Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 4. (Read 14240 times)

I would be extremely surprised if anything like that would surface on this particular aspect.
Given the particular Microstrategy voting structure and differentiation between share classes regarding voting powers, I think Micheal Saylor has ample freedom of choice about investment choices before any other shareholder can actually bring any legal action forward.

Yes, the SEC has regulations to examine any company or individual for violations of law, market manipulation, scam activities, or other crypto-related cases. The SEC cannot intervene with any assets belonging to a company or individual if there are no indications of violations of securities rules, they cannot spontaneously audit MSTR's bitcoin asset holdings even though MSTR has claimed to have a portfolio of 158,245 bitcoins (coingecko source).

MSTR is involved in business software development but is a non-crypto company, I think it is unlikely they will face the SEC to audit their bitcoin asset holdings, additionally there are no reports of shareholders experiencing losses due to the impact of MSTR investing any funds into bitcoin investments.

Microstrategy are smart people like every other diamond hands. They know the game better and that's why anytime you see Michael Saylor on TV screen granting interviews and doing podcast, man is literally pushing his investment but many people will think they are fighting for the common guys that hold 1 or 2 bitcoin. However, if you look at it carefully, they are helping the mainstream, they know the right people to lobby to get bitcoin to where it will get to its peak.

There is two side to this though, bitcoin is becoming more and more centralized because a single man is holding that junk of bitcoin, I can't even picture what other people that are holding more than him but aren't even making noise because when they want to sell, they don't tell the public, they move like a ghost. But what I like about this is that anytime bitcoin face a barrier or any difficulties, they will try and fight back quickly without waiting for their investment to collapse, that's the other good side of the coin I like about this adoption of Microstrategy and becoming a full diamond hands.

Damn, I didn't know that Saylor himself owns like over 17k worth of bitcoins, that is absolutely crazy! I thought it was just his company that was loaded with Bitcoin but I didn't know that he was such a bull with his average buying on his personal coins was 9.8k.... 10k less that Micro's average buy.

Manipulation is common most specially whales so let us just expect them to say something that creates fud so they can accumulate more and more Bitcoins. We all know that crypto is whales favorite playground they sometimes play the role of making markets turns green and red. They trusted Bitcoin and it's technology other than centralized investments that is quiet slow and stable compared to Bitcoin.

I am not sure exactly what kinds of behaviors or parameters would trigger an audit, and I am not even sure if the SEC has authority to issue such an audit randomly or sua sponte... In other words, it could well be the case that some kind of an official charge or proceeding might need to happen before they are even able to issue an audit.

You are right, MicroStrategy company publishes DCA strategies to the public and they should be responsible for providing proof of bitcoin purchase by providing bitcoin ownership instructions although they don't have to show every bitcoin asset held in multiple addresses, at least publish their portfolio for basic proof for those who doubt the statement they.

However, MicroStrategy has not yet appeared with the SEC for a specific audit of its bitcoin acquisitions, but I am sure MicroStrategy complies with every financial and other relevant regulation, I am sure they will not provide false information claims of any bitcoin purchases.

Companies cannot lie with such important financial information because their financial report is in the public space. They need to report to tax agencies and this information must be included in the financial returns. I don't doubt that MicroStrategy bought these Bitcoins and I don't also need any proof.   


Some people generally want Bitcoin to fail and these set of persons try to talk down on positive news while they publicise any challenge Bitcoin faces. Most of them promote failed projects that they presented as alternatives to Bitcoin. Many of them failed to stand the test of time, so they are now filled with envy because of the success of Bitcoin and MicroStrategy.


Haters will keep hating and Bitcoin will keep flourishing. They have predicted the death of Bitcoin many times, yet Bitcoin has outlived some of them. Congratulations to MicroStrategy for believing in Bitcoin, they are creating a prosperous future.   

Public companies must make these kinds of disclosures on a quarterly basis, but they most likely don't have to show the actual proof - except if they were to get audited by the SEC or whatever agencies could be involved in such monitoring.. as fillippone had mentioned such accountability in their disclosures.


Yep.. very true.. which also relates to some of the various governmental initiatives in which some of the control-freak legislators are striving to push forth efforts to not allow us to have such privacies...or to severely infringe upon such privacies.

This topic of showing proof frequently comes up with El Salvador, too... and their so far lack of disclosures (that are even less than the specifics that Saylor/MSTR has been providing) causes some folks to question how they are holding whatever coins that they supposedly bought and even if they have really bought the coins that they claim to have bought... just as a298b112 is questioning here.


a298b112 might end up causing himself to NOT have confidence in BTC, and perhaps his kinds of claims could also cause others to not have confidence in BTC, and really that is the choice of each of us to figure out how much, if any, confidence we have to invest in bitcoin, and historically the bitcoin naysayers and fearmongers have not tended to do as well as those folks who largely hunkered down and bought bitcoin and continued to buy bitcoin and even the longer and the more aggressive that people have been (without overdoing the aggressiveness of course) have tended to do better than those who were either whimpy in their bitcoin investment or who chose to completely stay out of investing in bitcoin.

There is no real sign that bitcoin's investment thesis is getting any less strong, and actually with the passage of time, it seems that bitcoin's investment thesis may well continuing to get stronger and stronger, and so if there are folks who are continuing to find imaginary reasons to be scared to invest in bitcoin, then that is on them to suffer from their lack of conviction to either buy and/or accumulate bitcoin sooner rather than later and to stay with such ongoing persistent and consistent BTC accumulation until they have enough BTC.. which surely are individual decisions regarding where to start, perhaps 1% to 25% allocation of a quasi-liquid investment portfolio into bitcoin would be a good start to consider where any newbie to bitcoin might fall and then go from their in terms of their own determinations.. and realizing at the same time that there are no guarantees that bitcoin will continue to perform as well as it has done historically, even though anyone studying bitcoin likely realizes that it continues to have a pretty decently strong investment thesis.

do they owe you any responsibility of showing details to support such claim? Would you even want to give out your holding just for a public show and in the long run put yourself at a serious disadvantage where hackers will do anything possible to get your wallet hacked.

Maybe you should understand that if you believe it or not doesn't make any difference and your opinion is just unpopular and doesn't make what is true become false.

It is left for you to believe if MicroStrategy actually bought all the Bitcoins they are hodling now. And it is not advisable to show your BTC wallet address online where you are holding your Bitcoin because you might put yourself at risk and scammers will be sending a phishing link to you just to get access to hack your Bitcoin wallet. Never show your assets online for any reason. Secondly, I don't think MicroStrategy will lie about the Bitcoin they have bought because people will not like to associate with the MicroStrategy company if they know they have lied about purchasing Bitcoin. They will see the MicroStrategy company as people who can possibly scam because they lied about purchasing 189,150 BTC.

In addition to these very correct statements, please remember there are auditors of public companies, who should assess the quality of the information on the balance sheets. So it wouldn't only be MicroStrategy making up numbers, but also KPMG would need to be involved.
This would be quite a plot twist.

As they are doing self-custody of their coins, instead of resorting to a custodian, we haven't a separate, direct assessment of their holding, but I anyway think that the information should be quite reliable.

I don't mean to evade your question - because I don't know about the actual proof - however, a public company lying in their making those levels of detailed disclosures, would be in pretty deep shit, including the various principle officers may well end up with criminal charges.. and pretty severe penalties... so even though I don't have any problems about being doubtful and/or a skeptic, but certain kinds of proclamations are supposed to be able to rely upon them.. so public statements in official quarterly release documents by companies are the kinds of documents we should be able to mostly rely upon... yeah of course, public companies lie sometimes.. but I doubt that lying is taking place with Saylor/MSTR in regards to these acquisition of BTC kinds of matters..

Even though there are a lot of MSTR/Saylor haters, bitcoin naysayers, shitcoin pumpeners and perhaps some others who would just love these kinds of false claims or fraud to be present in this particular case.. 

To me it seems to me that your own asking of those kinds of questions may well mean that you are part of one of those hater camps or you are reading talking points of some of those hater camps.. even your question is not very fleshed out to show that you have studied into the matter beyond merely asking the seemingly pretty lame question.  Sceptical Chymist?  Is that you?   

I mean is there any proof that they are actually buying? It will be good to see even some indirect evidence 

Microstrategy bought another clip:



No matter if the are in profit or in loss, they are DCA-ing their purchases at a constant pace.
Probably they want to front load next year when they will change their accounting rules.

Earlier Version of the tweet:



I will update you with full details later.

Purchase detail:

Based on my calculations, they are currently holding about 0.76% of the 21,000,000 bitcoin total supply, which doesn't look like a small holding to me.
158,400 BTC is 0.76% of 21,000,000 BTC . I used the formula:(158,400 / 21,000,000) x 100 = 0.76%.
 
And from the look of things, if they continue buying as time goes on, they might be able to accumulate up to 1% or above of the total supply, which I believe will be their target, as Micro Strategy has been known to be among the top firms that have so much faith in bitcoin like the rest of us, and they have predicted the price to be above $100k in the coming years.
 
And for private institutions, which have so much financial power with great hope and deal with the currency, we should not expect anything less from them. Selling also won't be in their favour, although they have sold a little in the past, which I believe was a result of escaping tax because they bought back what they sold almost immediately after a few days or a week.

The reason why MicroStrategy and Saylor are investing heavily in Bitcoin is that they believe it is better to invest in Bitcoin than to keep money in the bank since what you save in the bank will be what you get back when you want to withdraw it, and the money will lose it purchasing power due to inflation. The Bitcoin investment is working for them because, from JJG calculation when the Bitcoin price is at $34k, MicroStrategy and Saylor are already on $800m profit, I see them hodling their Bitcoin till another ATH.

I agree with you at JJG, because MicroStrategy and Saylor bought most of their Bitcoin when the Bitcoin price was at $29k. And I think MicroStrategy and Saylor will buy Bitcoin at any price when they have extra money to invest in Bitcoin.

I believe that I had already read about the conjectures about the single custodian and who it is, yet I am pretty sure that I had heard Saylor mention that companies have options regarding their custodians, which I had understood to imply that it would not be a very good practice to ONLY use one custodian.. but sure, you can tell from the way that I am talking about the topic that I have not either figured out specifics or investigated much in that direction.


Surely, we are likely of very similar thinking on the topic, and I am pretty sure that may bitcoin pundits have suggested that MSTR should have enough technical expertise and even abilities to consult with counsel in ways that they should be able to figure out ways to self-custody at least some of their own coins but yeah, even with a company that seems to have been as open as MSTR (and Saylor), I cannot recall Saylor getting into a lot of detailed discussions regarding what their deliberations might be in that direction, including the trade-offs that might come from some of the self-custody and/or multi-sig options that might be available and usable for a public company, such as MSTR.

Another thing is that Saylor talks so much about a variety of topics, I could not imagine that he has not at least somewhat danced around talking about the various tradeoffs in regards to various custodial options that are available to them.

One interesting aspect is that, as far as I know, they are giving their Bitcoin to a single custodian (I will let you discover in the thread which one I am talking about).
On the contrary, I know other companies have made the exact opposite choice. The rationale is that, yes, spreading the custody over multiple custodians actually increases the risk of being hacked but diminishes the expected value of the loss, and this allows the enterprise to survive in such an event. No matter how tiny the chance of a hack to a single custodian, it puts the firm's existence at risk because a single point of failure is a no-go.