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

[fillippone]

How does Adam Back think that launching BSTR with 30,000 BTC will make him to surpass MicroStrategy that have been investing in bitcoin since 2020 and owns about 601,550 BTC currently, it's actually ridiculous honestly.

I don't think he believes it. It's a way to grab headlines, simply. He has also been one of the main investors in ALTBG, so I don't know what he is doing getting into so much mess.

With the bitcoin he must have, he has enough to retire, and I'm not saying he should. Being active is very respectable, but it gives the impression that he wants to attract attention or is looking fame.

Adam Back is also known for his passion for trading, shitcoins included.
This might be something tied to this as well.
You might think a potential Satoshi couldn't care more about gambling, but he's constantly trading and price checking, and spreading stocks vs crypto.
Fucking legend.

[Just Common]

Coinbase Doesn't Custody All of Strategy's Bitcoin—So Who Does?

Strategy's $72B Bitcoin stash is spread across multiple secret custodians, with only Coinbase confirmed and Fidelity potentially holding 70,000 BTC.
Strategy keeps its $72 billion Bitcoin stash with multiple custodians, but won't publicly name them, citing security concerns despite pressure from crypto community.
Coinbase confirmed it's one of Strategy's custodians, while blockchain analytics firm Arkham claims to have traced 70,000 BTC to Fidelity.
SEC filings reveal Strategy uses only NYDFS-regulated custodians, narrowing the list to 9 possible firms including BitGo, Gemini, and NYDIG.
Bitcoin treasury giant Strategy has always been coy about naming its BTC custodians. But people outside the firm do know who they are.For starters, Strategy has repeatedly cited its “various custody arrangements”—there is no one exclusive custodian that’s holding onto its nearly $72 billion worth of BTC on the company’s behalf. A spokesperson for Coinbase confirmed it is one of Strategy's custodians when asked by Decrypt—but stressed that MSTR has previously named Coinbase as one of its custodians.


https://decrypt.co/330556/coinbase-custody-strategy-bitcoin-who-does

[fillippone]

Coinbase Doesn't Custody All of Strategy's Bitcoin—So Who Does?

Strategy's $72B Bitcoin stash is spread across multiple secret custodians, with only Coinbase confirmed and Fidelity potentially holding 70,000 BTC.
Strategy keeps its $72 billion Bitcoin stash with multiple custodians, but won't publicly name them, citing security concerns despite pressure from crypto community.
Coinbase confirmed it's one of Strategy's custodians, while blockchain analytics firm Arkham claims to have traced 70,000 BTC to Fidelity.
SEC filings reveal Strategy uses only NYDFS-regulated custodians, narrowing the list to 9 possible firms including BitGo, Gemini, and NYDIG.
Bitcoin treasury giant Strategy has always been coy about naming its BTC custodians. But people outside the firm do know who they are.For starters, Strategy has repeatedly cited its “various custody arrangements”—there is no one exclusive custodian that’s holding onto its nearly $72 billion worth of BTC on the company’s behalf. A spokesperson for Coinbase confirmed it is one of Strategy's custodians when asked by Decrypt—but stressed that MSTR has previously named Coinbase as one of its custodians.


https://decrypt.co/330556/coinbase-custody-strategy-bitcoin-who-does

Strategy Custody policies are a mystery to most.
They never disclosed wallets, custodians, or any details on their stash.
I guess they do so to protect their privacy and not to generate any hype when they move some funds for technical reasons, with agencies like Lookonchain or Arkham trying to speculate on every sat's movement.

It might be counterintuitive, but I think it is a good, deliberate choice.

I also think they do some kind of self-custody; they are a software house, after all.

[Ambatman]

Strategy Custody policies are a mystery to most.
They never disclosed wallets, custodians, or any details on their stash.
I guess they do so to protect their privacy and not to generate any hype when they move some funds for technical reasons, with agencies like Lookonchain or Arkham trying to speculate on every sat's movement.

It might be counterintuitive, but I think it is a good, deliberate choice.

I also think they do some kind of self-custody; they are a software house, after all.

We talked about this some weeks ago.
Yeah they have their reason in keeping their addresses private
But atleast they need to reassure their investors and implementing a zkp for privacy.
Many people biggest hold against investing in strategy isn't bitcoin price
But limited evidence of their holdings.


Well as Saylor said, if they want control and transparency
They can buy Bitcoin instead.

[nikola22]

But, yeah, you are free to invest (or diversify) into inferior assets merely because you are having difficulties figuring out how bitcoin differentiates itself from them.
Wasn't it Warren Buffet who said that diversification for the sake of it likely demonstrates that the person has not done enough homework.
Good luck. You are likely going to need it.

I don't argue that bitcoin is a top asset and the portfolio should contain the overwhelming majority of it. as I understood Warren Buffet was talking about broadly diversified portfolio and he preferred portfolio with high-quality assets but not the only one kind.

for example, investor could allocate 90% of portfolio to bitcoin and the rest 10% for ETH, SOL, LTC. percentage of bitcoin could depend on appetite for risk. I agree that allocation to dozens or hundreds of tokens looks stupid, but 90% or more for bitcoin shows respect and confidence in this asset and adding 2-3 other top assets to portfolio won't hurt.

[JayJuanGee]

How does Adam Back think that launching BSTR with 30,000 BTC will make him to surpass MicroStrategy that have been investing in bitcoin since 2020 and owns about 601,550 BTC currently, it's actually ridiculous honestly.

I don't think he believes it. It's a way to grab headlines, simply. He has also been one of the main investors in ALTBG, so I don't know what he is doing getting into so much mess.

With the bitcoin he must have, he has enough to retire, and I'm not saying he should. Being active is very respectable, but it gives the impression that he wants to attract attention or is looking fame.

Adam Back is also known for his passion for trading, shitcoins included.
This might be something tied to this as well.
You might think a potential Satoshi couldn't care more about gambling, but he's constantly trading and price checking, and spreading stocks vs crypto.
Fucking legend.

Some of my thoughts relate to how Adam might be engaging in conduct to make it seems that he is not Satoshi...

"Satoshi would never to that."  right?


right?




rrrrrrrriiiiiigggggghhhhhhttttt?

But, yeah, you are free to invest (or diversify) into inferior assets merely because you are having difficulties figuring out how bitcoin differentiates itself from them.
Wasn't it Warren Buffet who said that diversification for the sake of it likely demonstrates that the person has not done enough homework.
Good luck. You are likely going to need it.

I don't argue that bitcoin is a top asset and the portfolio should contain the overwhelming majority of it. as I understood Warren Buffet was talking about broadly diversified portfolio and he preferred portfolio with high-quality assets but not the only one kind.

for example, investor could allocate 90% of portfolio to bitcoin and the rest 10% for ETH, SOL, LTC. percentage of bitcoin could depend on appetite for risk. I agree that allocation to dozens or hundreds of tokens looks stupid, but 90% or more for bitcoin shows respect and confidence in this asset and adding 2-3 other top assets to portfolio won't hurt.

I agree that limiting the investment into shitcoins as compared with bitcoin to something like 10% is acceptable, yet I don't agree with your assertion that suggests that there is any thing helpful in fucking around with shitcoins.. since you are proclaiming that "it won't hurt" to have up to 10% in various shitcoins.

Of course, you can do whatever you want, but the idea of diversification for the sake of it, seems pretty retarded to me. especially if you might have some clues about what bitcoin is and unless you have some kind of specific reasons to hold any of those shitcoins..

[abaeze]

But people outside the firm do know who they are.For starters, Strategy has repeatedly cited its “various custody arrangements”—there is no one exclusive custodian that’s holding onto its nearly $72 billion worth of BTC on the company’s behalf. A spokesperson for Coinbase confirmed it is one of Strategy's custodians when asked by Decrypt—but stressed that MSTR has previously named Coinbase as one of its custodians.
https://decrypt.co/330556/coinbase-custody-strategy-bitcoin-who-does

Since Strategy uses custodians regulated and licensed by NYDFS and these companies are very limited all over the world, I think that if they implement different rules in the future under the pretext of security, it will interfere with the freedom of Bitcoin. Because so far NYDFS (New York Department of Financial Services) has given this license to only 9 companies, among them are the names of BitGo, NYDIG, Gemini, Fidelity and Coinbase.

[avp2306]

But, yeah, you are free to invest (or diversify) into inferior assets merely because you are having difficulties figuring out how bitcoin differentiates itself from them.
Wasn't it Warren Buffet who said that diversification for the sake of it likely demonstrates that the person has not done enough homework.
Good luck. You are likely going to need it.

I don't argue that bitcoin is a top asset and the portfolio should contain the overwhelming majority of it. as I understood Warren Buffet was talking about broadly diversified portfolio and he preferred portfolio with high-quality assets but not the only one kind.

for example, investor could allocate 90% of portfolio to bitcoin and the rest 10% for ETH, SOL, LTC. percentage of bitcoin could depend on appetite for risk. I agree that allocation to dozens or hundreds of tokens looks stupid, but 90% or more for bitcoin shows respect and confidence in this asset and adding 2-3 other top assets to portfolio won't hurt.

I agree that limiting the investment into shitcoins as compared with bitcoin to something like 10% is acceptable, yet I don't agree with your assertion that suggests that there is any thing helpful in fucking around with shitcoins.. since you are proclaiming that "it won't hurt" to have up to 10% in various shitcoins.

Of course, you can do whatever you want, but the idea of diversification for the sake of it, seems pretty retarded to me. especially if you might have some clues about what bitcoin is and unless you have some kind of specific reasons to hold any of those shitcoins..

Shitcoins will be totally no no for me since its like you are wasting you 10% for engaging on those so risky things out there. Maybe they directly put it on Bitcoin and have a peace of mind dealing with those things that can give them stress.

If they put it on ETH maybe I understand those diversification thing they said on that coin since somehow they can bet few bucks on it and see what's coming around with it in future.

For me its better to deal 100% directly on Bitcoin I can't afford to deal with other risky things and just want to go directly on the top coin in the market.


But also look at this article guys MicroStrategy Files to Buy $5 Billion in Altcoins This decision is quiet intriguing since it seems that they are trying to engage on more riskier option. I just do hope that their decision to invest on altcoins will not cause their collapsed since investing in altcoins for long term is so risky.

[fredericktaylor]

x
MicroStrategy, one of the world's largest public companies, has a large amount of Bitcoin in its treasury reserves.
MicroStrategy currently holds nearly. Bitcoin holdings rank 9th among S&P 500 treasury holding companies.

MicroStrategy has amassed $71 billion worth of Bitcoin in just five years. It currently ranks 9th among the 500 companies. The pace at which MicroStrategy is accumulating Bitcoin suggests that it will be in the 2nd/3rd position among holding companies in the future.

[Cpt_reader]

I agree that limiting the investment into shitcoins as compared with bitcoin to something like 10% is acceptable, yet I don't agree with your assertion that suggests that there is any thing helpful in fucking around with shitcoins.. since you are proclaiming that "it won't hurt" to have up to 10% in various shitcoins.

Of course, you can do whatever you want, but the idea of diversification for the sake of it, seems pretty retarded to me. especially if you might have some clues about what bitcoin is and unless you have some kind of specific reasons to hold any of those shitcoins..

 I was once interested in shitcoins because a friend of mine told me that Bitcoin has low profit and low risk, but shitcoins have high profit and high risk, so I thought I would take a little risk and bought Bomi and P Nut, which was harmful for me and I sold it at a ninety percent loss. Since then, I have been reluctant to shitcoins. I thought that if I die, I will die under an elephant, but I don't want to die under a tit. So I decided to buy Bitcoin. From there, the journey of buying Bitcoin began. And I advise everyone to buy Bitcoin. Investing in sheet coins means wasting time and money. It would have been much better if I had bought Bitcoin instead of shitcoins. Bitcoin is the only reliable means of investment. I think buying Bitcoin is the real thing, no matter the price.

[Bluedrem]

Strategy Custody policies are a mystery to most.
They never disclosed wallets, custodians, or any details on their stash.
I guess they do so to protect their privacy and not to generate any hype when they move some funds for technical reasons, with agencies like Lookonchain or Arkham trying to speculate on every sat's movement.

It might be counterintuitive, but I think it is a good, deliberate choice.

I also think they do some kind of self-custody; they are a software house, after all.

Yes, I think this secret is not an oversight, it is a strategic choice. Investors have different policies for their own security and their own safety, which they never want to disclose.
One of the reasons for not disclosing the strategic custody policy may be to avoid the attention of hackers, personal security and not face any bad obstacles in large transfers.
Again, there are many who do not want to disclose their strategies to others so that other lions can copy them in the market like them.

[BTC_pokaop]

But also look at this article guys MicroStrategy Files to Buy $5 Billion in Altcoins This decision is quiet intriguing since it seems that they are trying to engage on more riskier option. I just do hope that their decision to invest on altcoins will not cause their collapsed since investing in altcoins for long term is so risky.

MSTR would be better off focusing on Bitcoin. Although altcoins are extremely risky, of course holding altcoins for a long time will be more risky. There is no guarantee of altcoins. They can be worthless from the market at any time, but MSTR can buy the top coins in the market, but they should stay away from shitcoins and memecoins.

I was once interested in shitcoins because a friend of mine told me that Bitcoin has low profit and low risk, but shitcoins have high profit and high risk, so I thought I would take a little risk and bought Bomi and P Nut, which was harmful for me and I sold it at a ninety percent loss. Since then, I have been reluctant to shitcoins. I thought that if I die, I will die under an elephant, but I don't want to die under a tit. So I decided to buy Bitcoin. From there, the journey of buying Bitcoin began. And I advise everyone to buy Bitcoin. Investing in sheet coins means wasting time and money. It would have been much better if I had bought Bitcoin instead of shitcoins. Bitcoin is the only reliable means of investment. I think buying Bitcoin is the real thing, no matter the price.

It is not wise to invest in currencies that do not have a supply limit. If you want to save yourself, you should always trust Bitcoin and invest in Bitcoin. Do not deceive yourself by investing in shitcoins, Bitcoin was the best in the past and Bitcoin is the best in the present and Bitcoin will be one of the best in the near future.

[JayJuanGee]

But, yeah, you are free to invest (or diversify) into inferior assets merely because you are having difficulties figuring out how bitcoin differentiates itself from them.
Wasn't it Warren Buffet who said that diversification for the sake of it likely demonstrates that the person has not done enough homework.
Good luck. You are likely going to need it.

I don't argue that bitcoin is a top asset and the portfolio should contain the overwhelming majority of it. as I understood Warren Buffet was talking about broadly diversified portfolio and he preferred portfolio with high-quality assets but not the only one kind.

for example, investor could allocate 90% of portfolio to bitcoin and the rest 10% for ETH, SOL, LTC. percentage of bitcoin could depend on appetite for risk. I agree that allocation to dozens or hundreds of tokens looks stupid, but 90% or more for bitcoin shows respect and confidence in this asset and adding 2-3 other top assets to portfolio won't hurt.

I agree that limiting the investment into shitcoins as compared with bitcoin to something like 10% is acceptable, yet I don't agree with your assertion that suggests that there is any thing helpful in fucking around with shitcoins.. since you are proclaiming that "it won't hurt" to have up to 10% in various shitcoins.

Of course, you can do whatever you want, but the idea of diversification for the sake of it, seems pretty retarded to me. especially if you might have some clues about what bitcoin is and unless you have some kind of specific reasons to hold any of those shitcoins..

Shitcoins will be totally no no for me since its like you are wasting you 10% for engaging on those so risky things out there. Maybe they directly put it on Bitcoin and have a peace of mind dealing with those things that can give them stress.

If they put it on ETH maybe I understand those diversification thing they said on that coin since somehow they can bet few bucks on it and see what's coming around with it in future.

For me its better to deal 100% directly on Bitcoin I can't afford to deal with other risky things and just want to go directly on the top coin in the market.

But also look at this article guys MicroStrategy Files to Buy $5 Billion in Altcoins This decision is quiet intriguing since it seems that they are trying to engage on more riskier option. I just do hope that their decision to invest on altcoins will not cause their collapsed since investing in altcoins for long term is so risky.

Even though I was arguing with the way nikola22 seems to be blindly accepting that 10% diversification into shitcoins "won't hurt," ultimately these are personal discretionary matters, and I would agree that 10% is not really that big of a deal in the whole scheme of things - especially since so many shitcoiners go way beyond 10% and they have so many troubles to actually limit themselves to 10% since there are so many shitcoins and so many talking points that guys could end up getting lured into so then to start to think that maybe they can allocate "a little bit more" into whatever shitcoin is luring them in through talking points or even through short-term performance, since there surely can be extended periods that various shitcoins may well end up outperforming bitcoin.

Yet in the end guys can do what they want, and surely even if MSTR starts to screw around with shitcoins, there could be problems with that, yet if it is merely a small portion of their overall holdings.

I know valuations change too.. so if right now MS
TR is somewhere in the ballpark of $110 to $130 Billion, then $5 billion would only be 5% of their holdings, so even if it seems a bit distracted, it might be distracted within reasonable bounds.. and there could be various shitcoins that might be considered as a trade rather than investment, yet surely any allocation into shitcoins does show a bit of distraction including their potentially questioning if there might be something else or maybe they just want to have space to explore and something like 5% might not be overly exposed - getting back to nikola22's provoking assertion about "it won't hurt" - which I don't really disagree in any material way, so I am likely mostly arguing semantics.

x
MicroStrategy, one of the world's largest public companies, has a large amount of Bitcoin in its treasury reserves.
MicroStrategy currently holds nearly. Bitcoin holdings rank 9th among S&P 500 treasury holding companies.

MicroStrategy has amassed $71 billion worth of Bitcoin in just five years. It currently ranks 9th among the 500 companies. The pace at which MicroStrategy is accumulating Bitcoin suggests that it will be in the 2nd/3rd position among holding companies in the future.

Sure.  MSTRs ongoing accumulation of bitcoin puts them into a position that they are likely to outgrow those other higher ranked companies even without buying more bitcoin, yet their buying more bitcoin and also using other people's money to buy more bitcoin, puts them into a place in which they are going to highly exceed those higher ranking companies, unless the other companies change their tunes and/or even decide to get aggressive in their bitcoin accumulation.

I agree that limiting the investment into shitcoins as compared with bitcoin to something like 10% is acceptable, yet I don't agree with your assertion that suggests that there is any thing helpful in fucking around with shitcoins.. since you are proclaiming that "it won't hurt" to have up to 10% in various shitcoins.

Of course, you can do whatever you want, but the idea of diversification for the sake of it, seems pretty retarded to me. especially if you might have some clues about what bitcoin is and unless you have some kind of specific reasons to hold any of those shitcoins..

I was once interested in shitcoins because a friend of mine told me that Bitcoin has low profit and low risk, but shitcoins have high profit and high risk, so I thought I would take a little risk and bought Bomi and P Nut, which was harmful for me and I sold it at a ninety percent loss. Since then, I have been reluctant to shitcoins. I thought that if I die, I will die under an elephant, but I don't want to die under a tit. So I decided to buy Bitcoin. From there, the journey of buying Bitcoin began. And I advise everyone to buy Bitcoin. Investing in sheet coins means wasting time and money. It would have been much better if I had bought Bitcoin instead of shitcoins. Bitcoin is the only reliable means of investment. I think buying Bitcoin is the real thing, no matter the price.

It is probably good for you to have had learned the lesson relatively early, even though you took some losses with your shitcoin involvement.

Historically, there have been a lot of folks that get distracted into shitcoins, and surely some of them learn their lesson and they begin to focus more on (or maybe completely on) bitcoin.  Shitcoins will continue to be distracting, which justifies part of my suggestion to make sure to limit shitcoin involvement to no more than 10% of your bitcoin holdings, and try not to cheat in regards to your ways of structuring such shitcoin involvement in the event that you cannot resist shitcoins.  I am not even recommending involvement in shitcoins at all, yet I am suggesting if guys cannot resist getting involved in shitcoins, then to limit their involvement to no more than 10% of the size of their bitcoin involvement, which will at least limit the damage and allow them to mostly stay focused on the prize  (namely bitcoin), and sure, if they happen to find some shitcoins that outperform bitcoin in the short or long term, then I don't have any problem accepting those sorts of happenings if they were miraculously able to identify such outperforming shitcoins. 

[Btcdeybodi]

Michael Saylor posted the new MSTR Bitcoin tracker today which indicates signs of a buying move so we should expect a news of another buy any moment

But also look at this article guys MicroStrategy Files to Buy $5 Billion in Altcoins This decision is quiet intriguing since it seems that they are trying to engage on more riskier option. I just do hope that their decision to invest on altcoins will not cause their collapsed since investing in altcoins for long term is so risky.

MSTR would be better off focusing on Bitcoin. Although altcoins are extremely risky, of course holding altcoins for a long time will be more risky. There is no guarantee of altcoins. They can be worthless from the market at any time, but MSTR can buy the top coins in the market, but they should stay away from shitcoins and memecoins.

So what other coins do you think are worthy of MSTR to buy, ain't they all shitcoins? There is no shitcoin out there that has a promising future so it will be unwise to trust any of them with your money except with an amount you can afford to lose. Inasmuch as MicroStrategy keeps buying more bitcoins from time to time, i don't see his intention to buy altcoins as a problem. MSTR is a big hodler of bitcoin, they have a huge stash already so if they also want to diversify into some altcoins, it's their choice.

Altcoins worth $5 billion isn't bad, maybe it's an amount they can afford to lose. Anyways, just like i said. it's their choice, perhaps they own bitcoins worth more than $70 billion so if they invest only $5 billion on altcoins i don't think it will be problematic to them.

[BTC_pokaop]

So what other coins do you think are worthy of MSTR to buy, ain't they all shitcoins? There is no shitcoin out there that has a promising future so it will be unwise to trust any of them with your money except with an amount you can afford to lose. Inasmuch as MicroStrategy keeps buying more bitcoins from time to time, i don't see his intention to buy altcoins as a problem. MSTR is a big hodler of bitcoin, they have a huge stash already so if they also want to diversify into some altcoins, it's their choice.

Altcoins worth $5 billion isn't bad, maybe it's an amount they can afford to lose. Anyways, just like i said. it's their choice, perhaps they own bitcoins worth more than $70 billion so if they invest only $5 billion on altcoins i don't think it will be problematic to them.

Yes, it is true, diversifying the portfolio is a good idea. As we know, you should not put all your eggs in one basket. But I said that if MSTR wants to invest in altcoins, it would be better to avoid memecoins and look at the top coins in the market such as (ETH)(SOL)(BNB)(XRP). For those who can invest $70 billion in Bitcoin, $5 billion is a very small amount of money, they may be prepared to lose. But we know that Michael Saylor is an experienced and knowledgeable person, he will research well and make an investment decision.

[Nothingtodo]

Stay Humble, Stack sats.
Michael Saylor's tweets like this every week mean that his MicroStrategy is going to buy Bitcoin again. He is going to buy Bitcoin again soon this week, adding to his holdings of 601,550. After BlackRock, the only person in a large company who has the largest individual holding of Bitcoin is Michael Saylor. Although Satoshi is considered the largest individual holder in this case, due to his long absence, Michael Saylor is still the top person among those who are publicly present.

Michael Saylor

[Cpt_reader]

It is probably good for you to have had learned the lesson relatively early, even though you took some losses with your shitcoin involvement.

Historically, there have been a lot of folks that get distracted into shitcoins, and surely some of them learn their lesson and they begin to focus more on (or maybe completely on) bitcoin.  Shitcoins will continue to be distracting, which justifies part of my suggestion to make sure to limit shitcoin involvement to no more than 10% of your bitcoin holdings, and try not to cheat in regards to your ways of structuring such shitcoin involvement in the event that you cannot resist shitcoins.  I am not even recommending involvement in shitcoins at all, yet I am suggesting if guys cannot resist getting involved in shitcoins, then to limit their involvement to no more than 10% of the size of their bitcoin involvement, which will at least limit the damage and allow them to mostly stay focused on the prize  (namely bitcoin), and sure, if they happen to find some shitcoins that outperform bitcoin in the short or long term, then I don't have any problem accepting those sorts of happenings if they were miraculously able to identify such outperforming shitcoins. 

You are right sir, I have realized the importance of Bitcoin by going to Shitcoin. I think it would have been better if I had bought Bitcoin instead of Shitcoin. And Shitcoin always has to be worried. Now I am not afraid anymore, I can sleep peacefully. I regret that I invested in Shitcoin even after selling Bitcoin. But anyway, I survived just a little. Yes, you said that more than 10 percent should not be involved in Shitcoin, but I think this 10% can be invested in Ethereum. And it is difficult to find such Shitcoin that will surpass Bitcoin. We may lose many dollars by falling into this trap. Greed works more in Shitcoin. There is no Shitcoin as reliable as Bitcoin, with such volume, market cap and popularity. Many people have gone bankrupt by investing in Shitcoin. So if someone asks for advice, I always advise them to buy Bitcoin.

[JayJuanGee]

Michael Saylor posted the new MSTR Bitcoin tracker today which indicates signs of a buying move so we should expect a news of another buy any moment

But also look at this article guys MicroStrategy Files to Buy $5 Billion in Altcoins This decision is quiet intriguing since it seems that they are trying to engage on more riskier option. I just do hope that their decision to invest on altcoins will not cause their collapsed since investing in altcoins for long term is so risky.

MSTR would be better off focusing on Bitcoin. Although altcoins are extremely risky, of course holding altcoins for a long time will be more risky. There is no guarantee of altcoins. They can be worthless from the market at any time, but MSTR can buy the top coins in the market, but they should stay away from shitcoins and memecoins.

So what other coins do you think are worthy of MSTR to buy, ain't they all shitcoins? There is no shitcoin out there that has a promising future so it will be unwise to trust any of them with your money except with an amount you can afford to lose. Inasmuch as MicroStrategy keeps buying more bitcoins from time to time, i don't see his intention to buy altcoins as a problem. MSTR is a big hodler of bitcoin, they have a huge stash already so if they also want to diversify into some altcoins, it's their choice.

Altcoins worth $5 billion isn't bad, maybe it's an amount they can afford to lose. Anyways, just like i said. it's their choice, perhaps they own bitcoins worth more than $70 billion so if they invest only $5 billion on altcoins i don't think it will be problematic to them.

Maybe they went through a process of being able to buy up to $5 billion in shitcoins in order to have the option to be able to do it, yet not necessarily to exercise such option.  I hold a few shitcoins (that all of them together constitute less than 1% of my bitcoin holdings) in order to potentially have other transacting options, so even though I watch what those various shitcoins are doing on a kind of superficial level, I don't really give too many shits if they end up going to zero.  I suppose that even if I were to add more of those shitcoins, I would still likely stay below 1% of my BTC holdings in the total of them, even though I surely might not be opposed to adding a bit more if there were some justification. .even a couple of percentage.. yet I hardly imagine a case where I might allocate up to 10%, which has been one of my longer-stead pieces of advice to folks to limit their shitcoin holdings to no more than 10% the size of their bitcoin stack... but I say the same thing about trading and about gold too.. . so if a person were involved in shitcoins, trading and gold, then theoretically he could have 30% of the size of his bitcoin stash in those endeavors.. even though I probably would have to modify the amount for any combination of inferior/experimental practices like that so that even with all three of them maybe 15% to 20% would be the max that I would consider to be within reason absent any special justification to go beyond such limitations.

So what other coins do you think are worthy of MSTR to buy, ain't they all shitcoins? There is no shitcoin out there that has a promising future so it will be unwise to trust any of them with your money except with an amount you can afford to lose. Inasmuch as MicroStrategy keeps buying more bitcoins from time to time, i don't see his intention to buy altcoins as a problem. MSTR is a big hodler of bitcoin, they have a huge stash already so if they also want to diversify into some altcoins, it's their choice.

Altcoins worth $5 billion isn't bad, maybe it's an amount they can afford to lose. Anyways, just like i said. it's their choice, perhaps they own bitcoins worth more than $70 billion so if they invest only $5 billion on altcoins i don't think it will be problematic to them.

Yes, it is true, diversifying the portfolio is a good idea. As we know, you should not put all your eggs in one basket.

For me diversification makes sense for already large investors, institutions and/or someone who established their wealth and they are largely trying to preserve their wealth rather than grow it... even though no one is really against growth, yet at some point growth may be less of a focus, even though it still might continue to happen, even with a preservation emphasis (preference).

I really doubt that diversification is a good idea for anyone individual (and perhaps even applicable to institutions) in their earliest stages of bitcoin accumulation, especially someone who had not already built up various investments prior to coming to bitcoin.

By the way, so many times on the forum I see guys proclaiming that they are going to do what Saylor/MSTR is doing, and there is a bit of nutso to that or a bit of misplacement of their own circumstances, since Saylor/MSTR has set up systems to put themselves in their own league, and so many folks should be considering their own strategy within their own economic parameters including that any leveraging needs to be considered with some level of moderation.

Back to diversification. It seems to me that with bitcoin, individuals can merely start out with bitcoin and cash, and there is no reason to diversify beyond bitcoin and cash until maybe later down the road when guys might have invested 1/2 year or a year or more of their annual expenses into bitcoin, and perhaps at that time, it might start to make sense to consider some levels of diversification, even to consider that the cash is not working, so beyond the 3-4 months of emergency/reserve cash, any additional cash, cash equivalents or even some investments that might be somewhat liquid within a certain relatively short time frame could start to be allowed to build up (as a form of diversification), within individual discretion in regards to his total investment amounts and perhaps his various other personal circumstances to make such balancing choices.

But I said that if MSTR wants to invest in altcoins, it would be better to avoid memecoins and look at the top coins in the market such as (ETH)(SOL)(BNB)(XRP)

This gets scary to start to go down the road in regards to which shitcoin might be less shitty... in regards to potentially longer term paremeters rather than just getting in and out of pump and dumps..

. For those who can invest $70 billion in Bitcoin, $5 billion is a very small amount of money, they may be prepared to lose. But we know that Michael Saylor is an experienced and knowledgeable person, he will research well and make an investment decision.

They seem to have had largely made a name for themselves proclaiming bitcoin as the only coin with fundamentals, so then we might presume that they might be attempting to approach any shitcoin with value-based fundamental considerations as their analysis framework.. so yeah a bit more to be seen on this front.

It is probably good for you to have had learned the lesson relatively early, even though you took some losses with your shitcoin involvement.

Historically, there have been a lot of folks that get distracted into shitcoins, and surely some of them learn their lesson and they begin to focus more on (or maybe completely on) bitcoin.  Shitcoins will continue to be distracting, which justifies part of my suggestion to make sure to limit shitcoin involvement to no more than 10% of your bitcoin holdings, and try not to cheat in regards to your ways of structuring such shitcoin involvement in the event that you cannot resist shitcoins.  I am not even recommending involvement in shitcoins at all, yet I am suggesting if guys cannot resist getting involved in shitcoins, then to limit their involvement to no more than 10% of the size of their bitcoin involvement, which will at least limit the damage and allow them to mostly stay focused on the prize  (namely bitcoin), and sure, if they happen to find some shitcoins that outperform bitcoin in the short or long term, then I don't have any problem accepting those sorts of happenings if they were miraculously able to identify such outperforming shitcoins.  

You are right sir, I have realized the importance of Bitcoin by going to Shitcoin. I think it would have been better if I had bought Bitcoin instead of Shitcoin. And Shitcoin always has to be worried. Now I am not afraid anymore, I can sleep peacefully. I regret that I invested in Shitcoin even after selling Bitcoin. But anyway, I survived just a little. Yes, you said that more than 10 percent should not be involved in Shitcoin, but I think this 10% can be invested in Ethereum. And it is difficult to find such Shitcoin that will surpass Bitcoin. We may lose many dollars by falling into this trap. Greed works more in Shitcoin. There is no Shitcoin as reliable as Bitcoin, with such volume, market cap and popularity. Many people have gone bankrupt by investing in Shitcoin. So if someone asks for advice, I always advise them to buy Bitcoin.

Your suggestion that Ethereum might be less shitty of a shitcoin than the other shitcoins seems to be based on ignorance of what great piece of shit Ethereum happens to be, even if it has had some decent pumpenings over the years, yet does not really cause it to be less shitty except that others seem to be wanting to buy that same shit, and furthermore you seem to have had bought into the various Ethereum talking points and perhaps you have recognized (or been distracted by) by its ability to pump from time to time, like is currently happening with it.  

But yeah, if you have enough discipline to restrict yourself to no more than 10% of your bitcoin investment into that shitcoin without cheating in various ways, then sure, you might be making progress to have had been able to eliminate the other shitcoins even if you happen to still be gravitating to the mother asshole of all shitcoins (as Saifedean Ammous had once described Ethereum).  

[As-Soon-As]

Stay Humble, Stack sats.
Michael Saylor's tweets like this every week mean that his MicroStrategy is going to buy Bitcoin again. He is going to buy Bitcoin again soon this week, adding to his holdings of 601,550. After BlackRock, the only person in a large company who has the largest individual holding of Bitcoin is Michael Saylor. Although Satoshi is considered the largest individual holder in this case, due to his long absence, Michael Saylor is still the top person among those who are publicly present.

Michael Saylor

Michael Saylor uses strange words that really indicate the highest Bitcoin purchase. And today we will see the Bitcoin purchase sign again, but he is the person holding the highest Bitcoin at the moment. Microstrategy company is selling shares quickly and is buying Bitcoin using a regular DCA method on a weekly basis. His Bitcoin purchase will continue for a long time and he has kept folding as the highest paying asset.
His Bitcoin purchase plan will continue for a long time in the future, from which we definitely get a stronger signal that more other investors are interested in buying Bitcoin. Among them, various countries and treasury companies are reserving the most Bitcoin strategy.

[Free Market Capitalist]

You mix things up and by mixing things up you express incorrectness.

Stay Humble, Stack sats.
Michael Saylor's tweets like this every week mean that his MicroStrategy is going to buy Bitcoin again. He is going to buy Bitcoin again soon this week, adding to his holdings of 601,550.

What he is going to do is to advertise the bitcoins that his company bought last week.

After BlackRock, the only person in a large company who has the largest individual holding of Bitcoin is Michael Saylor. Although Satoshi is considered the largest individual holder in this case, due to his long absence, Michael Saylor is still the top person among those who are publicly present.

What does Saylor as a natural person have to do with Blackrock? Besides the biggest holders on an individual level would be the Winklevoss brothers followed by Tim Draper.