Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 34. (Read 18602 times)

I wonder how much BTC his company would have now if he didn’t have such a negative opinion some 7-8 years ago? Although this outcome is certainly better for all of us, because let's imagine a scenario in which a dozen large companies have in their possession more than 50% of BTC and that amount is only increasing. I never liked the idea that Bitcoin would become a toy of the rich, although it is quite clear that in the open market anyone who has money can buy as much as BTC wants.

I wonder if SAYLOR ever wonders at what level his control of Bitcoin becomes a liability.

Say he bought ALL the Bitcoin.  Well it would be worthless because he will have taken all the ability to coordinate away from the system.  And obviously this will never happen, but at what point is his stake "too big"?

Personally I think there are no issues with the size of their stake currently. But is there a point at which there WOULD be issues?

(I assume this topic has been previously covered in this thread somewhere...)

Another Buy from Microstrategy:



As the latest buys, this was done through their ATM Facility program.



 It is interesting what they add in their filing:




So this very successful program has now ended. Given the hefty fees it produced, I bet they are going to renegotiate it.

A few pages back, the attitude towards lending was completely different, and it is also more than clear that the company has its own custody of the BTC they bought. Is this a strategy change or just a test to see if there are any interested clients for this type of service?

Your framing as if you are surprised or shocked in regards to Saylor is strange fillippone..

Saylor has already been criticized for NOT sufficiently holding his own keys.. so he is NOT very much of the camp of "not your keys not your coins," and hopefully he will not have to learn any lessons the hard way in regards to that.

Furthermore, he has already been discussing all kinds of ways that property can be leveraged.. so his increasingly going down the leveraging road (bitcoin or otherwise) does not come off as surprising to me...

In some sense, I can see that his current ideas on leveraging thoughts would merely serve as further means to create financial devices (even if he invents them himself) in order to get more and Moar and MOAR bitcoins.

Microstrategy held an investor event, as advertised by Micheal Salyor.



Bloomberg summarized the event:


MicroStrategy Floats Lending Out Its Bitcoin Trove to Generate Yield


The idea of lending Bitcoins is not what I would have expected from a bitcoin maxi like Micheal Saylor:

https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1468930815421820932

As in the previous occasion, this is not a “deep pocket” buy, but an ATM buy:


This means it’s not Microstrategy’s money, but investors’ money.
MSTR is slowly transitioning in an investment company.
A new Berkshire Hathaway.

This interview with Christine Lee reminds me that a couple of days ago, I did a fairly extensive commenting upon Saylor's interview with Tucker Carlson.. which would have been from a day or two before that the Tucker Carlson interview took place.  So, yeah.. I should have put some kind of cross-reference to my post in this thread, so here's a link to my commentary for ease of reference....and so such link also contains a youtube link to the TCarlson interview.

Maybe use Lightning to pay for your coffee. The rest of your bitcoin should be in cold storage.

Don’t make any bitcoiner started on bitcoin being a currency or a store of value, unless you are ready for a fight and lose a few hours debating, only to see both of them leave the debate with the same idea.

Regarding the fact you should pay your coffee with USD, it’s not Saylor’s idea, but Gresham’s Law

In another interview with Coindesk tv on Wednesday, MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor explained why the dollar is the world currency, while bitcoin is a global reserve asset, and this is their main difference.
"You don't want to pay for coffee with your bitcoin, but prefer to pay with currency" he said.

Buying and selling would be considered trading. That's not what they do or what their strategy is. The whole point is for them to buy forever. They don't need to ever sell it as a corporation. They can always borrow against it because it is considered an asset.

One company that bought and sold was Tesla. Any public company that buys or sells have to disclose them all.

Of course they can also sell.
The point is that their “Bitcoin Playbook” doesn’t include selling amongst the viable options.
Their bitcoin guru, Micheal Saylor, believes in a bitcoin super cycle, thus believing any sell around currrebt level would be an historical error for the firm.

Anyway I guess any sell would’ve potentially known via the usual channels, like SEC filings, exactly as it is currently happening with the buys.

Now I come across this thread the only thing I ever in the news is that Microstrategy is buying and buying. Is it publicly known whether they also sell at times? I mean they can't get it right all the time, but if they sell at $68k and rebuy at $55k, that's a lot of money given the amounts we are talking about here. So do they also sell? Is that known?

What it is important to underline here is that the buying wasn’t made by MSTR using their own funds, rather they raised new capital from new shares issuing, and used this proceeds to buy more Bitcoin.
This is quite an important difference. They are diluting previous shareholders issuing new shares, also, they are not using their free cash flow to buy bitcoins.
Also, as this is a flow coming outside the firm, I doubt that the can decide when to buy, as they have to “cover” when they issue new shares.

Yes, according to the SEC, MicroStrategy bought these bitcoins starting from October 1 to November 29, this leads to a total stock of 121,044 BTC from MicroStrategy.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1050446/000119312521341815/d191335d8k.htm

Finally, Microstrategy announced their latest buying:


https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1465305537210458115?s=21


Looking into. details we discover this is a buy from the ATM facility, as the activity has been spread over a considerable amount of time, like the last buys:



In the following spreadsheet the ATM facility buys have a Tan shade:



Link

When I am back to the civilised world, I will try to come out with a summary of the short interest on MSRT. I reckon this could be quite interesting actually.

Like other companies that keep their company's investment assets as their new business line, even though it is not explicitly stated by the CEO if the business operations have been supported by 51% of the investment results, it can be said that the business has changed according to the new investment.  However, if I see that MSTR is currently only investing and has not even sold it, it means that no return has been realized, can it be said that their business has changed?  But if it is said to only support the company's value, I agree.

Could be; I haven't exactly analyzed how they do business or what they do with their cash flow from operations.  I hadn't even looked at their summary on my brokerage account but just did and it looks like their earnings per share are -$45.46(!).  It certainly doesn't seem like they're making a profit from whatever it is that they do for their core business, does it?  That's assuming the data I just dropped is accurate, of course. 

And wow, for a company that has a negative P/E, they sure do have a crazy stock price.  Another interesting stat I just found out is that the short interest in MSTR is 20.28%, so there are a lot of people out there who are just waiting for that stock price to crash--and as much as I support Michael Saylor's dedication to bitcoin and wish him well, I have a feeling that that's exactly what the stock is going to do, crash.  Of course, I've been expecting the whole market to crash for a few years now and it just never seems to happen.

Well, when a company owns that much bitcoin and it's clear that they don't intend on selling any of it anytime soon, it's inevitable that investors are going to see it as a way to indirectly invest in bitcoin, similar to buying gold/silver/copper mining stocks if you want to get exposure to metals.  I don't see that as a bad thing.