Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 7. (Read 14240 times)

Also, an important thing to support the price in the “short period” is the different time preference of Microstrategy.
Micheal Saylor has always said he’s not going to sell soon, so every transaction means there is a certain amount of coins being taken out of the supply.

So what? The important thing is that there is more demand than supply for the price to rise. With the limited supply of bitcoin and the growing demand we see from the general population and institutions like MSTR, the long-term price can only go up.

The fact that at any given time a buyer and a seller have to agree on the purchase and sale of x bitcoins is not nearly as important as the above.

remember folks
for each buyer there is a seller

meaning it may seem like a institution buying big is a sign of buyer support.. but equally there are equal amount of coins being sold at same time which can also be sign of seller pressure

so dont take anything on face value. especially by the time it hits media.. because the actual demand/supply was dealt with before media knows

EG elon bought in december 2020 but news only began in february 2021 and market speculation occured there after which they wanted to blame elon as causing it

Very nice infographic.
You say that price tendo to go higher every time Micheal Saylor buys, but if you squint your eyes you will notice the opposite is quite true: the price falls in the hours, days after the purchase… someone with a funny sense of humour.

In addition to that, I would advise you to complete the infographic with information about the kind of money used to buy: operating profits, debt, or equity.
 

Btc reached the average buy rate made by MicroStrategy even they have reached the current profit point. I didn't expect this to be a pretty quick reversal in their current situation, because at the end of last year MicroStrategy had a losing percentage or minus 50% of their average buyout figure, but today they are already seeing gains in their portfolio.

I think the market is in a pretty good situation this month looks Bitcoin (BTC) market capitalization has increased by USD 194 billion or around IDR 2,980 trillion in 2023.

On a year to date (ytd) basis, bitcoin market capitalization is 66 percent ahead of the top banking stocks on wall street, mainly as fears of a global banking crisis increase. The six largest US banks, JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C), Wells Fargo (WFC), Morgan Stanley (MS), and Goldman Sachs (GS), have lost nearly USD 100 billion or around IDR 1,536 trillion in market value since the beginning of the year.

source : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liputan6.com/amp/5237162/kapitalisasi-pasar-bitcoin-tumbuh-60-persen-pada-2023-di-tengah-krisis-perbankan-global

They keep telling us not to invest in Bitcoin that the cryptocurrency market is volatile and we can lose our money at any slightest downward trend but they are the same persons that keep buying our holdings making us look like a non-risk-taker. Microstrategy had accumulated more than 140 thousand Bitcoin that worth billions of dollars and he's still ready to buy more at anytime.

These billionaires knows what they are doing, they know that the future of Bitcoin is going to be massive that is why they don't mind buying more quantities now that the price of Bitcoin is cheap and less expensive to accumulate. It is high time we wake us from our slumber and join the league(for those that have the funds to buy 🤔).


The firm keep updating there Bitcoin portfolio to be one of the companies with highest number of Bitcoin. The way we are seeing it, Microstrategy is going to worth more when Bitcoin eventually reaches previous height to continue the previous bull trend.

image



Wow you write a lot in the right diction...soon going to follow your style but I doubt how consistent I could be.
Fantabulously intriguing 👀

I made a little change to the spreadsheet:



Here I updated the parte where I check the total value of the bitcoin held by the company, to the total enterprise value, defined as the sum of the stocks market capitalisation, plus the total value of all the outstanding debt.
This means the value it must be repaid to the stock holders and to the bond holders to actually become the only owner of the firm.
This is done to take into account the leverage in the firm as they bought bitcoin taking a loan from the market.

It does not seem too harsh from my perspective... I consider the more aggressive wording to be an attempt to stay focused on bitcoin, and surely people are going to do what they are going to do, and on a personal level each of us needs to decide how we are going to spend our time, our energies, our value and how we talk about things.  My assertion of fuck shitcoins is not stopping people from doing whatever the fuck they want, but I see no reason to either talk favorably about shitcoins or to give them any kind of door into any conversation in which we primarily have bitcoin as our emphasis.. and in this thread, we are largely talking about microstrategy and attempting to relate our talks to microstrategy and perhaps what MSTR and Saylor is doing as compared with what others might be doing (includign governments and other companies, and maybe even including our own strategies that might relate.  MSTR and Saylor are not working on shitcoins, investing in shitcoins or even talking about shitcoins, except to the extent that sometimes they have to make some comparison and contrasts which tend to be similar kinds of statements as me, which is fuck shitcoins.

Sure some of us might be wrong about the direction forward and the extent to which some of the shitcoin projects might need to be considered more seriously, but surely there seems to be ways to emphasize bitcoin, keep on our lazer eyes, stay focused on the prize and don't get too distracted about what some of the various shitcoins might be able to do some day.. when a lot of times they still likely boil down to 1) "why do you need a separate token" 2) "why are you building something separate from bitcoin, and not somehow linking to bitcoin or emphasizing bitcoin" 3) who are you trying to scam with your attempt to make yourself to appear either like bitcoin or sufficiently similar to bitcoin" and 4) maybe there are some others that I am forgetting at the moment, but that's the main idea.. and I see little to no reason to get distracted about shitcoins generally or talk favorably about them unless you might be suggesting that they are somehow connected to bitcoin ...  or describing how they relate to bitcoin or some purpose that any of us might want to fulfill on a temporary measure.. and let's say that I have some kind of need to use some shitcoin for a specific purpose that I believe bitcoin cannot fulfill, anything that i say here is not discouraging to use such shitcoin if it exists to fulfil such purpose, if such a purpose currently exists.


I am glad that you are getting excited about some shitcoin project.. Hopefully you are not getting too distracted, and surely I am not even saying not to invest at all into those kinds of projects, so long as you do not lose track of what is the prize and even to figure out someway of getting involved or experimenting with the project that acknowledges that it may well ONLY be providing a kind of utility that either does not currently exist on bitcoin.. but it still is not doing the kinds of stuff that bitcoin is doing, so yeah, maybe you want to get some job in some non-bitcoin industry or even some bitcoin adjacent project, that should not stop you from recognizing and appreciating bitcoin as the king... and at the same time some other projects still do exist in the world.. such as there are real estate agents, and people need to live.. some people get excited about real estate related projects... are you going to pump your own coin or are you going to somehow try to figure out how to tie real estate into bitcoin.. if you have your own token or some way that seems to be scamming people then I am going to question the matter, but I am not going to automatically presume that you are a bad person merely because you are involved in some side project.. but I might question you if you seem to be engaging in bad analysis and not even questioning why they have a side token and how are they presenting their project, as compared to bitcoin.. are they at least acknowledging bitcoin as the king and that they are attempting to supplement bitcoin rather than to compete against bitcoin? 


I am not completely opposed to the idea that other systems likely bring improvements on bitcoin, because sometimes there are ways in which other projects/products can serve as test grounds and then if what they test is good, then it can be absorbed into bitcoin to the extent that the cost of absorbing it does not seem to outweigh its liabilities, and for sure we already know that matters will not get absorbed into BTC's base layer very easily, but there are a lot of ways to still build on bitcoin or to build on bitcoin adjacent systems in order to make bitcoin better - including the various rabbit holes of lightning network too that can be built upon and likely improved upon.. or maybe there are ways in which some features, offerings of shitcoins might not fit well with bitcoin's base layer or even to built through something like lightning, but there might be some alternative way to attempt to peg such projects to bitcoin.. There are plenty of things going on, and still with your phone analogy, I see no reason to lose focus upon bitcoin as the prize and to be attempting to figure out how various products might be able to build on bitcoin or complement bitcoin.. even if there might be some competition aspects, but surely many times it is deceptive, inaccurate and/or misleading to be suggesting that the vast majority of other products are actually competing with bitcoin.. and most of them are already correlated to bitcoin and/or relying upon bitcoin's security and/or strength to even continue to maintain their own existence.


Do second layers need their own token or can they figure out some way to either link to bitcoin as a token or link to lightning network?  What is the purpose of the token - besides attempting to raise money.. which ends up being a kind of money printing?  Maybe we need to speak in terms of some specific project if you think that there is something that is not engaging in a kind of fund raising by issuing their own token.. .. and don't get me wrong, I am not completely excluding the possibility that there might not be some various use cases for having a separate token and having some honest way of describing how it is pegged and how it is assured that it is limited.. which is generally quite difficult to do... but just to say that is what is going to be done, when it does not end up playing out like that unless there are strong checks in place from the start regarding how it might be pegged to bitcoin or to something solid rather than to just words or projections about what is going to be done in order to get people to invest their time, energies and money in to such project prior to the rug pull or the exit scam....
 

I don't see any problem with ordinals/inscriptions as they are currently becoming a thing in bitcoin, and sure there is a lot of stupid stuff in there, but I doubt that they are contrary to the various aspects of bitcoin that include the ability to store and to transact value (including information - and even seemingly dumb stuff and not very valuable stuff) so long as those transacting are paying the costs to transact and it is not otherwise interfering with bitcoin's workability.. and I do not consider the mere going up of fees to proclaim something as unworkable.. because right now we have abilities to transact on chain for pretty fucking low prices.. at least on chain is priced by weight of the transaction (number of inputs) versus transacting on lightning network to be more based on the value being transacted, so if the prices of even the smaller value transactions seem to be going up on the on chain transactions, then that should inspire more development and ways to transact on the lightning network.. at least for the lower fee transactions.. so maybe at some point it might become less feasible to transact on bitcoin for any transaction that is less than $100 or something like that.. but we are not there, yet even though there has been more demand on the BTC blockchain since the ordinals/inscriptions have become more common (and has ONLY been a couple of months for the going live of that development anyhow).
 

Sure there could be reasons for tokens, and it surely would help if there is some revelations regarding what the purpose of the token is, and not to be lying and deceiving about what the token is..   I think that ethereum should leave a lot of bad tastes in people's mouths regarding how badly the ideas of tokens can be abused, and so if nearly the whole project of ethereum is corrupted by its token (and tokenomics) there should be difficulties accepting that anything that is built upon ethereum has any level of credibility.. even if there might be good and honest people who work on ethereum related project or projects that rely on the ethereum ecosystem and are deceived into that bullshit.

I am not going to just assume that there is a need for a token.. but I am not saying that there might not be some circumstances in which tokens could be issued for some potentially legitimate purpose.. but again why?  there is plenty to do on bitcoin, so our comparison is bitcoin in terms of attempting to figure out how any such project might relate to bitcoin and how it might be connected to bitcoin, and then once we get past that, we might ask ourselves if there might be some further need for such token, and is it being talked about honestly or not.. and how do we know that it is being talked about honestly.. ?  What is the collateral and how is it shown/proven?


I am not sure whether we are saying anything much different in this last part, except that you seem to be trying to justify or create an excuse for the creation of tokens, and sure if something already exists, then there might not be a reason to NOT use it.  If something exists and it has collateral, then sure, it may well be based in reality rather than just made up bullshit, and sure some tokens/projects exist based on the trustworthiness of the people in charge of it, but that could become problematic, but it does not suggest that we cannot or should not be using it in circumstances in which we might want to get utility out of such services.... so we do not live in a world of just going to bitcoin, and I have not been arguing that.  Specifically I have been suggesting to retain various allocations and to keep your eyes on the prize and fuck shitcoins.. so if there are some short term uses of shitcoins, then I am not going to morally judge you because you are using them, but if you are investing in them, then you may well have issues if you have taken your laser eyes off of the prize.. and perhaps forgotten how any of this might relate to bitcoin or if it is just a side hobby that you are playing around with 1% to 5% of your time/energies/psychology/finances.

While I also prefer Bitcoin over everything else, I think your wording is quite harsh in regards to those who do have honest intentions and try to build something new or innovate.

The guys who call their coin "Bitcoin killer" belong into the scam category in my opinion, but there are some projects trying to experiment with some stuff that does at least get me excited involved. Not necessarily as an investor, but as someone who gives the concept some thought or who tries it out once it went live.

Eventually I believe that quality and strength of the ecosystem will prevail. When the new smartphones came out, I remember that here were some companies trying to build cheap versions of it. But literally all of them disappeared and it took quite some time until viable cheaper options came into the market.

What I would like to understand from your comment is the bold part. I get the money printing part because that is what scammers intend to do. But I am convinced there will be applications where it makes sense to have them running on a separate network with higher throughput, lower cost and consequently less required security due to weaker validation design. But it would be a waste if these tokens were running on the Bitcoin blockchain or am I not understanding that correctly? I am aware of the ordinals thread and some say that congestion could be a problem. That was my reasoning now. Why let something run on top of Bitcoin when it could just be run on a separate blockchain and perhaps be anchored in the Bitcoin blockchain?

Do you think there won't be any other application where it makes sense that it has its own token? I wouldn't go so far because who knows what's on the horizon? When it comes to digital gold, we don't need two digital golds. But when it comes to other use cases, it could make a lot of sense to have a coin or token different from Bitcoin.

I am not opposed to gambling but that is not what should be done with an investment, even though there are some aspects of investing that are more risky than others, but the mere fact that there are various risks does not necessarily cause the investment to fall into the gambling territory merely because there are a variety of risks.  Another thing is that there are ways to hedge risks, so surely even some gambling has some skills and some luck, and if there are inabilities to appreciate the differences between skills and luck, then such person has more difficulties to hedge the risks.. or in some cases, games of chance, their might not be any reasonable ways to hedge the risks... especially if they are pure games of chance, and there are attempt to bet in various categories, but no matter what the odds are in favor of the house.

Overall, Fuck Shitcoins.. yet, shitcoins are likely NOT completely games of chance because there are some aspect of them that you are going to be able to know, and even some of the fairly big scams, including ethereum, there are several knowable aspects.. and so there are likely ways to play it and even hedge with it, including that you know that the fucktwat scammers are both going to pump it from time to time adn that they are going to likely have several abilities to pump that shit.. until they can't but sometimes you might not know when their various smoke and mirror tools are no longer going to be able to work, and sure if you want to fuck around with shitcoins, then that's your choice.. but some of us do not really consider them as very much worth our time.. even though I cannot really completely blame people if they want to have fun with some of the gamification and if they do not consider themselves as being the greater fool since there are some inside knowledge points that they might have.. and so there is some likely ethical and moral depravity to be participating in some of those systems that are set up in ways in which some people are purposeful engaging in deceptions of others.. or at least trying to... but hey, whatever you do you., in the ways that you might want to get involved in some of those shitcoins.... and maybe there are some that are not engaging in deception.. or at least believe that they aren't even though I still have trouble with the understanding of a need for a token separate from bitcoin unless there is some desire to print money.. or believing that they had anything similar to the seemingly close to immaculate conception as bitcoin.