstrategy have been so aggressive in the bitcoin advocacies and also in their ongoing bitcoin accumulations (noting that Saylor/Microstrategy has not made many BTC purchases in recent times).

Regarding whether or not minority shareholders will bring any lawsuits, I was not even suggesting that they would not bring any lawsuits, but I was asserting that absent some much better facts in their favor, they would be hardpressed to be successful in such lawsuits - since one of the main obligations of any public company is to not be deceptive about what it is doing and to be public about material aspects of the company's behaviors in order that shareholders are able to informedly decide whether to buy or to sell shares, so yeah there might be some bad actors (and likely there are some), and sometimes these bad actors might start to believe that they have a sufficient case (not frivolous) to be able to sue based on legal proceeding being brought against Saylor/MSTR and then they might speculate the existence of those other cases (and/or facts revealed therein) give them more legitimate reasons to sue (with the purpose of just harassing Saylor/MSTR) and still little to no likelihood to win.

Absolutely, I was only trying to answer some previous concern about that.

In particular, I am with Saylor this time, as far as my understanding of the tax issue goes.
Also, I think minority investors greatly profited from Saylor conducts over the last years, so no real need to sue the company.

You are right anyway, let’s get a little bit closer to topic (interaction between Microstrategy and bitcoin strategy) rather than casual discussions about Microstrategy.

We might be mixing issues, and my understanding of the DC Tax issue does not really have anything to do with minority shareholders but instead it has to do with whether Saylor had been paying proper taxes in DC, and then the DC tax authorities are trying to bring MSTR into the matter by asserting that they were covering up for Saylor.

Regarding any minority shareholder issue to attempt to try to get their way on some kind of issue or if they perceive injustices, then they may well have difficulties getting a choice or a voice without a lawsuit, but you still seem to presuming hostility in a situation in which Saylor had bent over backwards to disclose that he was getting into bitcoin, so if they are upset about him getting into bitcoin, then they had sufficient notice to get out.  It just seems weird to attempt to argue in the abstract as if Saylor had done something wrong without talking about specific facts in which he may have done something wrong.

Now the suggestion that MSTR is a public company in name only is not really true without setting forth issues in which you might believe that Saylor would have been violating some kind of legal mandated  obligation that he has to shareholders or to the public.  He's a pretty public guy, so you would likely need some kind of specifics, and of course, he is a dominant player in the company, so anyone buying shares in MSTR would already know that going in, and of course, in any organization there are likely to be various tensions, but sometimes I have been reading about supposed tensions that are not even supported in the facts that we have in front of us.  

We cannot merely assume that the company is having any fall out with Saylor merely because charges were brought upon Saylor and the DC tax authority decided to also charge MSTR - and at the same time MSTR seems to have had rightfully distanced itself from Saylor in terms of asserting that Saylor's personal tax matters were not their matters, and that is what they should do.. since DC tax authority is likely overreaching to be making those kinds of assertions.. and of course, we do see the evidence that they see, but I am not going to presume that the DC Tax Authority is acting in good faith, even though they are supposed to.

Of course, if it appears that Saylor and/or MSTR has not been making proper and adequate disclosures to the shareholders (minority or otherwise) or that they were engaging in unrealistic and out of the ordinary risky (unlawful) behaviors, then the revelation of that kind of evidence could spark minority shareholder lawsuits, yet I am not even going to presume such lawsuits are going to come.. and furthermore, I am also going to presume that MSTR is operating with pretty decent legal counsel (both in-house and they have abilities to go out of house too).

It surely is possible that our issues are overlapping, even though I am getting the sense that your framing of these matters make it seem that you are wanting to attribute malconduct onto Saylor and MSTR .. and we hardly have any evidence of that beyond what ifs.. including if you want to say that Saylor is a bad actor because he settled some SEC matters in the early 2000s..   Maybe there is some actual dirt on Saylor and MSTR that exists that I am not currently aware of, and of course, even the DC tax authority has to have some evidence, so sure there should be something more than just smoke there.. and maybe some of the evidence will come out that will show worse conduct than what seems to currently be out there in the public space...

I have already been seeing that sometimes people are complaining about behaviors and practices that Saylor has employed that do not seem to rise to the level of various kinds of illegal conduct assumptions that have been being made out, and I get the sense that bitcoin naysayers want to take Saylor down or to diminish his abilities to speak rather than being based on his actual conduct, so maybe I am having some troubles figuring out if we are talking about some specific conduct that is being disputed versus merely theory about class actions can be raised.. and yeah, they can be raised but I doubt that it is reasonable to presume that they have merit without some actual facts in regards to which conduct is being alleged as being unlawful.

I was only saying that given the structure of ownership in Microstrategy, the only way for minitiry shareholders for being heard is, basically, a lawsuit.

That such lawsuit is successful and effective, that is a completely different story.
TL;DR: Microstrategy is not a public company. It is an absolute Micheal Saylor kingdom.

If I read you correctly fillippone, I am having troubles understanding how you would be giving much if any benefit of the doubt to the state in a matter like this that seems quite likely to be motivated to harass someone like Saylor and his company...

I am not exactly sure where the burden of proof lies.  It should lie with the Government to prove its case, but tax laws can sometimes be a bit weird in the way they play out.. so the threshold of this issue would be year by year tax laws for each of the 10 years that they are claiming that Saylor had really lived in DC, when he said that he was living in other lower tax jurisdictions.  So it would seem to me that the state would have to show that Saylor was actually staying in DC for each of those 10 years for more than half of the time - half of the time +1 day.

And the company has nothing to do with this, except that the IRS is wanting to claim that the company was conspiring to cover up on behalf of Saylor.. So then the IRS can get into the idea of co-mingling and was Saylor keeping his matters sufficiently separate from the company - and likely there had been quite a bit of commingling going on which happens with many companies versus businesses, but usually more sophisticated players are going to be smart enough to keep them sufficiently separate so that the corporate veil is not allowed to be pierced.

So I am thinking that if the company shows a certain amount of evidence that Saylor had been living for more than 50% of his time in DC for each of the 10 years, then maybe Saylor would have to go back and show evidence of where he was in terms of at least that question, and I had not even known that anyone was required to keep tax records back for that long - absent some special and/or extenuating questions? 

I don't really fell like looking up each of these matters, beyond just wanting to make my point that there seems to be quite a bit of knee-jerk reactions on the side of the state's supposed good intentions here, yet I believe that the more reasonable knee-jerk reactions would being more skeptical of the state good intentions, and their seeming intentions to harass Saylor with their stupid vague-ass laws.. and don't get me wrong I am surely not anti-state and I am not even anti-taxes, even though in this case, on the face, it does appear that there may well be some abuse of power in terms of the IRS, overextending of matters in terms of building in private rights of actions for whistle-blowers to get rewarded, and just the seeming likely anti-bitcoin overtones - in terms of undermining Saylor's credibility - even though many of us likely believe that Saylor has pretty decent attorneys, yet I can see that there are possibilities that he could be personally burdened by these kinds of matters - especially when one procedure can lead to other procedures and part of governmental abuse of power are when then engage in fishing expeditions and then various other agencies can share in their findings to persecute in other ways.. and some of us may wonder how Saylor is being brought up on supposedly outrageous conduct - while in the meantime we have guys like Craig Wright still roaming free and not seeming to get much of any punishment for his ongoing abuse of the legal system.... ok.. I am starting to deviate, I will admit.

I don’t know the details, but I bet Microstrategy has been Saylor’s playground for the last 20 years at least. And also I guess that every high-level executive was perfectly aware of every detail of Saylor’s Tax plan.

Having said that, I bet this lawsuit will end in nothing done.

It seems true what you say, it's too early to make a statement about the problems they face.

But if the claim is true, then shareholders will protest against a much larger lawsuit and it could happen.

That's why political relations can never be separated and look so terrible, when it comes to play.
I hope my view is wrong?

Two different statements I get?
Saylor said that it was the company's domain for tax reporting, but on the other hand the company considered it was Saylor's personal tax problem, so there was no fundamental relationship with the company.
The two statements actually contain meaning, it seems Saylor's position in the company is being questioned, considering that there has been a CEO change (if I'm not mistaken)

Or it could be the other way around, both making musical dramas, as a form of 90% stock price decline as you mentioned, am I exaggerating?

Given the peculiar voting rights in Microstrategy’s governing bodies, I reckon minority shareholders have no option than a lawsuit to express their voice.

What I think is that Micheal Saylor already survived a -90% share price drawdown and survived as CEO, so I see little scope in a similar lawsuit.

Not for nothing, but the lawsuit for this tax evasion accusation was just announced, so I think it's way, way too early to start passing judgement as if we know all the facts (not sure if that's what you were doing, but even so I stand by my statement).

And so what if he borrowed against bitcoin holdings and thereby avoided capital gains taxes?  That isn't illegal at all.  I'm not saying it was a smart thing to do, because I don't, but if the IRS wants to throw people in jail they'd better make sure the law is on their side and they're not just making shit up as they go along.

I had a strong feeling Saylor and/or MSTR was going to be hit with one or more lawsuits, but I figured they'd start by the shareholders, not the government.  Anyone want to bet there's going to be a massive wave of shareholder lawsuits coming soon?  I'm not saying that gleefully, so don't get the wrong idea, but it's the next logical step when the 3-year stock chart now looks like this:

No. The idea of telling the average citizen to sell everything to buy BTC was not correct.

Michael Saylor on How To Use Debt in Your Favour 👀 "Mortgage Your Home And Buy Bitcoin."

It's not just that this is not right, it's that it's insane.


Yes, his understanding of the subject is well above average, on this and many other subjects, but very smart people also make mistakes and blunders sometimes.

I don’t think so.

The ideas Micheal Saylor was selling about bitcoin were right, and were so even if he failed in a completely different field of knowledge: abiding to IRS rules.

Of course Bitcoin is honey badger and doesn’t care about Micheal Saylor’s fate, but I must say that, bar some hyper bullish claims (“it’s going up forever, Laura”) his understanding of the matter were way above the average garbage you read on mainstream everyday.