Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 9. (Read 22662 times)

I think your thoughts are very good and I agree with most of you said in the post. Certainly, I might have sold more than I should in the past (which I don't bother much, except that I didn't bought back all I could have). But I am fine with that.

However, I want to point out that it is not possible for a guy with 7 BTC to accumulate to 14 more BTC in the current prices. That would mean 1.5 million dollars.

Unless you are talking about someone already in the fuck-you status (i think that is the term you use), it is impossible to someone just save 2 millions and invest it in bitcoin. Unless the guy earn like $ 300,000 per year, which definitely not my case.

Even if you are talking about 200 WMA price (42k), that would mean 600 thousand dollars (this would literally mean timing the market and buying the correct DIP, statistically impossible). And 600 thousand dollars is a lot of money for a person who owns "only" 7 BTC.

We might be deviating a bit from the topic of the thread, since earlier I was trying to provide an example to attempt to describe how one person might be willing (and motivated) to diversify into something like MSTR in order to try to build their BTC holdings faster (which may or may not even be prudent anyhow, yet the person is motivated), and another person might consider that he is in a high enough value of a position that he would not feel any necessity to diversify into something like MSTR.

Yet if we think about the matter, the guy who is already established is probably even in a better position to fuck around with something like MSTR as compared with the guy who is still building his investment portfolio, who might need to stay more conservative until he builds his investment portfolio...

AT the same time, nothing is really black and white in terms of how much risk or how much diversification a guy might want to have in his portfolio while he is building it and then once he reaches certain value thresholds there might be a decent amount of utility to balance out his desires for growth into diversification strategies that are meant to preserve rather than grow value.

I have some personal issues with ideas that growth would come from investing into something like MSTR rather than starting with BTC first, especially since the MSTR is already known to be an additional risk on top of bitcoin, and my own ideas have been that any newbie investor should be able to start out by merely investing only in bitcoin, so they would just balance out their investment with bitcoin and cash, and so depending on how aggressive that they might be in their investment, it could take them 10 years to just build up 1 year's investment of their income into their investment portfolio (10% per year adds up to 10 years), and surely some guys are capable of investing more aggressively, so they will be able to progress more rapidly in terms of the size of their investment portfolio.  

I am not really sure if there are any needs to diversify prior to getting your investment portfolio up to some thing close to a year of your income/expenses.  Sure if the investment portfolio is also changing value based on changes in BTC prices, then your calculation could also be influenced by such BTC price appreciation while you are building your BTC stash.

Ultimately there is quite a bit of discretion regarding when and how much to diversify.. and if so? into what?

Back to some overall ideas of your description of your own situation.  I gather that you are suggesting that if the goal were 21 BTC, you are more like the 7 BTC guy rather than the 35 BTC guy... so you are feeling that you are making progress in your BTC accumulation, yet it is taking a while to build your BTC stash, so you are maybe 1/3 of the way towards what you perceive to be your goal... yet at the same time, from your description, you are valuating your BTC based on spot prices rather than the 200-WMA since in your subsequent (below) remark, you said that you might be close to reaching your goal (which you call FIRE (Financially independent, retire early) - and I frequently refer to as fuck you status) if BTC prices were to reach $250k.  Of course, I find that problematic for anyone to be relying on BTC spot prices for valuating their BTC, since from my perspective, it seems to motivate guys to sell large portions (if not all) of their BTC rather than mostly holding onto it and figuring out ways to engage in sustainable withdrawal (whether price based sustainable withdrawal or time based sustainable withdrawal).  

Surely when you are describing your own situation as being 40% in bitcoin, surely, that is not any kind of a whimpy BTC allocation, yet part of the problem is that you may well be allowing BTC's price appreciation affect your assessment, since maybe you had not been allocating into bitcoin at 40%, yet bitcoin's growth has caused your portfolio to be 40% bitcoin, and maybe I am also a bit confused by your other 60%, unless you are saying that your investment portfolio is 40% bitcoin, 40% Brazilian bonds and then 20% some other things.  Doesn't it feel like we are deviating a bit from this topic, unless you are saying that you might be considering the extent to which MSTR might fit in there?    and surely  I would not be totally opposed to such an idea, even though I am maybe a little bothered by some of your assessments that might have been allowing your to be reallocating your BTC or selling your BTC at various points in time prior to reaching overallocation.

As you likely realize that my own position is that no one should be selling any of their BTC until they get to a point of overallocation, and surely even my own position can be quite ambiguous when trying to apply to situations in which guys might be still in fairly early stages of building their overall investment portfolio and trying to figure out their fuck you status.  I would imagine that if you are using something like $250k BTC as allowing your to reach fuck you status, then how do those numbers come out when you consider the 200-WMA and BTC valuations that are based on the 200-WMA that is currently at about $42,133?

You can do whatever you like, yet I personally believe that in order to figure out how many BTC that you need to reach whatever happens to be your FIRE number, you should be valuating how many BTC that you believe that you need based on the 200-WMA rather than based on BTC spot prices, so that you don't get too carried away by BTC spot prices, make sure you keep building your BTC stash and you are not overly selling too many BTC prior to your actually reaching a status of having more than enough.

I don't want to get too much into your own personal circumstances, yet if we continue to use the idea of 7 BTC and then we look at our current spot price, we get a valuation of right around $700k, and if we look at a BTC spot price of $250k for that same 7 BTC, we have $1.75 million... yet if we look at the 200-WMA for the same 7 BTC, we have a valuation of about $300k  I am not sure what those valuations would mean for you, since you would have to figure out your own numbers, and sure within that I have no problem with the idea of diversifying your portfolio including Brazilian bonds, anything else that you have and/or if you might be considering having MSTR in the mix, and surely your goal for BTC might ONLY be one part of your overall investments, and some parts of your investment portfolio would likely be considered as more valuable and other parts less valuable... but hopefully any part of the investment portfolio that you are maintaining has justification in your own ways of thinking for why it is in there and that you are properly assessing its valuation.


It sounds to me that you are planning to overly sell your BTC for less valuable assets, so I am not really sure what to say.  Nothing wrong with having a house, either.

Many times I suggest that guys mostly let the BTC portion of their investment ride, so I don't really agree with ideas of reallocating of BTC, except maybe very little along the way, but surely only having had clearly reached overallocation.. yet I get the sense that you might be continuously reallocating, so taking out of your winners (BTC) and allocating to your various other losers in order to stay balanced.  It is like having a lawn and watering the weeds so that they can keep up with the grass (or whatever your good plants are).

We already know that bitcoin is a killer asset, even though it is quite volatile, yet it is largely volatile to the upside, especially if we are zooming out more than 4 years.  Sure it is not guaranteed to go up on a 4-year timeline, but the investment thesis for bitcoin remains quite strong, including that even though BTC prices seem outrageously high right now, there is no evidence that bitcoin's investment thesis is getting any weaker in recent times, even though rich people, institutions and governments seem to be wanting to crowd out retail with their recent attention to bitcoin, but many of the rich people, institutions and governments remain slow to act, and so in that sense normies like us can continue to front-run them by focusing on stacking sats and don't be fucking around with selling any until you clearly have gotten to a state of overallocation... which you have to figure out how many BTC is your "overallocation" level.  Again, if we are getting a wee bit too off topic, since I am not even sure if you are considering whether to have MSTR in your investment portfolio, then I don't mind taking this to another thread since it truly seem to have a lot of juicy considerations that a lot of guys likely end up having to weigh out in terms of both their bitcoin accumulation journey, yet also how to maintain such BTC allocation in light of some other investments that they have, too.


I think that you are saying the same thing as me, Poker Player (or at least something very similar), but you are saying it differently.

I would say, that you should not be authorizing yourself to be selling any of your bitcoin until you have clearly reached a state of overaccumulation, and since there are so many ways to measure overaccumulation, guys seem like they wrongly assess that they have reached such status of overaccumulation before they have, since they are tied to some of the traditional ideas of reallocating their bitcoin, which seems to be somewhat how bitmover is thinking about his BTC stash.  Sure, in the end, bitmover, and any other forum member can do whatever they like, yet to me it seems quite short sighted to be reallocating out of BTC based on BTC price appreciation rather than ongoingly, persistently and consistently buying BTC until they are really sure that they have more than enough.

So, getting back to the 7 BTC versus 21 BTC versus 35 BTC example, if a guy has concluded that 21 BTC is currently enough or more than enough, then anywhere higher than 21 BTC would allow him to start to shave off some of his BTC from time to time, and if he is really conservative in his shaving off of his BTC then his BTC value is likely to continue to grow in value faster than he is shaving it off, and then perhaps later he might feel like he can shave off more aggressively.

Yet a guy with only 7 BTC has not yet gotten there, but he knows his target, so he knows that he has to keep accumulating, and even in the less preferable  scenarios that he spends several years attempting to accumulate more BTC and he only moves from 7 BTC to 7.25 BTC after another 5 years of accumulating, he likely realizes that another 5-ish or 6-ish years down the road, 7.25 BTC may well be of a similar valuation (including calculating the likely ongoing debasement of the dollar) as the 21 BTC is valued today.. especially if we are using the 200-WMA rather than getting distracted by BTC spot prices.  Yes, it is not guaranteed to increase in value as much as we expect, but still, bitcoin remains amongst the best, if not the best investments currently available, so as you mentioned @Poker Player, it would likely be in our best interests to attempt to remain focused on the accumulation of bitcoin rather than fucking around with other assets, at least until we reach a status of having more than enough bitcoin.  Sure the accumulation of some other assets, may well be fine and dandy just to offset some potential and likely ongoing volatility issues of bitcoin, yet keeping our eye on the prize (which is bitcoin) seems to be central to making sure that we are making progress to our own financial freedom (and having more options) kinds of goals.

That's one thing that both JJG and I (me later, as I came later to the forum) have repeated countless times: never sell all your bitcoin. Especially now that it is truly proving to be the best asset you can have. If it continues, as it seems to, to appreciate over time as fiat currencies devalue, you will be able to make partial sales while maintaining a nice equity with the remaining bitcoin.

I find myself in pretty much that situation.

I bought about 5% of my overal portfolio in bitcoin in 2017. I was able to duplicate that stash with signature and other campaigns here. I realized about 20% of it in 2021 bull run (avg price about 55k)

In the end, I have about 40% of bitcoin now, and 60% of a diversified portfolio (about 40% in Brazil bonds, but I feel safe).

I won't be able to accumulate much more bitcoin. Maybe I can buy some more in the crypto winter if the price goes below 50k (which may not happen), but even at $50k it would be very hard to buy one whole bitcoin ( I don't know if I need to add that risk)


Maybe in the end, I hope to achieve my FIRE status with just my little btc stash. If BTC price can maintain itself above 250k I will probably retire (I will need to sell some, to make a diversified and solid portfolio to leave my job. Maybe even a house).

But my plan is to always keep at least 20-25% of bitcoin

Building an investment portfolio takes time, and surely we might need to adapt our goals with changes in various aspects of our circumstances and/or even changes in our target asset versus other possible places that we might choose to put our value.  There is no real right answer, even for any specific person since a guy may even assess his own particular circumstances badly (or wrongly) and need to make adjustments along the way.

With the 7 BTC example verus the 21 BTC goal versus the 35 BTC example, I was not necessarily wanting to comment on whether 7 BTC might already be enough, yet I was trying to frame it with a hypothetical framework in which each person had considered 21 BTC to be enough bitcoin right now (at this time in the market), yet 1 person was still way under that target (only around 33% to the target) and the other person was right around 66% above the target, and to flush out the example even further, I am not even presuming valuations of the BTC holdings based on BTC spot prices, but instead considering the 200WMA as a way to valuate holdings..

Since our 200-WMA is current at right about $42.2k, 7 BTC would reflect about a $300k valuation, 21 BTC would reflect about a $900k valuation and 35 BTC would represent about a $1.5 million valuation.   Yes, I know that spot price is about 142% higher than the 200 WMA, yet any plan that I consider would not be cashing out BTC for cash but instead engaging in some kind of attempt at sustained withdrawal.

In regards to diversification, it may well be questionable the extent to which MSTR represents diversification, since generally the idea of diversification would be outside of the same sector, and surely, I don't have any problem of splitting up some exposure, but the level of diversification would not really be very great between BTC and MSTR... even though MSTR seems to leverage someone what BTC's already existing volatility.

You’ve highlighted some great points about Bitcoin’s appeal as a stable, straightforward investment that avoids third-party risks. The simplicity of holding BTC directly is undeniably attractive, especially when paired with its scarcity and potential for massive future value. While holding 7 BTC could still provide significant financial freedom in the right market conditions, a larger cushion like 35 BTC offers greater flexibility and security, particularly in volatile times. It’s all about finding the level of holdings that aligns with your financial comfort and goals.

Diversification, however, is worth considering. Investments like MicroStrategy (MSTR) can provide indirect exposure to BTC with potential additional upside, but they also come with added corporate risks. Balancing simplicity with calculated risks could be the key to optimizing your strategy. Whether you stick to BTC alone or explore other vehicles, the focus should be on aligning with your risk tolerance while staying adaptable to market dynamics. Ultimately, it’s about achieving both financial freedom and peace of mind.

MSTR to be added to Nasdaq100 in 10 days:

Bitcoin proxy MicroStrategy to join the Nasdaq 100 and heavily traded ‘QQQ’ ETF

Big for MSTR which will see 2.1billions shares being bought, rather than for Bitcoin.

Firms Ride Bitcoin Wave to Raise Billions From Convertible Debt



A rally across cryptocurrencies has made winners out of a handful of firms in the sector that followed MicroStrategy Inc.’s playbook of selling convertible bonds, thanks to President-elect Donald Trump choosing a crypto-friendly financier to head the top US financial regulator.
Investors have been piling into companies with ties to the industry, opening the floodgates for fundraising. MicroStrategy’s $6.2 billion worth of convertibles issued this year is just the start, as part of its latest plan to raise $21 billion through fixed income issuance.

Source link: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/firms-ride-bitcoin-wave-raise-140625696.html

MicroStrategy Company is rapidly moving towards collecting more Bitcoins, considering their Bitcoin collection and how they will move forward in the future. And currently many big companies are following MicroStrategy Company. At present, I find this Bitcoin holding to be the most suitable.

On a personal level, I am good enough with just the returns on BTC without the extra complications of third party execution risks, and unknown unknowns that are associated with adding an additional layer of risk - even though surely Saylor seems to have had structured his debt instruments quite ingeniously.

I used some variation of this example earlier.  Let's say that I have 35-ish BTC and you only have 7-ish BTC, and both of us have a target to reach about 21 BTC in order to feel that we are at entry-level fuck you status (based on current market conditions and wherever we might be in our lives), so maybe I am sitting back and I am content because I have about 66% more than what both of us consider to be entry-level fuck you status, and maybe I am already living off my BTC and not necessarily earning income from other places. 

You on the other hand are about ONLY 1/3 towards your goal, even though we know that with the passage of time, maybe even by mid 2029-ish (it may well be the case that 7 BTC will then be worth the equivalent of today's 21 BTC, so less preferred scenario, you consider that you might be wanting to at least get to entry-level fuck you status, and you might even want to get to a similar situation as me, in which you have around 60% or more extra cushion in the size of your stash, so you keep stacking and you are willing to take some chances, since you might not even be urgently wanting to get into fuck you status until you are sure that you have a large enough BTC cushion.. so if 7 BTC is entry-level fuck you status in mid-2029, you would prefer to have double entry level fuck you status, just to feel sufficiently comfortable when you might start to spend from your BTC stash (rather than being in the process of accumulating it).

I am just suggesting that there could be reasons that guys might not want to overly complicate their investment portfolio, even though MSTR does seem like a good place to potentially outperform BTC, perhaps? 

I was horribly wrong on that trade, and the blue line is a testimony of that.
According to my understanding prior to the ETF launch, the blue line should have collapsed to 1, as the ETF would have been a far superior way to track BTC.
The reality is that Micheal Saylor was very good at selling the "BTC YIELD" thesis, so the blue line increased over time.
I had to stop on that trade and lick my wounds.
Now, after having listened to every possible speech from MS, I am actually pondering reversing it and using MSTR as a leverage bet on BTC, accruing more sats per unit. I am not sure I am degenerate enough to do so, tough.

I think that it is a bit less unclear, at least what the lines are meant to signify, and I was just a bit confused by some of it..  Thanks. 

I don't have any problem with the idea that you might be taking from some various sources that you aren't able to disclose, so I would not consider that you would be purposefully attempting to mislead, yet any of us could make mistakes in terms of interpreting data, or how we might put the data together or even drawing wrong conclusions from any data that we might put together. 

I would not presume that you would do any of that on purpose.. except remember the trade that you were considering as a good one?  something like shorting MSTR... and going long on GBTC... sure there might have been some aspects of that that might have had worked out, if I am remembering correctly... .. but yeah, I don't trade  or buy any of these stocks/ETFs anyhow .. even though surely there may be needs to try to keep track of some of these matters since they are popular in the space, and even some normies that I meet in the real world have gotten involved in various bitcoin related stocks and ETFs, and frequently they are just trying to get BTC price exposure, and trying to play various price waves.

A lot of times, I attempt to recommend not to buy secondary products and to buy bitcoin directly, even though surely we know that some folks have some difficulties getting their heads around how to buy bitcoin directly versus some kind of already existing account(s) that they might have that offer such BTC -related product options.

Answering all your questions:

• The graph is mine, based on my elaboration on some quasi-private data, and thus, I am not sure I can (yet) share it unless I can protect my source. For the moment, I was hoping you could take it as an image and trust me a little bit.
• The Blue Line (left-hand axis)is the "ratio". The ratio is the total Value Enterprise of MicroStrategy (Equity+ Debt (fully diluted)- cash) divided by the Bitcoin Stash valuation. A ratio of two means that MicroStrategy is valued 2 times the Bitcoins they own.
• The Red Line (right-hand axis) represents the number of Satoshi per equity shares (fully diluted).
• I decided to start the graph from 2023 to zoom in on the recent developments. And also, the graph in the initial phases was too errand. I can eventually post the "long version" of the graph.

I am not sure if I understand the graph and even the difference between the blue and red lines.  I understand your point about a fee from an ETF causing the yield to go down. more than holding MSTR shares.

Also, how come the graph starts January 2023 rather than starting when MSTR started buying bitcoin, which would be August 2021.  Is the information being selective?  I understand performance might not be consistent since more aggressiveness has come out of the strategy in recent times, and also more creativeness in the kinds of financial tools that were being used, including that with Saylor's reputation growing, MSTR has become a bit of a magnet for certain kinds of investors.

The only way you can interpret the MSTR price is through the following graph:


Sorry, this graph hasn't been added to the spreadsheet yet.


This graph shows the number of satoshi held in a single Microstrategy share. It's clear that this number has been constantly growing over the last few years and accelerated after the announcement of Plan 42.

Saylor has steadily increased the number of Satoshi per share over the last few years, returning the investor to a positive BTC yield.
An ETF would instead deliver a negative BTC yield, as the ETF would gradually reduce your shares per share because of the fees to be paid.
If you get a 40% yearly yield, like this year, you can justify a premium of 2.25 with roughly 3.2 years of such a positive BTC yield!

JUST IN: MicroStrategy $MSTR will likely enter the Nasdaq 100 $QQQ this month — Bloomberg



Source link: https://x.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1866587304934117728?t=UqP3M6vXrMavhoJsJMzE-Q&s=19

---

The entry of the Nasdaq 100 and MicroStrategy Bitcoin acceptance company and their future milestones are very strong, they will achieve success by accepting Bitcoin.
Currently, MicroStrategy company has deposited Bitcoin and has been able to deposit 423650 Bitcoins, and will deposit more in the future and they have enough thoughts to buy more Bitcoins in 2025.

I think one notable achievement microstrategy has made is by becoming one of the first publicly traded companies to adopt Bitcoin as a Treasury reserve asset, they invested a lot of money in Bitcoin, they even sold some of the companies shares and used the money to accumulate more Bitcoin and this adoption of Bitcoin has really attracted a lot of attention to them there by brought more business partners to them.
Microstrategy is a successful company today because of the adoption of Bitcoin.

MicroStrategy Company has already managed to purchase BTC423,650 Bitcoins as they continue to buy Bitcoin regularly. They bought BTC21,550 bitcoins worth $2.1 billion this week. As MicroStrategy regularly purchased Bitcoins their invested Bitcoins grew. Regular purchases have left them trailing several large bitcoin holders. They have already overtaken many large bitcoin holders, maybe they will overtake many more large bitcoin holders in the future by purchasing more bitcoins. MicroStrategy isn't far from overtaking BlackRock and Binance.

The bitcoin is still digital, even if you might be carrying around a physical representation of the private keys with you... that is not the bitcoin that you are carrying, but access to it.

The bitcoin itself is not contained on the private keys or the physical representation of the private keys however you might choose to store such private keys, but they are validated by nodes (and audited in regards to if they had moved) every 10 minutes and copies of the ledger of such is spread across the planet.  You are thinking about bitcoin wrong if you are trying to pigeonhole it into some kind of physicality... even if there are hundreds of thousands of computers, if 90% of the computers got taken out, then bitcoin would be present on the remaining 10%...and perhaps only two computers are needed to keep bitcoin alive, yet it is product of consensus for the computers running nodes.. tick tock next block, every 10 minutes consensus as to regard to which is the valid block in the event that there might be disagreement and rules for resolving disagreements that has been working so far..


You are getting dumber and dumber the more you try to argue this point.

Sure you could wear some representation of bitcoin, and you could keep the keys in a variety of ways, including hiding them in a picture or a piece of art or perhaps fragments of your private keys spread across 10 people.. that still does not make the bitcoin physical, even if you might have some physical ways of storing your private keys.


That is due to bitcoin's non-physicality.  Bitcoin is information that contains value, and you are correct about carrying the private keys in plain sight without anyone knowing the difference if they are not sure about what they are seeing.


Now you are arguing against yourself in terms of your earlier assertion that bitcoin can be physical.


Again, you are not carrying the bitcoin, even though you are carrying private keys, which are pieces of information that you may have ended up choosing to store in terms of certain kinds of physical ways.


Bitcoin has already brought a lot of changes, and it will continue to bring a lot of changes, and surely bitcoin may have reached a point of unstoppability, even though there surely are going to continue to be attempts to battle it and stop it, and there seems to be increasing whining about bitcoin especially from the no coiners and/or low coiners.. and the overwhelming majority of the world's population are no coiners and/or low coiners, but bitcoin is not made to validate based on proof of whining from no coiners, and one of the best, if not the best way to proceed with bitcoin is to get as much of it as you can as soon as you can (without wrecking yourself).

Even though bitcoin is anti-fragile, each of us humans who carry bitcoin are fragile, so surely it would be better to be onboarding the low coiners and the no coiners through cooperation  and their own free will rather than their battling us in regards to their status... a status that they are empowered to change, and it is better that they act sooner rather than later, since no one is going to bail them out if they choose to continue to stay low coiners or no coiners.

And surely Saylor is quite open about his own philosophy to get as many bitcoin as he can (for himself and his company), which he considers to be a good thing for him, for his company, for his shareholders, and for society as a whole for him to be telling others to do the same.

Bitcoin can also exist in physical form. You can engrave or print private keys/seeds on a physical coin or artifact  and load BTC on it. So basically, you can "wear" Bitcoin the same way you can wear Gold. In fact, Bitcoin is more portable than Gold because you can carry millions of dollars in it completely hidden from plain sight. No bulky bars to carry around, bringing unwanted attention. A great way to bring money with you at the airport. Gold is not admissible there, but BTC does. After all, who's going to notice you're carrying Bitcoin (especially when it's store on a small medium such as a microSD card, implanted microchip, or small piece of paper)?

So not only Bitcoin is superior to Cash like Michael Saylor said, but it's also superior to Gold. It won't be long before Bitcoin replaces the yellow metal. Only smart people will benefit from the upcoming Bitcoin "Gold" rush. The question is: Are we ready to embrace such change?

If it continues at this pace and the price does not change much, in about 4 or 5 weeks MSTR will have accumulated 0.5M bitcoins, and if the price goes up it will be a few weeks more. That it can accumulate is a long way off, especially in view of the foreseeable price increase in 2025, but Saylor is certainly accumulating a treasure.