Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 31. (Read 18590 times)

Did they sell off there btc when price was All Time High in Nov 2021 i.e. 68k$? They have made a good move by investing in bitcoin at 19k$. Even if they have it today they can sell and get profit. I m new to this thread so won't have idea if they still have it or sold.

Michael Saylor said on Twitter he can cover loans down to a BTC price of 3000 dollars or so which is a proper melt down; saw it reported on CNBC.  I thought I was being specially negative just throwing out the 2019 high as a sharp harsh figure.   At present BTC is quite close to the 200 week average which generally has marked the extremities to the volatile pricing which is BTC.
   Never say never but would be nice if MSTR was that much of a bargain.   Market cap is shares and I dont know the figures but enterprise value would include the wider valuation amount for a company https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/enterprisevalue.asp  I should look on Seeking Alpha if anyone looked at this.
Thats pretty big, people are using this share to bet or hedge I think

Interesting.  Perhaps there is a risk of over leverage and collapse if bitcoin goes sub 20
would be interesting to watch nevertheless

According to my Computations, MSRT is trading at a substantial discount compared to bitcoin Market Value:



Bitcoin bought by Microstrategy now accounts for the 195% of the total Market Capitalization.
Buying Microstrategy shares equals buying bitcoins at 14,691 USD!

in this context it's really good to see a brand in buying bitcoin no matter the FUD and the price is still going down is very good and I really like seeing things like this especially when it comes to bitcoin.

but on the other hand we also can't rule out the fact that they can buy at a price like this then automatically they can also sell at the price they want and which they set beforehand.

they could be something good for now and when they suddenly sell they could be the mastermind of FUD in the future

Yeah under the assumption that they are never going to sell because Saylor has a 'plan' for it but that falls off under the category that if bitcoin isnt tanking. Kinda love his enthusiasm to dismiss all those FUD because if somehow if they are forced to sell those bitcoin, it would be major bloodbath probably the worst that we will ever see in crypto space history

The company is selling shares of no fixed value, they are not obligated to sell any BTC if they dont want to (if they used leverage too much then I get Im wrong but overall I hope this isnt true).   If anything it would be prudent to trade the edges of any position for liquidity and cashflow, every asset has some holding cost but with rates so low I doubt they have much pressure if fairly sensible.   If they were a trust like GBTC then they'd be selling by requirement I guess as they must repay holders in line with  the price etc.
   I'd be more bullish on this operation if they had some good plans to use the majority of their BTC in some way, not heard of that.   People > companies is how I rate BTC prospects because companies employ leverage where as a person just wants utility at an ok price and will come back for it.  Just holding any commodity is not a key to fortunes, its normal for any market to test its boundaries and even half at times as price variance is large in commodity markets.   Thats how I view BTC roughly, a global security related commodity as obviously all modern FIAT currencies are horribly corrupted by national politics.


That reads badly, reminds me of the details read out during 'The big short' movie or just various details from that time.    Markets can be really mean at times, the daily, weekly even monthly pricing can be sharply wrong but it wont matter if someone got your signature on a bet you cant stand behind.

It's quite difficult to see the strategy they are implementing now because it could be a ticking time bomb too if what you say about them has a lot of bitcoins there. because of course this would be a double-edged sword now.

for now it's good to see them here and still continuing to believe in bitcoin but on the other hand it's also a bit risky when they have a lot of assets in bitcoin and sell at the target they set then this will also have a bit of an impact

What I read in this statement is purely the fact that Microstrategy has enough bitcoin not to be forced to sell any until a very low price.

This is to dismiss any FUD about their supposedly near level of “long liquidation”.
Of course this is the mechanics of the loan under the assumption they are never going to sell. But this is something we can discuss for ages without adding anything to the reality.

Does anyone still believe in such public statements? When it comes to company interests, will they tweet their true intentions? I don't undertake to judge Saylor's statement, whether it is true or not, but my personal attitude to such statements sounds like "I doubt it" and "I don't take it on faith in any way". I think in the near future we will find out the truth about the Microstrategy's plans for their actions.

Micheal Saylor reassures us that Microstrategy is not going to run in a margin call anytime soon.



Replenish collateral, yes. Forced sell, no.

How comes I didn't Post it yesterday? I found this in my drafts! Thanks to @Ratimov making me realize I didn't press the correct button!

---

Close enough!

MicroStrategy says it may explore more 'yield generation opportunities' following bitcoin-backed loan deal





Still some fine tuning to do:

Link to the full presentation:

Holy shit.

We already likely realize the frustration levels that a lot of companies have with the ways that they are required to calculate the value of assets that they hold, and I would imagine that MSTR is having attorneys go over the various ways that they feel comfortable talking about these kinds of valuations... so I would imagine that if Saylor (or whoever is going to be presenting the information) were to end up being sloppy in the way that they present the matters, then they could well be getting into trouble with the SEC for attributing higher valuations than they are allowed... For sure there are ways to put in the proper disclaimers, and still say what you want to say, yet I would imagine without the counsel of attorneys, there are ways to fuck up those kinds of disclaimer statements.. .

Saylor seems quite capable of NOT fucking up such statements and likely putting in the proper disclaimers and context while at the same time outlining that they are forced to valuate in the bitcoin assets in kinds of ways so that the audience (which is the whole public when you have a public company) will sufficiently understand what he is saying... at least the sophisticated ones will understand..

The rule is so confusing that it is quite likely that non-sophisticated members of the public do not understand and still will not understand even if Saylor were to repeat it 100 times or they replay the tape that many times... hahahahahaha  Don't get me wrong, I am not calling the public dummies, but the way that companies are forced to mark the value of assets like bitcoin remains stupidly ridiculous and perhaps purposefully confusing to try to cause companies to sell and rebuy assets like bitcoin when they should just be HODLing..   We know that MSTR does have a policy/practice to just buy and HODL and for sure they are punished for such practice in the way that they are forced to make their valuations.

This evening Microstrategy is going to report its earnings:



We will closely follow their statements, but there is one figure I am willing to take correct: Q122 impairment losses.7
 


I even expect a little bit of discussion about these figures, as Micheal Saylor has been quite a vocal critic for these.

Michael Saylor is extraordinary, he is one of the leading voices in the support of Bitcoin. His innovation and creativity is giving Bitcoin a multidimensional identity. We have seen Bitcoin in the mortgage sector but introducing it to the pension industry is outstanding. His definition of Bitcoin is mind blowing. He defined it as " "A bank in cyberspace, run by incorruptible software, offering a global, affordable, simple, & secure savings account to billions of people that don’t have the option or desire to run their own hedge fund."


https://www.michael.com/en/bitcoin

There might be a variety of reasons why someone threw those accusations. And as Bitcoin is an unregulated market, for sure we have to be very attentive to the pieces of information we get in the wild. We always need to double-check and ponder over those messages, before taking action.
It's a Wild West over there, and everyone wants to separate us from our money satoshi

I do recognize that you Ratimov have maintained some level of guarded skepticism regarding what rich people/companies do and what they say, and I suppose that there is nothing wrong with continuing to maintain some alertness in regards to whether contradictions of the statements can be seen through actual actions.

For sure, the language of a lot of the MSTR debt instruments retain quite a bit of flexibility in order that Saylor can do what he wants in regards to the MSTR bitcoin holdings, and surely he would end up getting himself into quite a bit of a pickle if his actions (such as selling large quantities of BTC) were to greatly contradict his many statements in which he proclaimed that he is not selling (and/or never selling and strong statements like that)...

So for sure, in that regard, disclosures in any SEC filings (that he does have to make) may well end up coming quite a bit after he had already sold.. but surely, I would continue to imagine that Saylor does not even come close to acting as internally contradictory as someone like Elon Musk in which Elon is saying all kinds of contradictory things on an ongoing basis and likely figures that a kind of craziness works to his advantage in terms of being able to continue to do what he likes, but Saylor seems to be way more of a straight-shooter in the sense that he does not make those kinds of all over the place statements, and his actions seem to ongoingly consistent with his statements in terms of ongoing bullishness, so I really doubt that Saylor is going to put himself (or his company) into some kind of a questionable position in regards to whether "not sell" really did mean "not sell" or it just meant "don't sell very much".. .  hahahahahaha

Of course, there is going to be some level of faith regarding whether a guy like Saylor is good for his word in regards to how he talks about bitcoin, and surely there are so many folks out their just drooling to see him slip up in some kind of way to show that he is really an opportunist rather than the real deal bitcoin bull that he holds himself out to be, and on a personal level I doubt that Saylor is going to be fucking around like that, and I believe that it works way more to his personal (and company) advantage to just remain steadfast in the mega bull category and let the chips fall where they may.

I saw that report, but I didn't bother to report it here, as it is clearly pure speculation regarding the addresses, and complete nonsense when it comes to "secret selling".

OF course, there's no way to understand which addresses report to MSRT. During the last months more than one attempt to spot the Microstrategy address has been made, but always failed.

In addition to that, as MSRT is a listed company, every buying or selling o bitcoins have a potential impact on the share price. So any of these trades must be timely reported to SEC.

So, no. Microstrategy hasn't been selling.

I doubt that it is that difficult to understand why a pristine asset would be valuable to HOLD.  I have nothing against spending bitcoin, but there is a very valid point towards understanding Gresham's law which would suggest that it is much better to spend from any of our assets or currencies that hold their value less before spending from assets or currencies that hold their value the most - and being speculated as the best of pristine assets means that bitcoin would be speculated to hold its value the best, so it would be the asset/currency that any of us should be spending last, if we have a choice and we are holding more than one kind of asset/currency.

If Michael Saylor says he will never spend bitcoins, or he won't even spend them in 100 years (or something like that), how is he going to profit from his huge investment? I somewhat don't understand the point of a company investing in an asset that they won't be able to spend or lock in a profit in their lifetime. You can buy all the time and all the time, but how is that going to help the company if they are not going to make a profit on their investment? Will they pass this function on to their descendants or does Sailor just not want to touch the subject of the fact that he will have to sell some bitcoins at some point and it could bring down the market? After all, everyone is used to reading that Sailor is only buy bitcoins.