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

[fillippone]

the first time saylor and microstrategy sold their btc holdings and it was only two days apart before saylor made a repurchase. Now from what I understand why microstrategy sells at $16776 and buys at $16845 why did he waste $69 in this case, I mean the difference between the selling and buying prices even though it's not a bad thing at least microstrategy can enter below $16500 or thereabouts. But that's saylor strategy and now microstrategy has held btc 132500 btc and that's a pretty big amount

In addition to this sale, there was information that Saylor wants to sell all his bitcoins.

In addition, there was no other confirmation of other confirmations. It is also not clear why 182,000 BTC is mentioned in Twita and where did such a figure come from?

I wouldn't comment this tweet.
This is clearly bullshit coming from an anonymous account with a clear agenda in mind.
Micheal Taylor is of course very free to sell his bitcoin, and go short another 50K apparently.
But I bet he's smart enough not to make anyone aware of this.

[1714046806]

1714046806

[1714046806]

1714046806

[franky1]

it seems the whale chart is trying to suggest he wants to short the market of his 132k coins and put a buy in to create 182k

which basic math suggests
sell at $16.5k =$2.178b
which would need a buy in at the rate of ~$12k/btc to yield 182k coin

its a bit late to be playing games to suggest influencers are going short.
everyone knows this is the era of going long.

[fillippone]

i also got this



but like JJG said they only study 1 hour to say they are experts in this industry.

This piece of information is even more dramatically dubious than the previous tweet.
No way anyone would discover Macro/Microstrategy address(es), unless they are forced to publish it (which I doubt). Even taking all the coins on a single address is a suboptimal practice in so many ways.

[Lucius]

I wouldn't comment this tweet.
This is clearly bullshit coming from an anonymous account with a clear agenda in mind.

There were already several "dramatic" tweets from the same account that I had the opportunity to see in WO, and when I checked what exactly it was about, I discovered that the person from that account was obviously attracting new followers with even more sensational titles, in order to invite them later to join him on Telegram where he is obviously shilling some shitcoin projects.

Of course, Saylor can sell the entire company if he wants to, but to sell Bitcoins at a time like this does not seem logical at all, especially if he recently made a new purchase.

[aysg76]

it seems the whale chart is trying to suggest he wants to short the market of his 132k coins and put a buy in to create 182k

which basic math suggests
sell at $16.5k =$2.178b
which would need a buy in at the rate of ~$12k/btc to yield 182k coin

its a bit late to be playing games to suggest influencers are going short.
everyone knows this is the era of going long.

Right at this time they would not take the risk of selling the coins like he said and buy back because their average price is still $30k around and they are in accumulation phase at this time with addition of 2500BTC and if they have decision of selling they wouldn't have made the purchase so it's not right.

I wouldn't comment this tweet.
This is clearly bullshit coming from an anonymous account with a clear agenda in mind.

As already pointed out by @Lucius that account is in rush to attract followers and you can clearly see his pinned tweet saying whosoever actively reply to his tweet grows his account and what his intentions are.And there are some attacks on Saylor as well in other tweets in order to promote his account with such tweets.

The Saylor has also said about bitcoin LN solutions and application in 2023 and have clear agenda in his mind with accumulating more and more bitcoin at every dip so why should he sell at loss and again hold for even more long term to regain his profits position? So this tweet has no meaning as if you follow Saylor Twitter and see his spaces you can have idea about his next moves and holding of bitcoin.

[JayJuanGee]

it seems the whale chart is trying to suggest he wants to short the market of his 132k coins and put a buy in to create 182k

which basic math suggests
sell at $16.5k =$2.178b
which would need a buy in at the rate of ~$12k/btc to yield 182k coin

its a bit late to be playing games to suggest influencers are going short.
everyone knows this is the era of going long.

Right at this time they would not take the risk of selling the coins like he said and buy back because their average price is still $30k around and they are in accumulation phase at this time with addition of 2500BTC and if they have decision of selling they wouldn't have made the purchase so it's not right

I wouldn't comment this tweet.
This is clearly bullshit coming from an anonymous account with a clear agenda in mind.

As already pointed out by @Lucius that account is in rush to attract followers and you can clearly see his pinned tweet saying whosoever actively reply to his tweet grows his account and what his intentions are.And there are some attacks on Saylor as well in other tweets in order to promote his account with such tweets.

The Saylor has also said about bitcoin LN solutions and application in 2023 and have clear agenda in his mind with accumulating more and more bitcoin at every dip so why should he sell at loss and again hold for even more long term to regain his profits position? So this tweet has no meaning as if you follow Saylor Twitter and see his spaces you can have idea about his next moves and holding of bitcoin.

Yep.. Saylor did host a Bitcoin-related spaces that lasted about 57 minutes, in which Ratimov posted the link in fillippone's lighting network observer thread and Ratimov provided a wee bit of an overview of the various topics that Saylor addressed in that 57 minute spaces session.  

I listened to it, and the beginning portion is very informative to address some of the various FUD issues - which means it is addressing the various non fact-based bullshit that is frequently spewed out by so many folks who seem to fail/refuse to do any research, looking into matters, employ some basic logic and many times, there are so many folks who seem to just want to presume that Saylor is some disingenuine evil person, so therefore it is more realistic to just presume the opposite of what he is saying to be true.. which just seems like nonsense to me, and we have pretty senior members in this forum who seem to be engaged in the same kind of lack of research kinds of tactics.

Don't get me wrong.  I am not opposed to taking matters with a grain of salt and even employing a lot of skepticism when it comes to various players who seem to be gaining too much credibility and also there can be value in slaying some of your heros.. so no problem with that.. and it is even better when there is some factual and logical basis to come to such "questioning" conclusions.

[fillippone]

Don't get me wrong.  I am not opposed to taking matters with a grain of salt and even employing a lot of skepticism when it comes to various players who seem to be gaining too much credibility and also there can be value in slaying some of your heros.. so no problem with that.. and it is even better when there is some factual and logical basis to come to such "questioning" conclusions.

Totally agree with such an approach.
Even more because Bitcoin doesn't need promoters, saints or leaders.
So we are not bending our knees in front of Taylor.

But of all the criticism, toward Saylor, in particular, I haven't seen any "factual and logical basis questioning". Only absurd theories, easily debunked by very simple reasoning and knowledge of facts (i.e. everything we have said in the previous 800 posts here.

[aysg76]

It is even better when there is some factual and logical basis to come to such "questioning" conclusions.

It's always better to support any statement with logical assumptions which helps to validate the claims but some are mere debates which are carried this way only and in this tweet was made with the same intentions just to have some attention towards the account.Although I have tried looking for some information about selling but didn't find any indication to that.

Totally agree with such an approach.
Even more because Bitcoin doesn't need promoters, saints or leaders.

Absolutely it has gained so much attention not because some influential people have promoted it like shitcoins but because of what it is actually like the true example of decentralisation and profitable scenarios to holder as well.So if we look into past growth also we will find that why it doesn't need any so called saints for its promotion and have the capability of growing with time.The people realise how good it is and to have the monetary freedom with them the adoption curve moves upwards.

[Daltonik]

Michael Saylor, during the Pacific Bitcoin Conference on November 11, 2022 (not entirely new, but relevant, as it seems to me, Saylor's speech), spoke on possible developments in the crypto market, ways of development and formation of bitcoin, also briefly spoke about his experience and possible actions of regulators regarding crypto assets and the goals and philosophy of bitcoin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1NSTkyiNO0

[franky1]

Michael Saylor, during the Pacific Bitcoin Conference on November 11, 2022 (not entirely new, but relevant, as it seems to me, Saylor's speech), spoke on possible developments in the crypto market, ways of development and formation of bitcoin, also briefly spoke about his experience and possible actions of regulators regarding crypto assets and the goals and philosophy of bitcoin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1NSTkyiNO0

in first 10 mins he tries to say a commodity is an asset without issuer

completely wrong
a commodity is a raw item used to create other produce

wheat=bread
beef=burgers
oil=car fuel

bitcoin became a commodity in 2017 when it allowed locking value to create sub network pegged iou token/value
ethereum with its erc-20 is a commodity example too
...
from 10min-15min he talks about how ICO coins are different than bitcoin and due to things like ftx's ftt.. people are realising it
..
from 15min-20min
he talks about many different things
..
from 20min-28min
he starts salivating about bitcoins potentials of the sub networks of bitcoins potential.. but is foolishly focusing on a flawed "first example" of one
i personally dont think the subnetwork he mentions will be "the one".. its too flawed
yes bitcoin will evolve a future sub network that will allow fast 'digital dollar' ('digital cash') payment system.. but it wont be the one he thinks
..
from 28min-32min
he talks about how 2 years ago institutional brokers didnt want anything to do with it.. now we are seeing alot of the scammy bitcoin "banks" dying(ftx, celcius) and now institutional banks like meryl lynch/jpmorgan/blackrock are jumping onboard
..
from 32min-35min
more thinking from him that the subnetwork he salivates over wil be the 'onboarder' of bitcoin, though he doesnt mention how the idealogy of his subnetwork is not to onboard to btc, but its business model is to offboard bitcoiners away from btc
..
from 35min-37min
he mentions how fiats QE/inflation/printing/minting is going to help people want to get into crypto

from 37min-46min
he talks about how fiat doesnt help the normal person and the more people stick with it it gets worse as more inflation debased the value. however the more people that get involved in bitcoin the stronger bitcoin gets and rises bitcoins security, strength and value

[Daltonik]

Michael Saylor, during the Pacific Bitcoin Conference on November 11, 2022 (not entirely new, but relevant, as it seems to me, Saylor's speech), spoke on possible developments in the crypto market, ways of development and formation of bitcoin, also briefly spoke about his experience and possible actions of regulators regarding crypto assets and the goals and philosophy of bitcoin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1NSTkyiNO0

in first 10 mins he tries to say a commodity is an asset without issuer

completely wrong
a commodity is a raw item used to create other produce

wheat=bread
beef=burgers
oil=car fuel

bitcoin became a commodity in 2017 when it allowed locking value to create sub network pegged iou token/value
ethereum with its erc-20 is a commodity example too
...

But he just expresses what he considers profitable and this is natural, but by the product he quite possibly meant the finished product meaning bitcoin, but at the same time it can also be considered a commodity because it does not have a materialized measure as simple goods.

[franky1]

But he just expresses what he considers profitable and this is natural, but by the product he quite possibly meant the finished product meaning bitcoin, but at the same time it can also be considered a commodity because it does not have a materialized measure as simple goods.

and now you are trying to re-define the meaning of commodity..
something thats not set as a finalised product.. is called a prototype, an alpha/beta test..

before 2014 bitcoin was just a product/asset (2009-2014 property law)
after 2014, before 2017 bitcoin was an asset currency, (2014-2017 currency law)
after 2017 (but ratified 2022*) bitcoin is a commodity(2021 commodity law)

* though some regulators still wish to debate it due to lack of any real functional end product made beneath bitcoin that is considered a finalised ready-to-market good

commodities are a base thing. that is used to produce other things. its as simple as that
(i personally prefer if the 2009-2014 category were to have continued, but oh well)

[Daltonik]

But he just expresses what he considers profitable and this is natural, but by the product he quite possibly meant the finished product meaning bitcoin, but at the same time it can also be considered a commodity because it does not have a materialized measure as simple goods.

and now you are trying to re-define the meaning of commodity..
something thats not set as a finalised product.. is called a prototype, an alpha/beta test..

before 2014 bitcoin was just a product/asset (2009-2014 property law)
after 2014, before 2017 bitcoin was an asset currency, (2014-2017 currency law)
after 2017 (but ratified 2022*) bitcoin is a commodity(2021 commodity law)

* though some regulators still wish to debate it due to lack of any real functional end product made beneath bitcoin that is considered a finalised ready-to-market good

commodities are a base thing. that is used to produce other things. its as simple as that
(i personally prefer if the 2009-2014 category were to have continued, but oh well)

Well, actually, Sailor, speaking about the product in relation to bitcoin, means that he is not a share and considers bitcoin as a commodity that is traded on exchanges through futures contracts, for example, the SEC and the CFTC hold the same opinion and found a link to their verdict:

https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/7231-15

[ginsan]

This is quite an interesting article to read https://u.today/michael-saylor-stays-bullish-on-bitcoin-while-microstrategy-mstr-up-23-in-2023

where mstr was up 23% earlier this year. even among ignorant observers on social media this is a short bubble but they are wrong.

Although it did not trigger a strong reaction to the increase in the price of BTC, it is certainly a strong signal that the MicroStrategy company's stock growth has been very good at the start of this year.

Therefore, I think Saylor December purchase of BTC was the cheapest buy he has ever made. well that's a good way to see how badass the saylor haters turn out when they see the big profits coming his way.

edit. The cheapest purchase as mentioned by the op occurred in the second phase of Q3/2020

[JayJuanGee]

This is quite an interesting article to read https://u.today/michael-saylor-stays-bullish-on-bitcoin-while-microstrategy-mstr-up-23-in-2023

where mstr was up 23% earlier this year. even among ignorant observers on social media this is a short bubble but they are wrong.

Although it did not trigger a strong reaction to the increase in the price of BTC, it is certainly a strong signal that the MicroStrategy company's stock growth has been very good at the start of this year.

Therefore, I think Saylor December purchase of BTC was the cheapest buy he has ever made. well that's a good way to see how badass the saylor haters turn out when they see the big profits coming his way.

Thanks for the link.  Regarding your point that I bolded above, Saylor's first couple of BTC purchases on behalf of Microstrategies were in the $10k to $11k territory which is surely quite a bit lower than his recent December BTC purchases and his own first BTC purchases of nearly 18k BTC for his own personal stash had average prices of below $10k.  

That information in regards to Saylor's and MSTR's first BTC purchases is outlined in the OP of this thread...

[fillippone]

Therefore, I think Saylor December purchase of BTC was the cheapest buy he has ever made. well that's a good way to see how badass the saylor haters turn out when they see the big profits coming his way.

Absolutely.
According to the spreadsheet in OP actually the cheapest buying is the second tranche:




Clicking on the graph you open the full detail of the purchases.

[ginsan]

Thanks, and sorry I didn't check the spreadsheet table of BTC purchases Saylor makes in Every Quarter.

Now, looking at the percentage that Saylor is buying BTC he once made purchases in Q1 early 2021 and whether he will make purchases in Q1 early 2023.
If I look at the last buying area maybe it was a wise thing he did in the big crash that happened in the last year.

$9k difference from today's price if we look at the average buy entry he makes, which is $30397. almost close and I think Saylor breathes a little easier.

[JayJuanGee]

Thanks, and sorry I didn't check the spreadsheet table of BTC purchases Saylor makes in Every Quarter.

Now, looking at the percentage that Saylor is buying BTC he once made purchases in Q1 early 2021 and whether he will make purchases in Q1 early 2023.
If I look at the last buying area maybe it was a wise thing he did in the big crash that happened in the last year.

$9k difference from today's price if we look at the average buy entry he makes, which is $30397. almost close and I think Saylor breathes a little easier.

In some senses, I can relate to Saylor since I started to buy BTC in late 2013 towards the top of that peak, so it took a bit of time for my average cost per BTC to go below the current price, more or less 2.5 years for me.. and I had been relatively aggressively buying the whole time.

Saylor's level of aggressive buying of BTC seems to put aspects of my buying to shame in terms of percentage of his wealth.. not really referring to the quantity so much.. yet, I was getting the sense that he was being more aggressive than was fruitful for any kind of normal person since he was leveraging up so much, and in some sense, he is working with such large numbers that it becomes almost a totally different game in terms of his safety net and probably not even really putting his standard of living at risk... since he had already been living the life of a multi-millionaire with several yachts and also several luxurious housing that he was maintaining for many years.

In the end, he likely has become somewhat nervous about BTC's recent price performance, but likely not even close to as near as normies might worry about having an average cost per BTC that had been bordering 50% in the negative when the BTC price had gotten down to $15,479 - however, now he is getting back into a territory of ONLY being around 30% in the negative.  At one point my own holdings were around 70% in the negative when my average cost per BTC was in the mid $500s and the BTC price had dropped below $160 per BTC... so there can be some stress on regular people to have your investment that far down, even if you had previously felt that you had confidence in your investment, being that level in the negative can contribute towards your questioning your conviction in regards to your investment.

[fillippone]

I guess the only difference between you and Micheal Saylor is, regardless of the absolute entry levels of tour trades, the possibility to influence others.
Your aggressive buying was as at the time possibly moving your family and friends.
Micheal Saylor's buying could mean other corporate treasuries are moving into bitcoin.

I cannot see Micheal Saylor being worried about the price per se but about the failure of his idea of Bitcoin as a superior form of cash in the short term. With all the subsequent consequences on his (Microstrategy’s) business.

[JayJuanGee]

I guess the only difference between you and Micheal Saylor is, regardless of the absolute entry levels of tour trades, the possibility to influence others.
Your aggressive buying was as at the time possibly moving your family and friends.
Micheal Saylor's buying could mean other corporate treasuries are moving into bitcoin.

I cannot see Micheal Saylor being worried about the price per se but about the failure of his idea of Bitcoin as a superior form of cash in the short term. With all the subsequent consequences on his (Microstrategy’s) business.

It seems that any of us can make these kinds of comparisons between others, and there does seem to be some requirements of getting into some details when we are making these kinds of comparisons, so I frequently talk in terms of percentages, and if I talk about bitcoin purchase or sales sizes, I will tend to talk in terms of hypotheticals.  However, Michael has obligations to make some specific disclosures, which does help for any of us to be able to attempt to talk more concretely how his strategy might compare to ours, and to even be complimentary or critical of various aspects of his strategies.

I have frequently asserted that any of us are likely to have way fewer ways in which we are psychologically stressed about our bitcoin financial situation when our holdings are in profits, and sometimes there are ways to frame certain portions (tranches) that might be in profits or that would have different average costs per BTC.  The more that we are in profits (or the less that we are in losses), the more likely that we are psychologically less burdened, but also the more that we are in profits, the more options that we seem to have in terms of being able to sell at profits, even if that level of profits could later end up being a less preferable route.. since the longer we have been studying bitcoin, the more likely we know about more and more examples of BTC holders who have regrets for selling too many bitcoin too soon, and sometimes they will end up becoming bitter no coiners as a result of their negative personal histories in that direction of selling too many BTC too soon.

Another thing about Saylor is that likely he has reached several multiples (perhaps magnitudes) higher than whatever his standard of living is and/or his entry-level fuck you status.  So there is likely a certain level of freedom that comes from having systems in place in which you are engaging in financial activities in ways that you mostly are not putting your standard of living at risk, so largely he is likely gambling, trading, investing with excess funds that he does not really need - even though it is possible that his having had put himself into such a public position, there is a certain amount of pride that is at stake in terms of wanting to be right and/or wanting to achieve some level of fame and legacy based on life accomplishments that are measurable/comparable to other historically rich influencers, so that surely is likely a factor that might differ with the rich and famous as compared to many of us folks who are either publicly unknown or that we might even be somewhat anonymous in terms of our forum/public participation in regards to these bitcoin-related topics.