MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’

[fillippone]

Microstrategy released some information on their financial statements.

On this news on Business Wire we had a full disclosure of their accounting:

MicroStrategy Announces Third Quarter 2022 Financial Results

Digital Assets: As of September 30, 2022, the carrying value of MicroStrategy’s digital assets (comprised of approximately 130,000 bitcoins) was $1.993 billion, which reflects cumulative impairment losses of $1.990 billion since acquisition and an average carrying amount per bitcoin of approximately $15,331. As of September 30, 2022, the original cost basis and market value of MicroStrategy’s bitcoin were $3.983 billion and $2.532 billion, respectively, which reflects an average cost per bitcoin of approximately $30,639 and a market price per bitcoin of $19,480.51, respectively. Additional information on MicroStrategy’s digital asset holdings is included in the “Digital Assets – Additional Information” tables at the end of this press release.

They shared a few detailed informations via a couple of tables: I was able to mostly reproduce these computations, on my Google sheet, but I think I have missed something as I have a different valuation on the purchase on the Q122 (I previously wrongly attributed to Q2).

	Official Microstrategy Table	My Computation

This is the summary of differences:




Also they published the table of valuation with Gaap and NON Gap accounting.

	Official Microstrategy Table	My Computation

Pretty good match here, safe for the ending price, which is at a specific time, and ai cannot source.

[1713559660]

1713559660

[1713559660]

1713559660

[1713559660]

1713559660

[1713559660]

1713559660

[1713559660]

1713559660

[1713559660]

1713559660

[Daltonik]

Here, analysts began to declare after the fact that it would be if Microstrategy invested not in bitcoin, but for example in Ethereum, and it turns out that the company, instead of losses, would now cost more by $1.6 billion, but here is one thing, the entire crypto market depends on bitcoin and here calculations for an alternative investment can be purely theoretical, in that case who then you should invest in bitcoin taking the place of Microstrategy.

https://decrypt.co/113531/there-is-no-second-best-microstrategy-would-1-6b-invested-ethereum

[fillippone]

Here, analysts began to declare after the fact that it would be if Microstrategy invested not in bitcoin, but for example in Ethereum, and it turns out that the company, instead of losses, would now cost more by $1.6 billion, but here is one thing, the entire crypto market depends on bitcoin and here calculations for an alternative investment can be purely theoretical, in that case who then you should invest in bitcoin taking the place of Microstrategy.

https://decrypt.co/113531/there-is-no-second-best-microstrategy-would-1-6b-invested-ethereum

Nice try, but completely out of scope.
Micheal Saylor already made clear several times Microstrategy is not concerned by the market price, at least in the short period.
I have a suspect there would be even better performing shitcoins, even the US Dollar might be one of those, but this a pointless observation.

[JayJuanGee]

Here, analysts began to declare after the fact that it would be if Microstrategy invested not in bitcoin, but for example in Ethereum, and it turns out that the company, instead of losses, would now cost more by $1.6 billion, but here is one thing, the entire crypto market depends on bitcoin and here calculations for an alternative investment can be purely theoretical, in that case who then you should invest in bitcoin taking the place of Microstrategy.
https://decrypt.co/113531/there-is-no-second-best-microstrategy-would-1-6b-invested-ethereum

Nice try, but completely out of scope.
Micheal Saylor already made clear several times Microstrategy is not concerned by the market price, at least in the short period.
I have a suspect there would be even better performing shitcoins, even the US Dollar might be one of those, but this a pointless observation.

Hahahahaha  - maybe that diptwat Vitalik wrote the Article himself under a pseudonym..? since he and the other ethereum fantasylandia dweebs enjoy dealing with counter-factual realities - to wish their visions of reality into reality.

[harapan]

Here, analysts began to declare after the fact that it would be if Microstrategy invested not in bitcoin, but for example in Ethereum, and it turns out that the company, instead of losses, would now cost more by $1.6 billion, but here is one thing, the entire crypto market depends on bitcoin and here calculations for an alternative investment can be purely theoretical, in that case who then you should invest in bitcoin taking the place of Microstrategy.

https://decrypt.co/113531/there-is-no-second-best-microstrategy-would-1-6b-invested-ethereum

Nice try, but completely out of scope.
Micheal Saylor already made clear several times Microstrategy is not concerned by the market price, at least in the short period.
I have a suspect there would be even better performing shitcoins, even the US Dollar might be one of those, but this a pointless observation.

They would have held currently what they hold in Bitcoin double folds if they had bought Ethereum but they are strictly censorship base and nothing like bitcoin in terms of comparison. A big no again from him, i think if he can, he can sell his kidney just to purchase to those Bitcoin, his advice is to buy more bitcoin and more bitcoin. The only thing that scares me is that those are companies money and not just his own money.. what matters now is that they all will be better benefiters on Bitcoin in the future.

Here, analysts began to declare after the fact that it would be if Microstrategy invested not in bitcoin, but for example in Ethereum, and it turns out that the company, instead of losses, would now cost more by $1.6 billion, but here is one thing, the entire crypto market depends on bitcoin and here calculations for an alternative investment can be purely theoretical, in that case who then you should invest in bitcoin taking the place of Microstrategy.
https://decrypt.co/113531/there-is-no-second-best-microstrategy-would-1-6b-invested-ethereum

Nice try, but completely out of scope.
Micheal Saylor already made clear several times Microstrategy is not concerned by the market price, at least in the short period.
I have a suspect there would be even better performing shitcoins, even the US Dollar might be one of those, but this a pointless observation.

Hahahahaha  - maybe that diptwat Vitalik wrote the Article himself under a pseudonym..? since he and the other ethereum fantasylandia dweebs enjoy dealing with counter-factual realities - to wish their visions of reality into reality.

No no hahahahaha,  he wants the push and growing up of Ethereum but saying he wrote that not a good way to go about that

[JayJuanGee]

The only thing that scares me is that those are companies money and not just his own money.. what matters now is that they all will be better benefiters on Bitcoin in the future.

Why does it matter if the about 130k of bitcoin that MSTR had bought are company assets rather than Saylor's?  We have gone over this quite a bit in this thread already, no?

Saylor has a pretty dominant role and control over MSTR, and that is how the company is designed (likely purposefully by him).  People have rights to design companies how they like, and surely there are ramifications regarding what he can do and what he cannot do because MSTR had become a public company and still is a public company.

And, since MSTR is a public company, we end up getting to see a lot of details that we might otherwise be able to see - which in some sense should be a positive to be able to learn from how largely open MSTR (and Saylor) have decided to be in regards to MSTR's bitcoin strategies - and surely Saylor has been going overboard with the extent of his public disclosures in regards to MSTR's BTC strategies, and he surely seems to be attempting to use that openness to his advantage - which seems to be beneficial to bitcoin too (to the extent that bitcoin gives any shits).

Here, analysts began to declare after the fact that it would be if Microstrategy invested not in bitcoin, but for example in Ethereum, and it turns out that the company, instead of losses, would now cost more by $1.6 billion, but here is one thing, the entire crypto market depends on bitcoin and here calculations for an alternative investment can be purely theoretical, in that case who then you should invest in bitcoin taking the place of Microstrategy.
https://decrypt.co/113531/there-is-no-second-best-microstrategy-would-1-6b-invested-ethereum

Nice try, but completely out of scope.
Micheal Saylor already made clear several times Microstrategy is not concerned by the market price, at least in the short period.
I have a suspect there would be even better performing shitcoins, even the US Dollar might be one of those, but this a pointless observation.

Hahahahaha  - maybe that diptwat Vitalik wrote the Article himself under a pseudonym..? since he and the other ethereum fantasylandia dweebs enjoy dealing with counter-factual realities - to wish their visions of reality into reality.

No no hahahahaha,  he wants the push and growing up of Ethereum but saying he wrote that not a good way to go about that

My head hurts just thinking (even in a superficial way) about that messy project, aka Ethereum..... You would be hard-pressed to get me to say anything nice about it, except maybe that it serves a kind of interesting experimental ground, and hopefully not too many innocent people get hurt in the process - even though we do know that brains are hurt because some people actually believe the various Rube Goldberg machine bullshit upon which Ethereum's seemingly house of cards is built and continues to attempt to perpetuate itself.

[fillippone]

And, since MSTR is a public company, we end up getting to see a lot of details that we might otherwise be able to see - which in some sense should be a positive to be able to learn from how largely open MSTR (and Saylor) have decided to be in regards to MSTR's bitcoin strategies - and surely Saylor has been going overboard with the extent of his public disclosures in regards to MSTR's BTC strategies, and he surely seems to be attempting to use that openness to his advantage - which seems to be beneficial to bitcoin too (to the extent that bitcoin gives any shits).

Don't get me wrong here, I am super positive about Saylor investing in Bitcoin, but in the end, of course, Bitcoin will be most beneficial to Microstrategy, not the other way around.

Hyperbitcoinisation will happen eventually, Microstrategy or not.
And believe me when I say it's not Bitcoin's role providing you with a more fair society, whatever it means.
Bitcoin is there, a low-hanging fruit waiting to be picked up. And to do so you don't even need privilege, violence or power like it used to be in the previous world.

[JayJuanGee]

And, since MSTR is a public company, we end up getting to see a lot of details that we might otherwise be able to see - which in some sense should be a positive to be able to learn from how largely open MSTR (and Saylor) have decided to be in regards to MSTR's bitcoin strategies - and surely Saylor has been going overboard with the extent of his public disclosures in regards to MSTR's BTC strategies, and he surely seems to be attempting to use that openness to his advantage - which seems to be beneficial to bitcoin too (to the extent that bitcoin gives any shits).

Don't get me wrong here, I am super positive about Saylor investing in Bitcoin, but in the end, of course, Bitcoin will be most beneficial to Microstrategy, not the other way around.

hahahahahaha

You caught me with my panties down.   

I guess I was speaking loosely.. and for sure in bitcoin we have a lot of symbiotic relationships.. and surely, in sum, bitcoin gives no shits about Saylor or no Saylor.

Hyperbitcoinisation will happen eventually, Microstrategy or not.
And believe me when I say it's not Bitcoin's role providing you with a more fair society, whatever it means.

That's true.  Bitcoin gives no shits about fair or not fair, but coincidentally, bitcoin happens to be designed in such a way that central aspects of society have potential and incentives to "play" in more fair ways because the various unfairnesses of the Cantillon effect of the money printer becomes less and less effective - since "bitcoin no play like dat."

Bitcoin is there, a low-hanging fruit waiting to be picked up. And to do so you don't even need privilege, violence or power like it used to be in the previous world.

There is some truth in what you say in regards to some bringing back of more basic values from the past - however, at the same time, there are a lot of advantages that is likely going to come to people who are in a position to figure bitcoin out early and to accumulate some of it earlier rather than later...  at least so far that seems to be the projected direction  in terms of advantages to those who both figure it out early and also who take actions in order to attempt to align themselves with investing into bitcoin (i.e. time, energies, money).

[fillippone]

Maybe it’s too early to call, but this dump meant Microstrategy will have to set a said as impairment a good amount of money:



This 15,500 low meant another 190 millions of Bitcoin impairments.

[DrBeer]

Michael Saylor commented on a rather large article from @dergigi with Bitcoin Is Digital Scarcity where the author proves the undoubted advantage of bitcoin over virtual currencies, citing the main theses that Bitcoin is a digital element in a digital environment created and supported by physical processes, therefore it is reliable money that naturally appeared in the digital world.
While virtual currencies, such as in-game currencies and fiat currencies, are not uncommon because neither time nor energy is required to create them.

Saylor agreeing just mentions that.the virtual currencies that the authorities issue are unstable and doomed to failure, and that Bitcoin surpasses them because of its binding to a shortage of time and energy and it is the best form of money.


https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1579194776301473792

I am sure that these conclusions are based not on facts, but on assumptions, some of which are erroneous.
For example, the statement "...virtual currencies that are issued by the authorities are unstable and doomed to failure, and that Bitcoin is superior to them due to its being tied to a lack of time and energy..." is just the current state of affairs when mining requires a lot of time and electric energy. It cannot be argued that this will continue to happen, for example, I do not exclude the emergence of disproportionately more powerful, in terms of performance, miners that will consume much less energy. As a minimum, this assumption destroys the previous one. And if we talk about technologies, then there are no guarantees that the cryptoalgorithms put into the base of Bitcoin are reliable and really crypto-resistant ....

[Daltonik]

I am sure that these conclusions are based not on facts, but on assumptions, some of which are erroneous.
For example, the statement "...virtual currencies that are issued by the authorities are unstable and doomed to failure, and that Bitcoin is superior to them due to its being tied to a lack of time and energy..." is just the current state of affairs when mining requires a lot of time and electric energy. It cannot be argued that this will continue to happen, for example, I do not exclude the emergence of disproportionately more powerful, in terms of performance, miners that will consume much less energy. As a minimum, this assumption destroys the previous one. And if we talk about technologies, then there are no guarantees that the cryptoalgorithms put into the base of Bitcoin are reliable and really crypto-resistant ....

Of course, you are right, nothing can be ruled out in the future, but for now an increase in power is possible only with an increase in energy intensity, although IBM has already introduced a 433 qubit quantum compute and is going to introduce a Condor processor for 1121 qubits next year, and Flamingo for 1386 qubits is also planned for 2024, but for now the use of quantum computers in mining is being considered just as an experiment.

[fillippone]

Reading various Tweets recently, there is a lot of chatter about Microstrategy having to post additional collateral at the 13,500 USD level, apparently with dire consequences.

Nothing at all.
Microstrategy has enough bitcoins to post as collateral for those loans. This is more than a transaction moving those bitcoins into a segregated wallet. The only consequence is those coins won’t be immediately available for sell. But this is, of course, something Microstrategy is not interested in.

[harapan]

Reading various Tweets recently, there is a lot of chatter about Microstrategy having to post additional collateral at the 13,500 USD level, apparently with dire consequences.

Nothing at all.
Microstrategy has enough bitcoins to post as collateral for those loans. This is more than a transaction moving those bitcoins into a segregated wallet. The only consequence is those coins won’t be immediately available for sell. But this is, of course, something Microstrategy is not interested in.

I don't know how true but I read Microstrategy lost big time in the recent outburst between Binance and FTX.
From what I see they say they are in a big loss of over $1.8 billion dollars, I came across it while scanning down over the internet some few day, I would love to know of same news was read. Since then he hasn't bought any Bitcoin. How bad did the outbreak hit Microstrategy Bitcoin holding's.

[JayJuanGee]

Reading various Tweets recently, there is a lot of chatter about Microstrategy having to post additional collateral at the 13,500 USD level, apparently with dire consequences.

Nothing at all.
Microstrategy has enough bitcoins to post as collateral for those loans. This is more than a transaction moving those bitcoins into a segregated wallet. The only consequence is those coins won’t be immediately available for sell. But this is, of course, something Microstrategy is not interested in.

Yeah.. It may be a little unclear, because there could have been some financial circumstances that were not outlined very specifically by Saylor and/or MSTR regarding the liquidation point of some of MSTR's loans... but it makes sense that MSTR would post more collateral.. because initially when the BTC prices were in the upper $30ks, Saylor was saying no problem because the collateral then posted had MSTR's loan protected all the way down to some price point in the $21ks, and few folks were then thinking that the BTC price would get down into the $21ks - so maybe now the idea was that Saylor/MSTR wanted to make sure that they post additional collateral in order that they are protected down to $13,500 - which seems understandable that they are going to want to continue to add to their collateral in order that their outstanding loans are covered.. while at the same time not necessarily wanting to encumber currently unencumbered BTC by placing it as collateral (which largely means giving keys to some other parties.. and we have recently seen that some other parties have not been very responsible in their holding of the keys of their clients, related to a variety of crypto assets - so not just BTC custodians - and even witnessing some otherwise responsible custodians get caught into situations where they might have lost or absconded with the coins of someone else).

Posting collateral seems a better option than either getting liquidated or having to sell BTC in order to pay off the loan with BTC prices way lower than the price in which the loan had been taken out.

I am sure that the situation is stressful for Saylor and MSTR - but likely not as stressful as some of the seeming exaggerations that come out with assertions of loose facts that are put out as if there is some kind of an inside scoop - and surely the BTC price dropping further than expected is no comfort to MSTR's actual BTC but also the fact that the value of their company (price of their stock) is going down at the same time - so options get removed from the table - while at the same time, I recall a couple of months ago that Saylor/MSTR had gotten approval and announced a line of credit that was in the ballpark of $200 million that it could use for business operations and/or buying bitcoin and/or any reason that it wanted to use such line of credit, and I cannot recall hearing that any of that money having had been used and it seems to me to be likely that the money would still be available.

[fillippone]

they post additional collateral in order that  they are protected down to $13,500 -

All correct.
Technically speaking, Microstrategy is safe until BTCUSD@3,000 roughly, as they can keep adding bitcoins from their stash until that level without operating on the market.

I said “technically speaking” as even if we know how much MSTR is a personal possession of Micheal Saylor, he can withstand pressure on his “Bitcoin Plan” in the case our mutual orange friend get to that level.

[YUriy1991]

After all, bitcoin isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It will remain, and when governments around the world start allowing major players in their respective markets to accept bitcoin payments, the price is bound to go up.

[aysg76]

All correct.
Technically speaking, Microstrategy is safe until BTCUSD@3,000 roughly, as they can keep adding bitcoins from their stash until that level without operating on the market.

I said “technically speaking” as even if we know how much MSTR is a personal possession of Micheal Saylor, he can withstand pressure on his “Bitcoin Plan” in the case our mutual orange friend get to that level.

Technically speaking then they can withstand the bitcoin downfall to considerable low level but to the contrary he will be adding more to the reserve and accumulating more at these levels taking his average price of investment even more down.At this time they might be in loss but our orange bright eyes friend is optimistic about bitcoin future and will keep on investing even more at these times.

But as per the current market trends we can go little bit down to say to $10k also but like 2017-18 period we can't go to $3k level to what he can withstand the pressure so we are not going to that level most probably.

[JayJuanGee]

All correct.
Technically speaking, Microstrategy is safe until BTCUSD@3,000 roughly, as they can keep adding bitcoins from their stash until that level without operating on the market.

I said “technically speaking” as even if we know how much MSTR is a personal possession of Micheal Saylor, he can withstand pressure on his “Bitcoin Plan” in the case our mutual orange friend get to that level.

Technically speaking then they can withstand the bitcoin downfall to considerable low level but to the contrary he will be adding more to the reserve and accumulating more at these levels taking his average price of investment even more down.At this time they might be in loss but our orange bright eyes friend is optimistic about bitcoin future and will keep on investing even more at these times.

But as per the current market trends we can go little bit down to say to $10k also but like 2017-18 period we can't go to $3k level to what he can withstand the pressure so we are not going to that level most probably.

I go to a similar place logically aysg76 in regards to both of those points that you seem to be making, and I think that each of your points need to be fleshed out a bit more in order to attempt to describe some dynamics that some of the mainstream pundits seem to be missing in regards to how they keep wishfully asserting that Saylor/MSTR to be more vulnerable than they likely are.

We get used to some of the BIG players exaggerating their position and even proclaiming that they are in a much stronger place than they are, so the fact that we have a lot of smoke and mirror bullshit artists in the world who are overstating their claims, the Michael Saylor/MSTR naysayers like to project Saylor/MSTR to be in the same place, which it is likely NOT true that he/MSTR is in the same kind of a vulnerable place unless he happens to be lying to us about some of his assets and/or his debts, and I surely am not going to put Saylor in the same bucket as Do Kwon, or SBF, or even Vitalik - and the other players who were and some of them continue to play shell games to suggest that they have way more assets than they do and they rely upon the ongoing pump in order to keep their scam and their little (or BIG) house of cards standing.   It is true that Saylor/MSTR might have fewer assets and more debt than what they are disclosing, but there is no real evidence of that beyond looking at the other scammers in the space and trying to project similar kinds of behaviors onto Saylor/MSTR.  

Let's take your first issue regarding the value of Saylor/MSTR continuing to buy BTC as the price goes down in order to continue to put themselves into a stronger position to be able to withstand even lower BTC prices without necessarily retaining enough collateral to sustain their loans, and let's say that it is actually true that Saylor/MSTR would run out of unencumbered BTC to prevent themselves from being liquidated at $3k-ish.  

But if Saylor/MSTR were to continue to buy BTC as the BTC price goes down to $3k-ish, and let's say that they take from their $200 million that has already been set aside for "business expenses, buying BTC or whatever," and they use that money to establish their buying on the dip budget down to $3k-ish, So they could authorize themselves to buy $15 million worth of BTC in every $1k increment drops that the BTC price falls starting from $15k, and they would end up having 13 buy orders between $3k and $15k, which would add up to having an additional  26,086 BTC that they would be able to put up for collateral to defend their $3k-ish liquidation peg.

Here's the buying on the dip math that adds up to an additional 26,086 BTC

Buy Price    BTC Buy   BTC Total   $Buy Amt     $Total Spent $15,253.21   983.40    983.40     $15,000,000.00   $15,000,000.00 $14,253.21   1052.39   2035.79   $15,000,000.00   $30,000,000.00 $13,253.21   1131.80   3167.60   $15,000,000.00   $45,000,000.00 $12,253.21   1224.17   4391.76   $15,000,000.00   $60,000,000.00 $11,253.21   1332.95   5724.72   $15,000,000.00   $75,000,000.00 $10,253.21   1462.96   7187.67   $15,000,000.00   $90,000,000.00 $9,253.21   1621.06   8808.73   $15,000,000.00   $105,000,000.00 $8,253.21   1817.47   10626.21   $15,000,000.00   $120,000,000.00 $7,253.21   2068.05   12694.26   $15,000,000.00   $135,000,000.00 $6,253.21   2398.77   15093.03   $15,000,000.00   $150,000,000.00 $5,253.21   2855.40   17948.42   $15,000,000.00   $165,000,000.00 $4,253.21   3526.75   21475.17   $15,000,000.00   $180,000,000.00 $3,253.21   4610.83   26086.00   $15,000,000.00   $195,000,000.00

Regarding your other point about how far the BTC price is likely to fall, it seems we are already at very low historical levels in reference to the 200-week moving average, but sure we have a lot of extreme negative macro factors including various kinds of possible contagion in the way that various shitcoins have been leveraged, and surely something like the ethereum ponzi scheme falling could contribute towards more negative cascading BTC prices.. but still I with you regarding $10k being an extreme that may well not even be met.  There is no guarantee that BTC prices will even get lower than their current low that we have reached so far of $15,632 from over a week ago.  So I am having difficulties giving high odds to BTC prices going lower than they already have or even reaching the kinds of lows that some people fear could happen - while at the same time, someone who is buying on the way down, may well still want to prepare for worse case and/or even outrageous scenarios that may or may not end up playing out.

[JayJuanGee]

I am going to breach the two posts in a row rule, since it has been a couple of days since my last post - which I believe that the passage of time might be an exception to the double post rule... and I am wanting to raise some new points that I have been kind of thinking about in the past days, even though they are somewhat related to my last post.

Essentially, I just wanted to say that I just noticed that in early September Saylor/MSTR had disclosed that they were going to sell $500 million of MSTR equity rather than the $200 million amount that I had used in my buying on the dip example above.  Yet at the same time, I still have not really heard much if any news of their having had bought much if any BTC since early September, which likely means that they could have a decent size budget for buying more BTC.. That is if they had actually followed through with the selling of the additional $500 million equity as was in the original disclosure. 

Of course, there was one purchase of around $6 million in mid-to-late September in which they bought 301 BTC in the $19.5k price arena to put them over 130k BTC, so they still may have a lot of that $500 million - if they have already ended up selling some MSTR equity?

I kind of already grown attached to my buying on the dip laddering example from my earlier post.. which would be $15 million for ever $1k drop in the BTC, price, and of course, there are quite a few ways that such buying on the dip laddering approach could be supplemented, including but not limited to adding more to the buying amounts by increasing the amounts or even buy tightening the laddering increments, every $500 rather than every $1k or even front loading it in the event that it might be determined that preparing for such long-shots, such as $3k BTC prices is not a good way to allocate fiat that is sitting on the sidelines,

Another thing that they could do is to just allocate some of their budget to a more rigid DCA, whether that is buying daily (like El Salvador is doing) or buying weekly. 

I have no problem with either daily or weekly buys when the amount that might be bought would be considerably more than the normie amounts of $10 per week or something like that.

Like I mentioned in the El Salvador thread, there could be a way that MSTR/Saylor were to tie a daily buy amount to their average cost per BTC... so if MSTR's average cost per BTC is currently in the $30,638 price arena (as fillippone calculated in this post), then maybe MSTR could use their average cost per BTC as a way to figure out how much BTC that they would buy - whether that be daily, weekly or some other interval.. and they could even use a multiplier if they wanted to buy more BTC during any periodic basis that they might choose.

For any of us normies, we might want to start some kind of a similar BTC buying behaviors, too.. and it might even be more justifiable for anyone who might be underwater.. but anyone could join into such a DCA solidarity activity... I am going to have to think about if there might be some kind of a plan that I might want to implement... but mine would be much smaller amounts than either the 1 BTC per day that El Salvador is doing or my proposal of a DCA plan that MSTR could adopt.

[DrBeer]

I’ve been watching the crypto market lately, and I’m thinking “How are MicroStrategy doing there, who bought bitcoins for $250M” ?!
I will not talk about the reasons for the next market drawdown, everything is very interesting there, and this is the topic of a separate thread.
The question is - how do MicroStrategy investors assess risks, and how do external investors assess MicroStrategy's "financial behavior"? Let's be honest - such a move for a company whose key "product" is "providing business intelligence to customers" looks, to put it mildly, not very, hmm ... reasonable or what?