Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 28. (Read 18590 times)

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.

As an entrepreneur and also the largest shareholder of a technology company of course he knows the consequences he will have when he first entered bitcoin in 2020 then, maybe now his position is a little shaky due to pressure from investors and other shareholders but I think he is a bitcoin fanatic like president Nayib Bukele, so every bet he makes is of course for the good of the company even though maybe everything is still beyond his estimation, the loss can be said to be quite large at this time but interestingly saylor said if the company had more than enough bitcoin to cover the collateral requirements (margin call) and the company can be said to be in an emergency by looking for other guarantees if bitcoin falls to $3500, so I think even though the company is now experiencing losses but it looks like it not will disrupt the stability of their company, the decline that is happening now this doesn't deter saylor from investing again and even a 3 day ago they announced another purchase of 480 bitcoins or equivalent with $10 milions.


https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1542117682207678465?t=-DdT_rwHQUxc-V7BfovHDA&s

Never, I was never sure about that convenience. He must be nervous about what he has to do to get bitcoin to give him a return on all his investment so far. Otherwise, he would definitely get into trouble sooner or later. I might think he's going to need a lot of time to get his payback after the loss, so he'll have to be patient for that in the long run.

You seem like a very ambitious person to own more bitcoins than you can have. I never thought that a person who has the desire to collect as much bitcoin as he can afford is wrong - it is the right move especially when the money he invests is private property that he is 100% ready afford to lose.

Obviously that's a different thing about Saylor, she might not be ready to lose more because the money she's invested in bitcoin so far isn't entirely hers. I don't know how he sorts out the sources of funds he uses to buy bitcoin so that his company's balance sheet isn't compromised, but he'd definitely be in trouble if his shareholders felt wronged by Saylor's investment decisions in bitcoin.

Buying whatever the BTC price does seem to still serve as a kind of DCA strategy.

Some had erroneously been suggesting that Saylor buys the dip or tries to buy the dip, and your linked-graph seems to disprove those kinds of assertions regarding what Saylor/MSTR has been doing with his ongoing and somewhat irregularly timed BTC buys (which I would argue can be characterized as a kind of DCA)... DCA could also be characterized as a specific time interval and a specific amount, but I doubt that either of those are really prerequisites for characterizing ongoing buys (even if irregular in amount and time interval) to still serve as a kind of ongoing DCAing strategy. 

When I got into bitcoin, I used to characterize my DCA as a font loading DCA strategy.. and so I never really established exactly what I was going to do, even though I tried to stay on a weekly allowance, I would frequently deviate from my allowance limitations either in terms of time or in terms of amount, but I sill considered what I was doing as ongoing DCA.. because there was a kind of consistency in the beginning to continue to try to accumulate BTC.. Some might even call that lump sum investing, even though the practice is ongoing, but then after a stack is accumulated, there still can be feelings of not having enough (until you do start to feel as if you have enough at some later point - which will differ between individuals and likely even differ with institutions in regards to their particulars - including having ongoing incoming cashflow and trying to figure out where to put such ongoing incoming cashflow.

Not everything you say is true because he just seems like someone who only buys as much as he can afford instead of having a DCA strategy or something. See how to buy so far, you will know some of his investment habits in bitcoin based on the image below.

I can probably say that his strategy and policy in making the decision to buy is still no better than that of most non-institutional investors. So don't always assume that a financially powerful investor like Saylor is better than you and most other people.

I think that structure is relatively common in tech startups, as the founder seeks new financing options via equity injection by external investors to avoid being ousted from the company. On the other side, investors might only be interested in the company's financial aspect, without interfering with management. At least in the initial phases.

The unequal voting structure doesnt seem right but if its always been that way I guess its legal so tough luck.  Facebook has something similar I think.   Used to be banks were arranged differently also, to be a director you had to be personally invested in the fate of the bank but that was before the central bank regime took over

I dont see any one particular owner outside of the voting issue.

That's right, it looks like the current loss that Saylor is experiencing if calculated can reach $1.5b from his investment in Bitcoin.
Would he be comfortable with his current position even if some great support came to him like encouragement from Cz. The big whales seem to plan to play this chronology in the middle of the Extreme market in order to drop the price in order to liquidate Saylor position.

Saylor is a tough guy he has deeper abilities and knowledge than the few people who criticize his policies.
I believe this extreme market situation will pass quickly, Nayibbukele and Saylor will be the stars when the bull market comes.

Microstrategy has two different class of stocks.
According to 2021 Annual Report:


Class A are ordinary shares, while a single class B share grants 10 voting rights:
So:



There is a little discrepancy in the number as I think my numbers are a little bit more updated than those on the annual report.

I think your logic is correct regarding the current situation Saylor and her company are in which have consistently invested in bitcoin so far. As long as bitcoin still benefit their shareholders, I don't think there's anything to think about. But the situation will be different because now bitcoin is under $20K so there's a good chance he and his company are in trouble.

I can imagine if it happened to MicroStrategy and Saylor then bitcoin would have a pretty big impact considering there was a massive sell-off caused by the rise of FUD. Saylor will never become a bitcoin holder without selling anything, so since not all of the shares she owns are 100% hers, it's likely that some of the bitcoin will be sold to balance out her financial situation.

How much stock in MSTR does Michael Saylor own, exactly?  I think I can look that up easily, but I'm not exactly sure where at the moment and if it was ever written in this thread, there's no way I'm going to re-read everything here.

But if he doesn't own 100% of the company (true, right?) and the company is a publicly-traded one (true), then he's still accountable to his shareholders.  Period.  If he looks at MSTR as a vehicle for his own passion for bitcoin, the minority shareholders might feel just a little bit burned now that bitcoin is below $20k.  And I'm telling you, I'm watching a webcast of him right now and he's really pushing it with all that he's saying--it's as if he's describing MSTR as a fucking bitcoin casino!

Don't believe me?  Just wait until the shareholder lawsuits start popping up, which I can almost guarantee will happen sooner or later.

In some way, Micheal Saylor is the Russian Government of Microstrategy.
As long as no shareholders can legitimately overturn his will, the decisions is only his own.
And as long as he wants to accumulate bitcoin, which is the only strategy, according to his interviews, we can be sure no Bitcoin will leave Microstrategy self custody.