Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 5. (Read 19150 times)

I am pretty sure that the chart that you showed, tiCeR, is ONLY referencing how many BTC various companies have in their own corporate treasuries.

We could have other charts showing stock price values or how many coins companies are custodying  on behalf of clients, which truly would not be their own coins, and there are some charts that show those kinds of custodying situations.

Actually arguments could be made that MSTR is custodying coins on behalf of others, yet that is not MSTR's current business, since they are not a bank nor a custodian of BTC.   

Guys likely realize that MSTR has been fairly creative in the various ways that they finance their purchasing of BTC, and some of the coins were bought outright with company cashflow, and other coins were bought by the issuance of debt, and other coins were bought through the issuance of equity, and surely I am not going to attempt to proclaim to understand how each of the different tranches of coins might be considered as owned outright  versus some of the coins might be encumbered, yet Saylor and MSTR seem to be pretty damned good negotiators, so frequently, they issue debt or they use equity of the company in ways in which they don't necessarily encumber the coins, like in a collateral kind of a situation, and/or there tend to not be restrictions on the coins or Saylor or MSTR's ability to issue more debt, and surely whatever he does ends up having magnifying effects when the BTC price is going up, and surely they are likely still protected in regards to a certain amount of BTC price downfall, and I could not imagine them failing/refusing to project out a variety of scenarios and to have plans for a variety of contingencies.

Yes I agree that the charts sometimes are somewhat vague, but for this case it made a lot of sense to share it. I pointed out Coinbase because I remember how in the beginning I thought when they get all their licensing sorted out and are US based and then go public, it was all set for them to grow into a major player in the world. That is what I thought, but they have had their issues here and there and Coinbase was never really particularly liked among the community.


I tend to think that the chart is supposed to show their own holdings, the company's property. But I would be wrong and who knows how well this was investigated by whomever has prepared the chart.

But I think it demonstrates very well the dimensions, which is mind-blowing. It's actually ridiculous if you think about how long BTC is around and how clearly MSTR has been emphasizing that BTC is the thing of the future and yet no other player had the guts to at least be a bit more aggressive? This is what strikes me as odd. MSTR is going to be immensely powerful in the business because they just began to snowball. This is the beginning, not the midgame or something. They can leverage against their holdings like crazy, and they will.

I snipped that chart out, as I don't like to quote huge things like that, but I was surprised that MSTR is so far ahead of those other companies in terms of BTC ownership.  As far as Coinbase's holdings, am I correct in assuming that includes its customers' bitcoin that they simply have custody of?  Either way, that data is astonishing to me--and if anyone ever wanted proof as to Michael Saylor's belief in bitcoin, that graph would suffice.

Those last two companies, CleanSpark and Hive Digital I'm not familiar with.  In fact, there are a couple more that I haven't heard of, but presumably they're big players in the bitcoin space.  However, I'm not sure if a comparison with any big mining operation like Riot is appropriate since they don't necessarily hold bitcoin for the long term like MSTR does.

Anyway, thanks for dropping that info.

We will have to see how this works out for them as the company does not seem to be doing very well.

All time chart:



Last week chart:



If this and other companies do well, a brutal FOMO will be unleashed. MSTR's business intelligence business has totally taken a back seat because it earns them $75M a year and as of today issuing debt at less than 1% and buying bitcoin is something they can get in 5 days.

Genius Group Stock Pumps Amid MicroStrategy-Like Bitcoin Treasury Plan
AI education firm Genius Group plans to hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset, with an aim to have the coin make up 90% of its treasury.
Source Link: https://decrypt.co/291335/genius-stock-pumps-microstrategy-bitcoin-treasury

AI firm Genius Group has announced it will top up its coffers with Bitcoin‌, revealing a MicroStrategy-inspired treasury reserve strategy shortly after the digital asset's price soared to another new all-time high.

The company plans to purchase $120 million in Bitcoin as part of its latest business plan, holding the token as a long-term reserve asset. Ultimately, Genius Group aims for Bitcoin to make up 90% of its treasury reserves.

“We see Bitcoin as being the primary store of value that will power… exponential technologies‌,” Genius Group Director Thomas Power said Tuesday in a statement.

Another thing that happened yesterday is that MSTR beat its previous ATH of $313 in March 2000 and ended the session at $340 after touching highs of $351. Saylor must have uncorked some nice bottles of champagne yesterday.

This came in the midst of FOMO after the election and in a session where they unveiled the largest bitcoin purchase in FIAT and the second largest in total bitcoin, showing how they are going to relentlessly pursue the strategy they set out to do: buy bitcoin, keep buying bitcoin and buy a lot more bitcoin.

Worth the read guys if you haven't done it yet or haven't across this elsewhere.

MicroStrategy Announces $42 Billion Bitcoin Investment Plan

Just for reference because it is astonishing how far they are ahead of a company like Coinbase. I wasn't aware of that.



I know in the meantime they have added another 27,200 BTC and there is no stopping for them if they stick to the plan as mentioned in the ling


@JayJuanGee we had a little off-topic talk about third party custody and how this might play out. My guess is that a trustworthy company with insurance deposits on their BTC holdings could play an important role for those who believe they are not able to figure out self-custody properly or are just not willing to put in the time and effort to have proper self-custody in place.

This article (and some others) says


Now with the confidence they are building with all their public communication about their goals, their plans and the actual execution, I think if they want to turn MicroStrategy into a Bitcoin Bank as Saylor says, this would probably be a place many people would go to as they would have no doubt that their BTC would be in the best hands possible because there are professionals and BTC visionaries. In the case of FTX it was shocking to say the least when I found out that they ran their operations with amateurish software in between pizza and beer.

Nobody is talking about the moment when Saylor sold some MS shares of around $370 million anymore because his communication on Twitter and how they keep going not despite, but because of rising prices is likely to only bolster confidence in the company further.

Yes MicroStrategy company recently bought more bitcoins, step by step this company became the largest investor by buying bitcoins. Today the MicroStrategy company  bought a total of 27,200 bitcoins. The average price per Bitcoin they purchased is $74,463 after the price of Bitcoin recently touched an all-time high. This may be the second highest Bitcoin purchase since we saw on December 12, 2020 that this company purchased 29,646 Bitcoins at once. At the moment, the total Bitcoin holdings of MicroStrategy Company is 279,420 which makes this company currently the fifth largest Bitcoin holder in the world.

With the purchase of 27,200 bitcoins today, the company already has bitcoin holding worth nearly $23.22, billion (According to Saylortracker). From their total holdings, their company has managed to earn more than $10 billion dollars in profits.

Maybe we will enter the stage where third party custody providers will also offer a sort of deposit insurance up to an amount that makes it very suitable for the majority of people interested in holding BTC. But I know that you have a reasonable take on self-custody as we agree that sometimes dealing with too high transaction fees or creating too many UTXOs can lead to unreasonable cost when someone wants to move their coins.

But what you have mentioned about gravitation towards third-party custody is probably sadly true. I think it will be apps that people recklessly download and store their coins on, somewhat believing that if they hold the device in their hands, they are also ultimately in control of their coins. It's like people using facebook and sharing their whole life there. Nobody is looking into the specifics as to what is happening to their data, how they are exposing themselves to a variety of risks and so on and so forth. The more BTC becomes main stream, the more tempting will be the app advertisements for BTC custody with third party providers.

Those who are thorough enough with their finances to at least demand deposit insurance or some other kind of security measures are probably eager enough to look into self-custody anyway. But I fear you are right that as a gradual process the majority will end up using third party custody providers. What strikes me as odd is that effects of events like the FTX crash are so short-lived, but I guess it is a consequence of the global data mumble-jumble and infinite flood on information that these things get buried in no time.

And if you think about it, a user who manages to lose their coins because of attacks on their personal device should in general be thinking about their online behavior, not only for the sake of protecting their coins. Someone who is not literate enough to protect their coins from being stolen from a personal device could as well be destined to be robbed off their most private fotos, which actually could even be worse than losing coins (depending on the amount of BTC or the type of the fotos ).

Would not be surprised Saylor is making a purchase announcement soon.



https://x.com/saylor/status/1855589307550986263

MicroStrategy's Saylor Reacts to Bitcoin Skyrocketing Above $80K

The iconic catchphrase that inspired the track recently turned four. It was first used by Saylor in one of his videos, in which he advocated for Bitcoin maximalism. The MicroStrategy co-founder has placed all of his bets on the largest cryptocurrency, rejecting the idea of touching altcoins.


The total value of MicroStrategy's Bitcoin holdings has now surpassed a whopping $20.3 billion following the cryptocurrency's most recent price surge.   MicroStrategy's playbook has since been adopted by some other companies, including mining giant Marathon Digital.

After Bitcoin surpassed $80,000 for the first time earlier today, Marathon Digital CEO Peter Thiel taunted German officials after Saxony went on a massive Bitcoin selling spree earlier this year. He estimated that the German state had missed out on $1.3 billion worth of profits by refusing to hold their coins.  "With bitcoin peaking around $80K new ATH today, I wonder how the officials in Germany feel about having sold their nearly 50,000 bitcoin at around $53K per BTC in July … hmmmm…that about a $1.3B difference," Thiel said in a social media post.

Source link: https://u.today/microstrategys-saylor-reacts-to-bitcoin-skyrocketing-above-80k

Source link: https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2Fu.today%2Fmicrostrategys-saylor-reacts-to-bitcoin-skyrocketing-above-80k&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl2%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs%2Fm2%2F4

---

Microstrategy companies are currently making huge profit overs from each bitcoin, and they will hold their bitcoins for the long term as per their milestones. Currently they can see the benefit increase in maximum bitcoin after investing, at least they will get more benefit from each bitcoin the more bitcoin they accumulate.
Because they will prepare to invest in Bitcoin again if they get the chance, because they see that only Bitcoin can get the maximum benefit from investing in proven microstrategy companies.

I believe that it is common for normies to NOT take advantage of opportunities even when they are right in front of them, and I am not sure what the solution is except that I am trying to point out a dynamic that I believe exits rather than really knowing how to change human tendencies.

There are frequently going to be hesitancies with folks in regards to whether to enjoy today or defer gratification for later, and surely there can be hesitancies, even with 401ks because there are legal requirements and incentives that are supposed to cause them to be used as retirement funds, and frequently people don't want to look that far in advance and/or they are reluctant to have funds locked up for so long.

I am not going to proclaim that I was any visionary, yet when I got into bitcoin, I was not really sure if the amount that I had already put into my 401k was going to be enough, 10 years further down the road, and that is why I was purposefully looking for a supplement to that potential income.  Another thing is that I was not even sure that my supplement was going to be bitcoin, yet when I first got into bitcoin, I thought bitcoin was a good tentative candidate, so I even told myself that I would try to shoot for 1 year to 2 years, and if I deemed that bitcoin was not really working as anticipated, then I would either find something else or transfer whatever value I had in bitcoin into something else, so I did not have any kind of clear vision of bitcoin, yet I was hoping that bitcoin would at least perform around the same as my prior investments, which was around 6% on an average annualized basis, and so even my first couple of years in bitcoin, I was way underwater, so bitcoin was not even coming close to the 6% per year return, yet my studying bitcoin  for 2 years and continuing to buy into it did not break my resolve about bitcoin after the first two years, so yeah, I was still nervous about bitcoin by the end of 2015, yet at the same time, anyone looking at the bitcoin charts will see that we had a bitcoin pumpening at the end of 2015 (which largely doubled it from $250 to $500), and even though bitcoin got caught in a late 2015 correction and then about a 6 month further consolidation around $420-ish, it was still getting somewhat close to my break-even point at that time, and so things kind of ended up working out, including that I had never considered that I was too outrageous on my level of investment into bitcoin, even though I did feel that I ended up investing a bit more than what I had anticipated that I was going to invest... but it all kind of worked out and over the past 10-11-ish years I have had the ability to continue to stay active in monitoring my bitcoin investment and feeling more comfortable with how I had allocated into it.

On the other hand, tying this back into the idea of direct ownership versus getting price exposure, I am not sure how much time normies have to research into their investments, and many times they are still going to retain some comforts with their having their coins held through custodians rather than directly owning it, and so there are increasingly more ways to get BTC price exposure, yet surely a large number of those of us who were in bitcoin in 2022 had personally witnessed how high level of risks were coming from holding coins with third parties, and surely we are going to continue to witness gravitation towards third-party custody, while at the same time some of those learning about bitcoin figuring out that there is a decent amount of value to holding some decent portions of your BTC privately, while at the same time, there will continue  to be a lot of folks who don't want to be bothered with self-custody. Sure, we see attacks on self-custody, too, and some folks will be scared away or even disincentivized to self-custody.

Everyone has different priorities and different timelines and you were smart in planning for your future before your job situation could change. I actually get where you're coming from, since your intention was to get an alternative source that could do what the current 401k does but this time, with more flexibility for growth. Good thing you stuck to Bitcoin then, because even a business still has a specific timeline before it can generate good profits. With Bitcoin, it is possible for you to diversify outside traditional markets while you have free time to run a business, company, or any other means to make your money. If am not mistaken since 2013 you hopped on the train you have never regretted what you did because it's a unique risk you took. No doubt you thought of long term and when I mean long term not just the 10-year interval but further. A lot of people won't think of the long term rather they would choose something that can yield immediate returns. I don't know if you can relate to this, though but the options your colleague had were not long-term unless a few were exceptional. Which I am in no position to know.

Even though I agree that direct ownership is better than various kinds of third-party custodian situation or even ways that guys might purchase price exposure rather than actual bitcoin, it still likely takes a whole hell of a lot of time for anyone to wrap their heads around the differences or to appreciate the difference, since sometimes, just getting normies to do anything may well be a step in the right direction and even very difficult for them to actually follow through with so many times normies will become quite impressed with themselves just by proclaiming that they are an investor (in bitcoin), even if they don't really know what they are investing into.

More than 20 years ago, when I got a job that offered a 401k, I considered that as long as I am investing at least 10% of my income into the 401k then I would be doing enough, and there were even limits regarding what I could invest and surely each employer is going to have different parameters regarding whether and how much they match, so since my employer matched the first 5%, then I would frequently advice my colleagues that they had to at least put in the maximum of the matching in order to get the employer's matching component, then after that the main benefit was merely that it was tax deferred and an already easy system to contribute into without too many hassles.. absent if reaching the max.

Frequently I hypothesize if I would have ever really been motivated to get into bitcoin or even to allocate even a small part into bitcoin during the period that I was still contributing into the 401k.. since it just gets so difficult to add more if you are already feeling like you are investing quite a lot and maybe even a person might have house payment (besides their 401k), so they likely figure that they already engaging in high payments that they consider to be "investments." 

One of my fortunes to motivate me to both look into bitcoin and to resonate with bitcoin in late 2013 was that my then job with the 401k was ending, and sure I could have rolled that 401k into something else, yet I was then looking for something to supplement (or substitute) for the 401k for the next 10 years or perhaps a bit longer depending on whatever might happen with me, I figured that I had right around a 10 year or maybe a little longer investment timeline before i might want to start to need to draw upon the money.

So it makes a difference for anyone to figure out what investment options are available to them, and there were so many of my colleagues who either were not even contributing to their 401ks or they were way shy of their even making sure that they consistently got the 5% employer matching, and geez it seems that so many always still had financial problems even with a decently steady paying job, so I frequently considered myself to be way more disciplined from them since I was frequently investing 10% or more into that existing fund.

The easiest for folks is getting allocation to BTC within funds that they already have exposure (such as through their employer's 401k), and surely I know that there are a lot of folks who have work situations that are not offering 401ks, so it could be that in those situations, they could be motivated to set up their own plan using bitcoin, and perhaps direct ownership of bitcoin might make sense.

Another thing is that when we might believe it does not make a whole hell of a lot of difference if we hold the bitcoin directly or holding them on an exchange, so even if people can be convinced to get BTC price exposure and they don't have any easy ETF options, they might buy BTC through an exchange, and it could well take them a while before they are ready, willing and able to take the further learning and even responsibility level of moving those BTC into some kind of a secure self-custody - and even though so many of us regular bitcoiners try to proclaim that self-custody is not very difficult, if we really get down to the nitty gritty, we likely realize that there are quite a few self-custody options, and some are  better than others, and if we really want to make the self-custody secure and also so that we don't end up locking ourselves (or our heirs) out of our own corn, then there are a variety of potentially complicated processes that we may well need to jump through and make sure that we have struck reasonable balances, even something as simple as making sure that our back up is not in the same exact spot as our device(s)... like a house burning down situation. 

For sure it is not easy-peasy to self-custody.. and yeah even some of us question how Saylor/MSTR is custodying his coins/his company's coins and we also question how the ETF providers are custodying their coins.

Yes, as you say below as well, in my case a good part of what I have in index funds is in a retirement plan. Since I can't buy bitcoin for that retirement fund, at least for the time being, I accumulate the bitcoin elsewhere and continue to contribute for retirement. I suppose if everything I have been investing over the years had been invested only in bitcoin I would have earned more, but it also gives me more peace of mind to be more diversified.


That's for sure.


Yes, that is typical. The biggest investment a person has, especially a working class or middle class person, is usually their home, to which some add retirement funds.


MSTR is already included in the MSCI World which is a popular alternative to the S&P 500 because it is more diversified. I believe it will gradually be included in the major indexes, starting with the Nasdaq 100 and probably the S&P 500 in June next year.


Unfortunately, that's the case.


Well, I believe that managing bitcoin with your private keys is always going to have an advantage over owning it derivatively.

MicroStrategy is a bitcoin treasury company and the CEO of this company is a supporter of bitcoin. The main goal of MicroStrategy Company is to buy Bitcoin step by step.


https://u.today/mstr-is-bitcoin-treasury-company-michael-saylor-unveils-key-microstrategy-plans

$MSTR is a Bitcoin Treasury Company,  backed by $BTC Reserves.


Source Link: https://x.com/saylor/status/1854504864702734418?t=iL9STNJySETP5sa1w0NBnA&s=19]

---

So far the microstrategy company has managed to increase their holdings to 252220 Bitcoins. They will hold more bitcoins in the future and use it for a longer period of time, maybe holding them until a few future bull runs.  
And every time they buy bitcoins deep, Michael Saylor is ready to accumulate more bitcoins for his holdings. Because he has seen maximum benefit in his investment and Bitcoin price is increasing all the time at present.

I tend to have a related theory in regards to what motivates folks to allocate or reallocate, which is that people who are already investors tend to just stick with assets that they already invest into, and surely index funds have become more and more popular over the past 25 years or so, and surely the addition and subtraction of companies into any particular index fund is going to automatically change our allocations in somewhat incremental and not very rash kinds of ways.

Another related point is that when we have already decided to allocate in various more individualized investments such as MSTR, bitcoin or perhaps some other kind of assets or investments, then it would be a higher level threshold to completely change from it rather than to either just keep the allocation that we have or change the rate that we are adding or subtracting from it.  I am a pretty BIG fan of incrementalism in regards to managing investment assets, yet surely from time to time BIG changes have to be made in our own chosen assets that we are going to allocate into. 

I also frequently proclaim that the no coiner who does not invest into anything is going to have a lot more barriers in regards to just building up a habit versus someone who had already started investing, and another thing is that an overwhelming minority of folks invest in the first place and those who do invest either ONLY have investment into their residential property which surely does not tend to be very liquid, except the extent to which equity might be borrowed (or taken) from it, or they might have 401k, which also don't tend to be very liquid even though their are government regulations that allow for some borrowing against portions of the 401ks, and surely within the 401k there might be some that have greater kinds of options versus others, and many 401ks seem to really love index funds too and don't tend to give a lot of options.. but yeah in recent times maybe some of them are going to end up having something like MSTR in there whether directly or through the various index funds that might be offered within them.  Of course, ETFs have become more and more available through 401k plans and only recently some of them are allowing for some of the Bitcoin-related spot ETF into their optional asset choices.

Surely the various levels in which BTC derivatives are being embedded into a variety of products is likely causing a lot of BTC demand (a newly approved product is the options which seem to allow for a lot of loaning (or liabilities) against actual BTC - cash settled or BTC settled?), even though I personally get confused about the level to which some of the various financial products might allow for greater and greater dilution of the BTC supply which could come from: 1) how much time some funds might be legally allowed to settle their BTC allocations and if they have to be backed up by actual BTC or if they can just be backed up by the equivalent value of BTC, yet we should realize that they are running a pretty BIG price exposure risk if they are not holding the actual BTC they claim to hold if they get caught with their pants down or 2) some of the various financial products will be allowing greater and greater loaning (liabilities) against the BTC that are held within the funds, and surely many of us already likely realize that that there can be temptations to create obligations that reflect way more on a multiple of BTC.. so just the fact that loans/liabilities are made on BTC creates a kind of dilution of the total of the 21 million BTC supply and the synthetic creation of more BTC through multiple obligations on the same BTC and creating even further dilution of the BTC supply... whose gonna get caught with their pants down?   BIGGER boys tend to be able to get special treatment, able to cover up their shenanigans, and/or perhaps sometimes able to get bail outs that might not be allowed to smaller or unfavored players.

I better stop because I am getting quite a bit beyond whatever MSTR is doing or how it is being treated, yet we are getting more and more of a complicated web of BTC financial instruments, and surely ultimately the various financial instruments are getting their fundamental value from the power of BTC to be able to be held privately and to be transmitted without 3rd party intermediaries... and yeah, some of these BIGGER players are holding BTC on behalf of others, yet we likely realize that the rules of bitcoin does not really protect us if we choose to NOT hold our own keys.   Maybe some of us small players holding 1 to 5 to 10 to 50 to 100 to 1000 BTC are going to be challenged in regards to our abilities to hold our own keys? and we might already realize that there are already various attempts at attacking our abilities to hold our own keys?  surely newbies are going to continue to be tempted by the ease of NOT holding their own keys whether it is MSTR holding the keys or even through index funds too...and the many various financial product ways of getting bitcoin price exposure but not really holding our own keys unless we might be able to enter into products that will allow us to immediately transfer the BTC directly to our own custody.. which seems like a rare product, even though it would be a good one for people empowerment (and BTC empowerment) to have abilities to transfer our BTC price exposure into actual BTC upon very short notice.

It seems pretty clear as of today that MSTR is going to join the Nasdaq 100 at the end of December. In order to do so, it would have to maintain a minimum price, which it has already passed, of $225 (it is at $270 now). Barring unforeseeable catastrophe, this will be the case, as I do not remember a more bullish near future since I have been following bitcoin, about 6 years ago. And as a consequence, more capital will flow into MSTR automatically, as it is part of the index.

I recently started investing in the Nasdaq 100 (I have been investing in the S&P 500 for over a decade) and if MSTR finally enters, I will continue to invest in the index and will not buy more MSTR shares, because of the greater protection that diversification brings. But the shares I bought of MSTR I plan to hold for the very long term, to see where they go.