Strategy's Bitcoin holdings now are tracked on Arkham.

[BlackBoss_]

For several years, MicroStrategy did not reveal their Bitcoin addresses but there are on chain companies that can do their works well. With Strategy, Arkham found most of Strategy's Bitcoin addresses.

https://x.com/arkham/status/1927786538869334095
https://intel.arkm.com/explorer/entity/microstrategy

Arkham's description on their new findings.

SAYLOR SAID HE WOULD NEVER REVEAL HIS ADDRESSES ... SO WE DID

We have identified an additional 70,816 BTC belonging to Strategy, bringing our total identified MSTR BTC holdings to $54.5 Billion. We are the first to publicly identify these holdings.

This represents 87.5% of total MSTR holdings (including assets in Fidelity Digital’s omnibus custody).

Previously, we tagged:

- 107K BTC sent to MSTR Fidelity deposits (Fidelity does not segregate custody, so these BTC do not appear in the MSTR entity)
- Over 327K BTC held in segregated custody including Coinbase Prime, in our MSTR entity.

[DaveF]

Have not really been following this, mostly because I really don't care about it, but Arkham has been wrong before with who owns what addresses.

In the end does it really matter? It seems to be their thing. Wait for people to make noise about some holdings and then come out with a press release saying "we found them" and then when it's shown not to be accurate never mention it again.

-Dave

[Sanitough]

We still need confirmation from Saylor if that was really his address ( though I doubt he’ll say anything).

But either way, we now have a pretty good idea of how much he’s holding. That’s a good thing, because it gives us a basis to believe that they’ve truly been accumulating -  and this could be the proof.

If it were just news saying they’ve been buying and are now one of the biggest holders, it wouldn’t be that convincing. But this? This feels like the missing piece of the puzzle.
Still, like I said, it’s not confirmed yet.

[headingnorth]

That's what I've been wondering. Strategy doesn't disclose public addresses,
but they do announce all their purchases. So if the purchases are indeed legit, shouldn't it
produce corresponding activity on the blockchain that could be easily tracked and verified?

Bitwise discloses public addresses of its bitcoin holdings for its ETF, so why can't Strategy?
If you want a bitcoin custodial product without holding bitcoin yourself I would go with Bitwise.
Even Tether discloses its bitcoin public addresses, so Saylor is full of shit on this one.

Strategy should be pressured into doing the same by the bitcoin community.
If I was a shareholder I would start a pressure campaign up to and including a class action lawsuit
if they don't comply. A public company should not be concealing such critical information from their
shareholders.

[X-ray]

Arkham is good insight to have about institutional's on-chain move but I won't bet too much on its reliability if i'm being honest, not enough proof to legitimately label which address owned by whom.

However i will bet 100% there's someone out there who already tracking microstrategy's onchain move with bot and make trade decision based on it.

[bbc.reporter]

Have not really been following this, mostly because I really don't care about it, but Arkham has been wrong before with who owns what addresses.

In the end does it really matter? It seems to be their thing. Wait for people to make noise about some holdings and then come out with a press release saying "we found them" and then when it's shown not to be accurate never mention it again.

-Dave

They might have been wrong before, however, you cannot declare for certain that they are wrong on this tracking on Strategy's wallets. Also, it is also very much important to know how many times Arkham has been wrong compared against how many times Arkham has been correct in their findings.

In any case, it does not matter for you, however, to avoid fuddering Michael Saylor and Strategy's very big investment on bitcoin, this should be tracked and audited.

[Fiatless]

Have not really been following this, mostly because I really don't care about it, but Arkham has been wrong before with who owns what addresses.

In the end does it really matter? It seems to be their thing. Wait for people to make noise about some holdings and then come out with a press release saying "we found them" and then when it's shown not to be accurate never mention it again.

-Dave

They might have been wrong before, however, you cannot declare for certain that they are wrong on this tracking on Strategy's wallets. Also, it is also very much important to know how many times Arkham has been wrong compared against how many times Arkham has been correct in their findings.

In any case, it does not matter for you, however, to avoid fuddering Michael Saylor and Strategy's very big investment on bitcoin, this should be tracked and audited.

If they have been wrong just once, it shows that they might not be right about MicroStrategy's wallets. I don't know if it is mandatory for a company to publish its financial position on the Internet. The standard practice is to submit an audited report conducted by a Big Four auditing firms to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and their shareholders. These regularly audited reports should be signed by directors who will be both civilly and criminally liable if the audit is inaccurate.

Some crypto films that make their proof of reserves public are not sincere. They could get or borrow funds from other sources to boast the reserve and it can be withdrawn after the audit. Some of them don't also publish their liabilities.

Arkham should respect the privacy of Michael Saylor.

[Cryptmuster]

Actually it is a good thing to be honest I was waiting for platforms like Arkham to make this information public and accessible to everyone. And I believe it is a positive development because now Saylor’s words will not just be words he will have to be accountable for them when he says he will never sell Bitcoin. Honestly I always thought it would be very difficult to stick to that because it is not just his money but also the money of many investors.

Investors put their money in to make a profit and endlessly holding Bitcoin just will not be possible. Now having this information we will be able to track all Bitcoin movements and by the way when this information became public Saylor got very nervous. Why would you be nervous if you are not planning to sell...

[Josefjix]

Strategy should be pressured into doing the same by the bitcoin community.
If I was a shareholder I would start a pressure campaign up to and including a class action lawsuit
if they don't comply. A public company should not be concealing such critical information from their
shareholders.

Who knows if all the shareholders has the central bitcoin address but instructed to not show it the public, and besides, no shareholders would blindly contribute into what he cant have any proof of. But anyway, i dont see any reasons or implication for strategy to publicize their bitcoin address, whats the need, so what can the public do after seeing it, what benefits?
If all these companies you mention shows their wallet address to the public to keep track of their balance, does it stop them from doing their daily purchase, i dont think such matters at all but the only advantage of that would really drive in many investors wanting to join in and participate.

[headingnorth]

Strategy should be pressured into doing the same by the bitcoin community.
If I was a shareholder I would start a pressure campaign up to and including a class action lawsuit
if they don't comply. A public company should not be concealing such critical information from their
shareholders.

Who knows if all the shareholders has the central bitcoin address but instructed to not show it the public,

I seriously doubt that. There are thousands of Strategy shareholders. If they all knew the public address
of the bitcoins it would be very easy for any of them to anonymously leak the information onto the internet, and many
would have done so by now, and it would be impossible to stop. So there is no point asking anyone to keep it a secret.

i dont see any reasons or implication for strategy to publicize their bitcoin address, whats the need, so what can the public do after seeing it, what benefits?

No reason? It's called proof of reserves. How else do you know they possess the assets they say they do
without verifiable proof? You're just going to take their word for it? Are you really that gullible?

The bitcoin ethos is that you should never trust, but verify. Saylor said so himself many times when explaining to people what bitcoin is.
But he doesn't seem to practice what he preaches. A Bitcoiner should always question everything and never trust anyone's word for anything
without fully vetting their claims. Don't take anything for granted. That's not just a bitcoin thing, it's just common sense and
good business practice for anything in life. Bitcoin was created so you don't have to trust anyone, you can verify for yourself on the network.

[logfiles]

This is not news, though. Bitcoin is supposed to be a transparent blockchain by default, No?
Arkham has been around for a while and has been used to track different addresses, so what is special with the Strategy addresses? or could it just be a subtle kind of advertisement?

[bbc.reporter]

Have not really been following this, mostly because I really don't care about it, but Arkham has been wrong before with who owns what addresses.

In the end does it really matter? It seems to be their thing. Wait for people to make noise about some holdings and then come out with a press release saying "we found them" and then when it's shown not to be accurate never mention it again.

-Dave

They might have been wrong before, however, you cannot declare for certain that they are wrong on this tracking on Strategy's wallets. Also, it is also very much important to know how many times Arkham has been wrong compared against how many times Arkham has been correct in their findings.

In any case, it does not matter for you, however, to avoid fuddering Michael Saylor and Strategy's very big investment on bitcoin, this should be tracked and audited.

If they have been wrong just once, it shows that they might not be right about MicroStrategy's wallets. I don't know if it is mandatory for a company to publish its financial position on the Internet. The standard practice is to submit an audited report conducted by a Big Four auditing firms to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and their shareholders. These regularly audited reports should be signed by directors who will be both civilly and criminally liable if the audit is inaccurate.

Some crypto films that make their proof of reserves public are not sincere. They could get or borrow funds from other sources to boast the reserve and it can be withdrawn after the audit. Some of them don't also publish their liabilities.

Arkham should respect the privacy of Michael Saylor.

Thank you for sharing this argument because this has also supported my argument. It will be very headshaking because if this might imply that if firms that make their proof of reserves public are not sincere, this might open an argument that firms that keep their reserves private might not also be sincere.

[ABCbits]

I question accuracy of Arkham's analysis, although i certainly hope it'll pressure Saylor and Strategy to be more transparent.

--snip--
Arkham should respect the privacy of Michael Saylor.

Strategy is public company though, which means it's not solely owned by Saylor. Anyway, i think you expect too much from company who have history of doxxing users[1].

[1] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/07/10/crypto-startup-arkham-has-apparently-been-doxxing-privacy-obsessed-users-for-months

[BlackBoss_]

I question accuracy of Arkham's analysis, although i certainly hope it'll pressure Saylor and Strategy to be more transparent.

With time they will be able to improve accuracy of their work on tracking Bitcoin portfolio of Strategy and they don't need to have a first perfect work.

Strategy is public company though, which means it's not solely owned by Saylor. Anyway, i think you expect too much from company who have history of doxxing users[1].

Bitcoin is a public blockchain that is not responsible for user anonymity and people including Arkham are free to do their on chain analyses. I really don't think such on-chain works are doxxing and prohibited by any laws. I could be wrong but I think doxxing on a public blockchain is an uncommon accusation.

Governments try to break down privacy and anonymity on blockchains so it sounds unlogical that they support any accusation or lawsuits of Strategy against Arkham or any on-chain analytics companies.

[ABCbits]

Strategy is public company though, which means it's not solely owned by Saylor. Anyway, i think you expect too much from company who have history of doxxing users[1].

Bitcoin is a public blockchain that is not responsible for user anonymity and people including Arkham are free to do their on chain analyses. I really don't think such on-chain works are doxxing and prohibited by any laws. I could be wrong but I think doxxing on a public blockchain is an uncommon accusation.

Governments try to break down privacy and anonymity on blockchains so it sounds unlogical that they support any accusation or lawsuits of Strategy against Arkham or any on-chain analytics companies.

You're right, but that's not my point. What i imply is Arkham isn't sort of company that would respect someone else privacy, even it's own customer.

It turns out Arkham has already been leaking its own customers’ private information