Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 41. (Read 24212 times)

Michael Saylor commented on a rather large article from @dergigi with Bitcoin Is Digital Scarcity where the author proves the undoubted advantage of bitcoin over virtual currencies, citing the main theses that Bitcoin is a digital element in a digital environment created and supported by physical processes, therefore it is reliable money that naturally appeared in the digital world.
While virtual currencies, such as in-game currencies and fiat currencies, are not uncommon because neither time nor energy is required to create them.

Saylor agreeing just mentions that.the virtual currencies that the authorities issue are unstable and doomed to failure, and that Bitcoin surpasses them because of its binding to a shortage of time and energy and it is the best form of money.


https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1579194776301473792

Michael Saylor is organizing a contest on his Twitter and promises to pay 0.01BTC to the authors of three Lightning themed meme posters he liked, all you need is just to post your poster in the comments to his tweet.

Source: https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1577413642437349377

Indeed Microstrategy posted on jobs.smartrecruiters.com a vacancy for the position of a software engineer in the field of Bitcoin Lightning to create a SaaS platform based on the Lightning Network, to provide enterprises with innovative solutions to cybersecurity problems and providing new use cases in e-commerce.
Less than two weeks have passed since Michael Saylor stated in his interview with MarketWatch that MicroStrategy is developing a payment protocol based on the Lightning network.

https://jobs.smartrecruiters.com/MicroStrategy1/743999854279496-bitcoin-lightning-software-engineer

Meh.
Of course he sees the Bitcoin price going up! He invested so much time, money and reputation (in growing order of importance for him) in Bitcoin, he must of course sell his idea of permabull ("It's going up forever, Laura").
So, yes, we all agree on this, but he has no greater wisdom about the future than the average member of this forum.


The more interesting part of the news is the fact that he's converting Microstrategy industrial efforts toward the Bitcoin development. This is a gam changing new for the broader bitcoin environment.

The best software developers must put food in the dishes. Long gone are the times where the developers may also be early investors, with thousands of bitcoin in their wallet, so having the luxury of being able to do their work for free. Now we need a more "industrialized" approach to the matter.
This is very bullish, in my opinion.

Michael Saylor, in an interview with the online edition of MarketWatch, says that he is optimistic about the price of bitcoin and that he sees a recovery to ATH over the next four years, and in the next decade, the price of bitcoin, in his opinion, may reach $500,000. "MicroStrategy is also developing Lightning network, a payment protocol based on the bitcoin network and we We are interested in cyberspace and continue to distribute bitcoin. To do this, we are going to use our corporate software skills," says Michael Saylor . He also said that he personally has about 17,732 bitcoins, which he bought at a price of about $9,500 two years ago.

So according to Michael Saylor, the next decade will be amazing for bitcoin, and MicroStrategy and he personally have always supported and will continue to support bitcoin and the technologies it offers.

Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/video/best-new-ideas-in-money-festival/crypto-craziness/23F3761A-3E56-4C73-8F3B-B5533911C42B.html

Yeah.. because your ideas have been weak.. especially in regards to Microstrategy and your ongoing desires to impose obligations on them that do not exist.

You will be back.. unless you are merely trying to perform a lame-ass mic-drop.  Is this meant to be a mic drop?


I don't think so.  You are being too absolutist.. again.. .want to be right, it seems.  There are two ways about it (and even more than two), especially if we consider gambling versus investing to exist on spectrum of gradients rather than absolutes, and in that regard there exist more pure forms of gambling that are on the furthest end of the gambling spectrum that have ONLY luck and there are less extreme forms of gambling that are less far out into the extreme that involve luck and skill.. and then with investing there would be more conservative forms of investing that would exist on the further end of the spectrum and more risky forms of investing that contain more risks.. so they may well overlap with gambling and/or people are likely going to define some of the potentially overlapping areas in ways that do not agree, so the mere fact that you want to call behavior to be gambling does not necessarily make it gambling merely because you would like to define it as gambling.. just for shock value.. or you want to be right or you want to act like a dogmatic absolutist in the way you define matters.  


Good for you.  You are showing your work, and showing the reasons why you come to different conclusions in regards to MSTR not being a good investment.  I would recommend either to sell your shares or not to buy any shares.. or maybe short the company if you are so confident in your cocksure doom and gloom assessment.


Thanks for letting me (us) know.   We see things differently, and it is not like I am, buying (or otherwise trading) any MSTR stocks..

I have my own BTC stocks that I bought (and maintaining), and what you are telling me does not really move my needle.. but hey, you may well be doing a public service, so maybe you are going to save some other bitcoiners from their having high confidence in MSTR.. or at least not to let them know about "reality" in regards to the ongoing doom and gloom that you are feeling/thinking..


You are like those cave people looking at shadows and trying to infer "reality" meaning from them (It's called Allegory of the Cave - for anyone who has not heard about it).  In other words, Saylor's stepping down did not likely have much if anything to do with "negative performance".. because he can do whatever he likes.. He owns something like 70% or more of the voting shares... You are reading too much into a set of facts that hardly have anywhere close to the significance as you are ascribing to them - as if he got voted out or some bullshit like that.. when the votes are not there to do anything other than what Saylor wants to do.

Another funny thing is that you seem to conclude is that Saylor has been stopped from his irresponsible bitcoin buys, but he just bought another $6million and issued equities that allow up to $500million in additional bitcoin buys, if he so wishes... Totally up to him... So how exactly does his stepping down as CEO affect his past "irresponsible" bitcoin buys?  Your logic, if any, is not too strong on this point The Pharmacist.


So fucking what?


Another so what.... Have you heard of due process? and presumption of innocence?  Do you think those ideas are thrown out with American Tax law?  Do you speculate that Saylor is going to be lacking in legal counsel or even lacking in terms of the facts?  Don't jump to conclusions too quickly.. just because you want to gather facts to support your allegations of Saylor's recklessness.


Hm?  I wonder if that is true?  MSTR cannot service their debts with their cashflow?  From my understanding MSTR only has a couple of loans that have terms that expire between 4-6 years from now.. and they did not seem to be very high debts or even very outrageous terms, and MSTR used to have monthly profits between $10million and $30million, and sure, maybe some of that cashflow had dried up, but I have my doubts that MSTR's cashflow (and profits) have dried up as much as you and your little buddy brokerage firm makes it out to be..  One of their first loans was a little over a year ago, and it was for either 5 years or 7 years, so maybe one of their current loans is due 3.5 years from now, but they have nearly $2.5 Billion, even at current prices, so if worse comes to worse, they could sell some of their bitcoin, but so far, they are choosing not to sell any bitcoin and to buy a bit more here and there along the way...  

I suppose if your brokerage's analysis is telling you those kinds of cashflow problem facts, then their rendering of the facts must be true, no?  

They know what to recommend and what not to recommend, right?

Did they recommend to short MSTR earlier in the year?  Like prior to May?  That would have been a good short.. but if you are shorting them now, you might not fair as well as you would like in 6-18 months.


I am sure that you could show more red flags in regards to MSTR, and are you a man of action, or just words?  how are all of your bags full of supposed red flags going to work out for you? You going to act on them?  Is there anything bettable to your words, or are you just saying things without acting upon them?


Of course, if there is potential money in a class action lawsuit, then there will be some folks (law firms) figuring out if they might be able to make a buck or two off of the situation.  Let's see if they actually file a lawsuit without any evidence. .or if they are just grasping at straws.. Of course, experienced law firms need to at least be able to make a colorable claim.. otherwise they might get stuck with a counter-suit or they might get stuck paying the legal fees of the other side.

I had already mentioned that I would not be surprised that there might be some losers out there who are going to file a claims against Saylor / MSTR to either harass him and his company and to denigrate bitcoin.. and it may well have hardly any bearings.. but there are a bunch of anti-bitcoin nutjobs (perhaps you are in that group The Pharmacist, too) who would be harassing Saylor/MSTR for political reasons rather than actually having any kind of reasonably winning basis under the law.  I largely already discussed those kinds of dynamics that you want to repeat for some reason... and act as if there would be any kind of actual colorable claim under current law to go after Saylor for Breach of Fiduciary duty.. when it is most likely that he and MSTR have gone through more than sufficient and adequate disclosures.. which is all that he is really required to do.. even though you and your dweeb law firm (and maybe your dweeb broker too) would like to act as if there is some other standard.. all because you all are so much smarter than everyone else regarding what Saylor's and/or MSTR's legal disclosure (fiduciary duty) obligations are..


Great in regards to your supposed insider (smarter than everyone else knowledge), and we already covered this.  The mere fact that the price went down does not cause Saylor/MSTR to be liable so long as they had adequately disclosed their decision to invest in bitcoin in advance... enough so that the shareholders had a chance to choose for their lil selfies if they wanted to be in or out  (and/or how much?) or if they wanted to short MSTR.  There's also a presumption of "big boy" status in the law, too... for the dumbass whiners who expect that there is some kind of wisdom in Monday morning quarterback analysis... but hey, you are smarter than everyone else, right The Pharmacist?  You have been whining about this for a year, right?  Of course, you knew more than everyone else, even a year ago, right?  That's why you are a secret billionaire, and you are gracing us with your presence out of pure good will and purity of heart, right?

It undoubtedly true that Microstrategy is a bad investment, as a Bitcoin investment.
You are adding layers of risks or a very simple commodity investment.

Also, Microstrategy is going to be an hell of an investment if you look as an equity investment.

It really depends on which investment thesis MSTR, as a ticker, will gyrate to.

Bear in mind that this has nothing to do with Bitcoin investment thesis.

This is going to be my last post in this thread, as having to butt heads with stubborn and bitcoin-blinded members gets tiring.

MSTR's bitcoin purchases are straight-up gambling, there's no two ways about it.  Taking on debt to buy it instead of returning any profits to shareholders (though I don't think there are any since there's no P/E number to be found that's not negative) or plowing it back into the core business is irresponsible--and I'm telling you that all the red flags you need are right in front of you, in addition to Saylor "stepping down" as CEO just after an enormous hit to their financials, due to...guess what?  Saylor's bitcoin buys. 

And Saylor's 2000 settlement with the SEC for misreporting financial results.
And Saylor being sued by the DC AG for tax fraud.
And this (from my brokerage's analysis page):


And I could probably list more red flags, but I'll leave it at this.  I have little doubt WeissLaw is going to be the first to bring on the shareholder lawsuits, with one caveat to that sliver of doubt:  if bitcoin starts to rocket upward, the MSTR shareholders might be inclined to forgive and forget.  But right now?  When you've got a 5-year price chart that looks like this:



Well, I warned you.

Micheal Saylor is back in the game!



This is to answer to all those tonight that stupid lawsuit was found to interfere with his Bitcoin Strategy.

The summary of the bitcoin holding give a breakdown of the capacity from each ends base on their treasury stand in holding a particular amount if bitcoin over time and as a matter of fact, microstrategy has shown high purchasing ability for buying and acquiring bitcoin during this bear season more than any other source, let dive into the chart explanation in details.


source]

This is very impressive, i think JayJuanGee you've akindof developed a sensible humor psychologically in studying people and i guess that's from the aspect you got the right possible intention of Michael and Microstrategy from with their intended decision to make, you've also developed a foresights in analysing possible future consequences in each side both the good and bad, if a particular decision is made, this is also an encouragement on us all that in whatsoever thing we do within the bitcoin network, then it must be base on what we are well convinced of, it is patinent for microstrategy to continue in making the buy and this is not just because they think they've got the fund enough to do so, but because there's adequate and long term plan and strategies developed for the actions sustainability.

Thanks Daltonik.

This is a pretty clear example the way that Companies like MSTR will tailor their disclosures to say that they can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want (in this case in regards to buying bitcoin), and the actions of the company may or may not result in profits being made, so the main obligation that public companies have is to sufficiently and adequately put shareholders/and the public on notice regarding the general direction that they are going which give them a lot of flexibility.  

It seems to me that MSTR/Saylor would not be so dumb as to make those kinds of public disclosure statements promising that the investment into bitcoin is for sure going to be profitable or saying that the shareholders have rights to overrule Saylor/MSTR or any other MSTR administrator or any kind of bullshit like that - that as The Pharmacist seems to want to imply to be Saylor's and/or MSTR's obligations in regards to their uses of company funds (by the way, this is not any kind of personal attack The Pharmacist.. I am attacking your pie in the sky ideas regarding public company obligations "to be responsible," "cookie cutter" "don't take risk" blah blah blah..  rather than you).


I think that the quoted section that Daltonik highlighted shows that they are protected from pretty much whatever they do, and even if we take a less likely scenario in which everyone believes that they are going to buy bitcoin, and instead they just sit on the cash for the next year, and bitcoin prices go shooting up... and they fail to invest.. Seems to me that they are still protected.


I get the sense that Saylor is NOT very price sensitive when it comes to bitcoin - even though he likely has seen that he could have played some of his more entries into bitcoin a bit more strategically rather than front loading so much at a time, yet maybe in the end, from Saylor's perspective (maybe even the rest of MSTR), they still may consider that they would not really change anything in terms of the way that they made their BTC purchases based on the information that they had at the time of each of their BTC purchases.  

Yeah, in retrospect, we can act like we are smarter than God - but when we are acting upon timely information, we might consider that we made amongst the best of choices based on the information that was then in front of us.  Saylor and MSTR might feel exactly that they made the right choice, in spite of all kinds of folks trying to second guess them and say "I told you so" blah blah blah.


It seems that any rational person/institution is going to be humbled by price crashes that seem to go beyond expectations and having to regroup - which Saylor/MSTR had to do with their leveraged positions that initially would have liquidated at around $21k had they not added more collateral to them in May/June of this year, so many people and institutions (and even governments - looking at El Salvador) became a bit less aggressive in their buying amount and their buying frequency - because they had to account for their cashflow and they also had to account for the possibility that the BTC price may have continued to drop.. and there can be a lot of difficulties to catch a falling knife - and rational actors become somewhat scared (or worried) when they witness circumstances that appear to be more like falling knives (cascading liquidations) rather than more normal and incremental market behaviors, so even if they might not be very price sensitive, they still want to attempt to assess when some level of possible stability returns.


I mostly agree with you, and I imagine that Saylor is involved in approving a lot of these kinds of matters.. though he may give some discretion in terms of some of the implementation matters, and surely there would be some willingness to entertain any factors that might be majorly affecting short term price ideas, but at the same time, it is likely that Saylor is not really very receptive to too much FUD doom and gloom speculation discussions since their overall position remains less sensitive to BTC price moves and more inclined towards continuing to accumulate BTC (even though many of us normies likely consider that they have enough BTC and/or they have more than enough.. but hey.. they can do what they like.. if they think they need more.. then that's their choice).


I look forward to seeing your assessment - and of course, the kinds of shares that are issued makes a difference too.. .. and each of the ways of raising money does constitute various kinds of debt or encumbrances but then the question becomes regarding if the money is owed to the outside (3rd parties) - or in the case of issuing shares, it is like issuing debt to oneself by diluting all of the existing shareholders - at least the existing shareholders that hold those kinds of shares.. and then there are ideas of how sustainable would it be to continue to issue and water down shares and will shareholders realize the shares are watered down or will the market largely absorb and keep the share prices the same in spite more shares being issued.

I am travelling and I didn’t read the news with the due attention, but I find it interesting they decided to issue new shares to buy bitcoin instead of issuing debt.
I will look to this in more details later today.

you're right, microstrategy is well known for his potential buying over time, but i also thought about it this way, what if they later ended up not buying again, fine and good the resources needed to secure the buy already is in place but we all know that bitcoin sometimes is unpredictable and what if the price refuse to go dip for them to set in, also the luck may be on their side that things went as expected for the price to record more dip, anyways i still believe Michael will still make an entry regardless of time.


exactly, it has to be a unanimous decision after several considerations and consultations from relevant bodies before embarking on a step but this their move already is a good sign for possible approval from all relevant and concerned boards to give their approving hands in for any plan to make a buy, i think i will be more anticipated for more news coming in this regard.

Well, MicroStrategy has just submitted an application for the sale of shares in the amount of up to $500 million, the proceeds can be used, including for the purchase of bitcoin, not the fact that all the proceeds will be used for the purchase of bitcoin. As indicated in the addendum to the issue prospectus dated September 9, 2022 on page S8. We are talking about the sale of Class A ordinary shares at a price of $0.001 per share.

There's going to be some variance in the ways that companies submit reports in regards to what they did and reports regarding what they plan to do, and so the reports about what they already did are likely to be easier to compose than reports about what they plan to do. 

In reports about what they are going to do, they have an obligation to sufficiently and adequately put shareholders on notice regarding the general direction of the company, how funds are being spent and enough specifics so that shareholders (or potential shareholders) are sufficiently notified.  At the same time, they do not necessary want to remove their own discretion in the event that they might be wanting to get in or out of an asset at a time that is of their own choosing and without necessarily triggering too much frontrunning of what they are doing which may well cause their costs to go up.. for example, they would not want to necessarily say that they are buying $10 million in bitcoin on Bitstamp at 12noon UTC on September 12th.   

Anyhow part of my point is that there is likely a kind of balancing of providing enough information that is sufficient and adequate to put the public (and shareholders) on notice without providing too much information that removes their ability to operate relatively freely and without prejudicing themselves too much in terms of what kinds of details that they are disclosing.

Well we all know about Saylor and MSTR's strategy of continuing to buy bitcoins in any way even then they have made an average purchase of $19,000 with millions of dollars in capital if I'm not mistaken, so the microstrategy is still hoping to have a lot of bitcoins by any means.

I refer to quotes on twitter from Watcher.guru and BitcoinMagazin that Microstrategy has raised $500 million from the sale of shares and they are considering it while in the article's report Watcher.guru refers to the article.

So I guess with the $500 million fundraising that's the latest even in the report.

https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1568357366755737600
https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1568356758732800001

The news that Microstrategy sold the company shares to buy bitcoin was announced today. I think they got a little excited. But they may also be doing a very sensible job. In my opinion, bitcoin will continue this course for at least a few more months.

^ $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.