[2020-08-11] MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset

[gentlemand]

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200811005331/en/MicroStrategy-Adopts-Bitcoin-Primary-Treasury-Reserve-Asset

NASDAQ listed Microstrategy have bought 21,000 or so BTC.

“This investment reflects our belief that Bitcoin, as the world’s most widely-adopted cryptocurrency, is a dependable store of value and an attractive investment asset with more long-term appreciation potential than holding cash. Since its inception over a decade ago, Bitcoin has emerged as a significant addition to the global financial system, with characteristics that are useful to both individuals and institutions. MicroStrategy has recognized Bitcoin as a legitimate investment asset that can be superior to cash and accordingly has made Bitcoin the principal holding in its treasury reserve strategy.”

I'll be interested to see how many other stories of this nature pop into our consciousness in the coming months and years. I'll bet a fair few others are quietly building positions still.

[1713885593]

1713885593

[1713885593]

1713885593

[Lucius]

The exact amount stated in the article is 21 454, which is really a little more than $250 million, which again means that it happened recently. Of course, this kind of news can only further strengthen the bull market, because it is more than obvious that the big players are buying BTC and have a very positive opinion about it.

What may surprise me a little is that such a serious company has only now decided to take such a step, and a few months ago they had the opportunity to buy more than twice the amount of BTC for the same amount. Although a partial explanation can be found in the article "MicroStrategy spent months deliberating to determine our capital allocation strategy. Our decision to invest in Bitcoin at this time was driven in part by a confluence of macro factors affecting the economic and business landscape that we believe is creating long-term risks for our corporate treasury program ― risks that should be addressed proactively."

One little thing I noticed is that this news is published on Businesswire - A Berkshire Hathaway Company, which should be part of Warren Buffett empire.

[buwaytress]

Wham, bam, thank you ma'am, they now own 0.1% of all Bitcoin that will ever exist. That building by institutions definitely began much earlier than we've been led to believe, but yeah, am sure the number slowly making their holdings public will grow over the next years. This cycle won't be as short or extreme as others, it seems.

P.S. Makes my 21 Club dream, already very unlikely unless I win the lottery, seem so tiny.

[hatshepsut93]

One little thing I noticed is that this news is published on Businesswire - A Berkshire Hathaway Company, which should be part of Warren Buffett empire.

A company isn't necessarily an authoritarian dictatorship where every employee shares the same view as its leader or gets fired. When Jamie Dimon was bashing Bitcoin, some of the analysts and JPMorgan where bullish on Bitcoin. Same here, it's really not that strange. Even in governments you can hear a lot of different opinions about Bitcoin, so sometimes it's not better to assume that such organizations are a monolith.

[gentlemand]

P.S. Makes my 21 Club dream, already very unlikely unless I win the lottery, seem so tiny.

I wonder whether 'institutions' go through the same emotions little people do. 'Man, they got the leap on me', 'It's too expensive now', 'How much upside is left?'

Certain people will look like goddamn geniuses eventually. Plenty of others will look like goats. Perhaps many are waiting for another and higher plateau in price before starting to take it properly seriously.

Many may feel it'll look more credible to their peers and clients if they lay out more in future. Fuck it, works for me.

[Harlot]

MicroStrategy is a tech-related company mainly providing platform as a service as well as software as service so I think that they are more aware of digital assets and its potential as compared to other industries who aren't related to tech. Maybe that is the reason why they invested so much on Bitcoin even though it went back up from 4,800$ and for what other traders consider a too late move to buy, this is really a risky move and I don't know why they did it exactly as they might be thinking that Bitcoin might be headed more compared to it's current value now.

[bbc.reporter]

Agreed on their statement that bitcoin is a legitimate long term investment asset, however, I cannot agree on their statement that it can be better than cash. I wish everyone who came to the cryptospace recently stopped hyping it this way.

[figmentofmyass]

One little thing I noticed is that this news is published on Businesswire - A Berkshire Hathaway Company, which should be part of Warren Buffett empire.

they are just a paid-for press release service like prnewswire or any of the others. microstrategy paid them to disseminate this story. it doesn't say anything about buffett or berkshire hathaway.

[Darker45]

Agreed on their statement that bitcoin is a legitimate long term investment asset, however, I cannot agree on their statement that it can be better than cash. I wish everyone who came to the cryptospace recently stopped hyping it this way.

At least there was the word can.

And I agree with them. Various countries are now starting to do away with cash, that is, cash referring to bank notes and coins. Cards and online payments are now taking over commerce, not only due to convenience but also due to cash being prone to be used in illegal transactions.

Well, since the advent of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, the word cash should now evolve and include in its meaning its electronic or digital versions.

[gentlemand]

Agreed on their statement that bitcoin is a legitimate long term investment asset, however, I cannot agree on their statement that it can be better than cash. I wish everyone who came to the cryptospace recently stopped hyping it this way.

At least there was the word can.

Cash in the context of a company is actual accessible and realisable money.

Regular cash slowly withers away. If your newly chosen form of cash does the exact opposite while remaining instantly accessible then that certainly sounds 'better' to me. Obviously that feeling is dependent on healthy rises.

And business banking has costs that regular banking doesn't, not to mention the spectre of negative interest rates which again commercial customers will be hit with before individuals.

[Lucius]

A company isn't necessarily an authoritarian dictatorship where every employee shares the same view as its leader or gets fired.

they are just a paid-for press release service like prnewswire or any of the others. microstrategy paid them to disseminate this story. it doesn't say anything about buffett or berkshire hathaway.

It was just a small observation in the sense that someone is publishing positive news about Bitcoin, and in a way he is connected to a man who has been doing enormous damage to that same Bitcoin for years. Of course, there is no direct connection between WB -> Bitcoin in a positive sense, it is already clear to everyone that the old fart will go to the grave with the same opinion about BTC that he had until now.

[bbc.reporter]

Agreed on their statement that bitcoin is a legitimate long term investment asset, however, I cannot agree on their statement that it can be better than cash. I wish everyone who came to the cryptospace recently stopped hyping it this way.

At least there was the word can.

And I agree with them. Various countries are now starting to do away with cash, that is, cash referring to bank notes and coins. Cards and online payments are now taking over commerce, not only due to convenience but also due to cash being prone to be used in illegal transactions.

Well, since the advent of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, the word cash should now evolve and include in its meaning its electronic or digital versions.

However, is bitcoin really as convenient similar to cash? Is bitcoin not also prone to illegal transactions? The darknet markets was possible because there was bitcoin.

[snipie]

Saw that news yesterday tho about a company purchasing 0.1% of total bitcoin.
Regarding this article they bought 1 bitcoin at the price of $11,653 (including fees) which is quite high nowadays but definitely will be cheap in the future imo!

[Darker45]

Agreed on their statement that bitcoin is a legitimate long term investment asset, however, I cannot agree on their statement that it can be better than cash. I wish everyone who came to the cryptospace recently stopped hyping it this way.

At least there was the word can.

And I agree with them. Various countries are now starting to do away with cash, that is, cash referring to bank notes and coins. Cards and online payments are now taking over commerce, not only due to convenience but also due to cash being prone to be used in illegal transactions.

Well, since the advent of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, the word cash should now evolve and include in its meaning its electronic or digital versions.

However, is bitcoin really as convenient similar to cash? Is bitcoin not also prone to illegal transactions? The darknet markets was possible because there was bitcoin.

In a way, yes and no. When you go into a convenience store or in a coffee shop and use cash instead of Bitcoin, transactions would be very quick. But when you send a relatively large amount of money from abroad to your family or friend in another country, Bitcoin would be a world better than cash. So one is better than the other in different aspects.

Both Bitcoin and cash are prone to illegal transactions. However, we cannot insulate any form of money from certain illegal transactions, or so I believe.

Finally, darknet existed way before the Bitcoin whitepaper was published, although Silk Road indeed somehow caused it to flourish being the first huge online darknet marketplace. But, again, illegal transactions and criminals have been part of humanity ever since; they were not creations of either Bitcoin or cash.

[bbc.reporter]

Decrypt has found the death of bitcoin prediction tweet from Microsystem CEO Michael Saylor which might have been deleted after the release of this article.

It appears that we should also be convinced that we are witnessing the beginning of another bull market hehehe.



He’s not alone in the 180-degree-turn. This year, Mathew McDermott, the head of digital assets at US bank Goldman Sachs, said the bank is entertaining client requests for cryptocurrency transactions after a “resurgence of interest.” This is the same bank that flat out dismissed Bitcoin as an asset class in May 2020 during an investor call.

Source https://decrypt.co/38604/microstrategy-ceo-predicted-the-death-of-bitcoin-years-ago

[Lucius]

I think many people today are a little embarrassed by the statements they have made in the past about Bitcoin and may learn something from this experience. If you don't understand something and you don't have enough knowledge about it, it's better not to even comment on it, because sooner or later that statement may seem very strange, to say the least. The specific statement even mentions the collapse of online gambling, and it seems to me that it is a very profitable industry today - especially when people cannot visit physical casinos.

Now we can only wonder who is next on the list of those who will change their minds when it comes to Bitcoin.

[gentlemand]

I think many people today are a little embarrassed by the statements they have made in the past about Bitcoin and may learn something from this experience. If you don't understand something and you don't have enough knowledge about it, it's better not to even comment on it, because sooner or later that statement may seem very strange, to say the least.

Yes. That's one of the odd things I've found about the rise of it. By all means express some scepticism but the hysterical and absolute doom shouted long and loud is daffy especially after you've made it clear you don't actually understand it properly. I would simply say I was yet to be convinced and was going to wait and see.

[cr1776]

Decrypt has found the death of bitcoin prediction tweet from Microsystem CEO Michael Saylor which might have been deleted after the release of this article.

It appears that we should also be convinced that we are witnessing the beginning of another bull market hehehe.



He’s not alone in the 180-degree-turn. This year, Mathew McDermott, the head of digital assets at US bank Goldman Sachs, said the bank is entertaining client requests for cryptocurrency transactions after a “resurgence of interest.” This is the same bank that flat out dismissed Bitcoin as an asset class in May 2020 during an investor call.

Source https://decrypt.co/38604/microstrategy-ceo-predicted-the-death-of-bitcoin-years-ago

Re his tweet:
The problem with online gambling pre Tor etc, was the centralized domain name system where domain names could be seized and the owners arrested if used improperly. That is the reason that casino.com and gamble.com were sold in 1997 and to whom they were sold. Dealing with the Clinton administration and the potential illegality of doing anything with them while based in the US or even outside it, was a huge risk that torpedoed the business plans.

Since the "progressives" have tried to exert more control over everything over more than the last century, it inhibits progress. 

[Carlton Banks]

The problem with online gambling pre Tor etc, was the centralized domain name system where domain names could be seized and the owners arrested if used improperly. That is the reason that casino.com and gamble.com were sold in 1997 and to whom they were sold.

this

the story of the internet was always a story of the freedom of expression and the freedom to innovate mutually reinforcing one another (and I may venture to make a similarly bold prediction as this Saylor character), and always will be

[cr1776]

The problem with online gambling pre Tor etc, was the centralized domain name system where domain names could be seized and the owners arrested if used improperly. That is the reason that casino.com and gamble.com were sold in 1997 and to whom they were sold.

this

the story of the internet was always a story of the freedom of expression and the freedom to innovate mutually reinforcing one another (and I may venture to make a similarly bold prediction as this Saylor character), and always will be

Agreed.  Freedom in all walks of life is critical.  The internet was built on it, although it was also built on trust which ended up being problematic for some things - e.g. email spoofing, no initial S on http etc.  In the 1990s (even the late ones) the regulation that smothered projects was oppressive.  It still is.  And the monopolistic power to enforce groupthink from private companies is equally as bad.

(As an aside, unfortunately I think that with the so-called web 3.0 things like Solid, the lack of design level encryption is going to stifle the growth because people will be reluctant to store things on pods in an unencrypted form (not to mention the need for protocol level ability to migrate to a new pod).  )