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

[Jaksonhard]

STRC Covered Calls = 16% yield.

It's wild that you can sell covered calls on STRC for 1/16/2026 at $50/contract at the $100 strike. This is a bonus 0.5% (per month) on top of the 10%+ you already receive in annual yield just for owning the ticker.



Source link: https://x.com/i/status/2002121308839309448

STRC is going to perform very well in the new year, but I think there is a huge opportunity for MSTR to make more of an impact on Bitcoin. If Bitcoin dips in 2026, Michael Saylor will be able to buy Bitcoin because he will make a lot of money from this great offer. STRC will sell this stock, which will make him more money, and with that money he can buy Bitcoin and add it to his core holdings. Now just wait for the new year, because we will see Saylortracker.com become more of a Bitcoin buying argument.

You have given me an interesting perspective on this situation, which aligns with Michael Saylor’s way of thinking; he tends to look ahead several years (long-term). STRC performing well could provide significant leverage to MSTR. This is especially true if there is an opportunity for a “second scoop” with Bitcoin price dipping again in 2026. Michael Saylor has always thought strategically about timing and capital allocation, so this additional gain from STRC’s stock price performance would most likely lead to increased investment into Bitcoin for Michael Saylor. This would further solidify the position of MSTR as the company that aggressively acquires Bitcoin compared to other corporations. It will be extremely interesting to see how these developments unfold in the upcoming new year, and therefore, Saylortracker could become more important as more of these transactions occur.

[fillippone]

I think the bigger issue here is not which mNAV formula is correct, but what investors are trying to measure. If you want to value Strategy as a Bitcoin proxy, market cap comparison feels more honest. If you want to judge how aggressive the balance sheet is, enterprise value matters more. Mixing the two can confuse people. Recent performance shows leverage cuts both ways, so mNAV alone should not be used to justify bullish or bearish views without looking at risk, debt timing, and Bitcoin price sensitivity.

I think this explanation is quite accurate.

ehn I think I still prefer the EV calculation that you talked about when talking about Strategy as a Bitcoin proxy.
Marketcap calculation is majorly pure equity which we all know strategy Also depends on debt and leverage.
So EV accounting for debt feel more appropriate to me.
I would support market cap comparisons when assessing risk adjusted equity return.

Absolutely: Enterprise Value is a more significant metric when a firm has issued debt.
Pure market capitalisation would distort the measure by failing to account for leverage.
Strategy has not issued a large amount of debt, yet the mNAV measure diverges by roughly 10% when using the two metrics (EV vs. Pure market cap).

[fillippone]

A different announcement by Michael Saylor this week.
He didn’t buy, but he demonstrated they can raise capital like nothing:

[Free Market Capitalist]

A different announcment by Micheal Saylor this week.
He didn’t buy, but he demonstrated they can raise capital like nothing:

You see? But it's another thing in which I see a certain contradiction. One of his famous quotes is: “those who save in fiat money we call them poor.” It was turned into memes and even a song.

And what he is doing here is to ATM MSTR (only MSTR this week), which is supposed to be even more profitable than Bitcoin, diluting shareholders and exchanging a superior asset for an inferior one.

I understand the move to build up reserves in anticipation of a possible bearish scenario, but I can't help seeing a certain contradiction.

I don't know, in the end I sold my MSTR shares, maybe now I'm subconsciously trying to justify the sale. Or maybe now I'm also more open to seeing potential flaws in the strategy.

In any case, I hope Strategy does well because it is such a big player that it affects the Bitcoin market in general.

[Abelly]

A different announcement by Michael Saylor this week.
He didn’t buy, but he demonstrated they can raise capital like nothing:

They can raise capital at any time without any unnecessary urgency, it shows that the company's financial Position is now in a place where there is no Market pressure or immediate rush to buy.That is,They are no longer chasing prices but are in a Strong position to use them when the opportunity arises.This is not bearish but a strong signal for the long Term, companies that are forced to raise capital are usually in a weak position. The opposite is seen here, because they have the Power, they are showing that they can raise capital if they want. Such Announcements indicate that the strategy is now more patient and Calculated, for those who see Bitcoin as a Means of Storing value in the long term, this is not a Negative, but a Confidence one!

[Bluedrem]

You see? But it's another thing in which I see a certain contradiction. One of his famous quotes is: “those who save in fiat money we call them poor.” It was turned into memes and even a song.

And what he is doing here is to ATM MSTR (only MSTR this week), which is supposed to be even more profitable than Bitcoin, diluting shareholders and exchanging a superior asset for an inferior one.

I understand the move to build up reserves in anticipation of a possible bearish scenario, but I can't help seeing a certain contradiction.

I don't know, in the end I sold my MSTR shares, maybe now I'm subconsciously trying to justify the sale. Or maybe now I'm also more open to seeing potential flaws in the strategy.

In any case, I hope Strategy does well because it is such a big player that it affects the Bitcoin market in general.

If Strategy's fiat deposit is short-term, then I would say that Michael Saylor's quote "those who save in fiat money we call them poor." is still true. He has not deviated from his statement.
Theoretically, since buying MSTR shares means investing in Bitcoin with leverage, the BTC exposure of existing shareholders will decrease due to share dilution [since new ATM issuance is happening but no new Bitcoin is being added]
As a result, previous shareholders may prepare to sell their purchased shares. This may have a negative impact on MicroStrategy, but if we analyze the matter a little differently - since they are not selling Bitcoin and they are committed to always buying, they may deposit some more fiat this week in addition to the amount of fiat they have deposited and announce a large purchase next week.
Yes, what you said about the activities of Microstats affecting the Bitcoin market, they may also have this in mind. They may be trying to create a media narrative by showing a large purchase of Bitcoin at once so that the positive impact of this purchase on the Bitcoin market can be seen.
This is just my opinion, it could happen the other way around.

[She shining]

A different announcement by Michael Saylor this week.
He didn’t buy, but he demonstrated they can raise capital like nothing:

Bitcoin and trash sorry Fiat treasury company. Is it really worth sacrificing common stock for fiat? It would be wiser not to raise any fund. What they have is enough to cover for payments.

[avp2306]

A different announcement by Michael Saylor this week.
He didn’t buy, but he demonstrated they can raise capital like nothing:

Bitcoin and trash sorry Fiat treasury company. Is it really worth sacrificing common stock for fiat? It would be wiser not to raise any fund. What they have is enough to cover for payments.

Why not? sacrificing those things does not actually means they are doing a bad move, especially if their intention is to put it on much better investment on which they can generate more good results. Everything will depends on the strategy of the company.

Those things they plan to do will provide them stability and liquidity and I think its all about balancing the risk that they are taking.

They are experts on this and for sure they know what they are doing.

[Ambatman]

I don't know, in the end I sold my MSTR shares, maybe now I'm subconsciously trying to justify the sale. Or maybe now I'm also more open to seeing potential flaws in the strategy.

I remember earlier when it was talked about to buy Bitcoin and short MSTR.
I would relate what you are experiencing with Chess
You see the game better when you are not among the ones playing but a bystander.

but if we analyze the matter a little differently - since they are not selling Bitcoin and they are committed to always buying, they may deposit some more fiat this week in addition to the amount of fiat they have deposited and announce a large purchase next week.

How's that any different with buying now
Remember nothing is certain
How are they sure that the price would experience a bigger pump this week.

They are experts on this and for sure they know what they are doing.

They were experts on this when they thought Bitcoin and gambling wouldn't make it
But we can see the result.

especially if their intention is to put it on much better investment on which they can generate more good results

I never knew Fiat was a better investment to be sincere and it seems you are not really looking at the cost, common stocks.

Those things they plan to do will provide them stability and liquidity and I think its all about balancing the risk that they are taking.

I understood the previous time it happened
But after raising some tangible amount they are issuing shares to keep fiat
Doesn't really show confidence tbs

[Free Market Capitalist]

If Strategy's fiat deposit is short-term, then I would say that Michael Saylor's quote "those who save in fiat money we call them poor." is still true. He has not deviated from his statement.

It's not short-term. I think we can quite confidently call it mid-term, as it covers almost three years of dividend payments. Although one theory I have seen is that this is done with an eye toward the rating agencies.

I remember earlier when it was talked about to buy Bitcoin and short MSTR.

Well, Jim Chanos bought a lot of bitcoin using that play. He was shorting MSTR and with the money he won he was buying Bitcoin. Saylor's answer was this one:

Chanos Doesn’t Understand Our Business Model: Saylor

For supposedly not understanding it, he made a lot of money from it. I think he stopped shorting MSTR when it reached 1.2 mNAV.

On the other hand, it seems that Saylor continues to ATMing common stock. Yesterday at closing, Bitcoin had fallen only 1% while MSTR fell 4%. The mNAV fell from 1.1 to 1.08, although at times it reached 1.07. If this continues, he will run out of mNAV to ATM.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Well, we continue as we were. At the moment, Bitcoin is up almost 1% while MSTR is down 2%. If we add to this the fact that the mNAV has reached 1.06 according to Strategy's calculations, Saylor must be ATMing the common stock.

Another thing that caught my attention is that I recently visited the website https://bitcointreasuries.net/ I hadn't visited in a while because it required registration (but they don't ask for it anymore), and I see this.



According to the website's calculations, the mNAV would be below 1 when calculated in three different ways, which is something I had recently heard from critics of Saylor, that he continues to ATM the common stock when the mNAV is already below 1. However, we can think that this site doesn't have so much accurate data as Strategy's one (they differ).

In any case, it does not seem that he has much time left to do the same according to his own metrics.

[Ambatman]

According to the website's calculations, the mNAV would be below 1 when calculated in three different ways, which is something I had recently heard from critics of Saylor, that he continues to ATM the common stock when the mNAV is already below 1. However, we can think that this site doesn't have so much accurate data as Strategy's one (they differ).

In any case, it does not seem that he has much time left to do the same according to his own metrics.

The difference is how they are measured which is the EV calculations
They include debt and account for cash reserve
Using the data from Saylor tracker

Market Cap $49,116
Debt $8,244
Preferred stock $7,951
USD Reserve ($2,188)


EV =$63,113

Mnav =EV/BTC Reserve

$63,113/$58,668

Mnav =1.0757


Note : Values are subject to change since bitcoin price isn't constant.


The site didn't measure it using the method strategy does in calculating their EV.

we continue as we were. At the moment, Bitcoin is up almost 1% while MSTR is down 2%.

They barely above 10% on unrealized gain and continuing to ATM isn't going to help their cause
Reduces EV more than Bitcoin Reserve value falls.

[Jaksonhard]

Well, we continue as we were. At the moment, Bitcoin is up almost 1% while MSTR is down 2%. If we add to this the fact that the mNAV has reached 1.06 according to Strategy's calculations, Saylor must be ATMing the common stock.

Another thing that caught my attention is that I recently visited the website https://bitcointreasuries.net/ I hadn't visited in a while because it required registration (but they don't ask for it anymore), and I see this.



According to the website's calculations, the mNAV would be below 1 when calculated in three different ways, which is something I had recently heard from critics of Saylor, that he continues to ATM the common stock when the mNAV is already below 1. However, we can think that this site doesn't have so much accurate data as Strategy's one (they differ).

In any case, it does not seem that he has much time left to do the same according to his own metrics.

While this is a consideration that some critics have recently called out, the fact that the mNAV is below 1 as well raises several concerns regarding possible dilution and capital efficiency as further ATMs are issued. However, there are many differing data sources at play here separating the internal metrics of the Strategy from those found on third-party websites and the way Saylor views the market and his position in it, thus leaving some question about how he will continue to execute his long-term approach and conviction based on current conditions, along with how much longer he can continue operating the Strategy as it stands. Future actions will likely show where we are going next.

[Nothingtodo]

Michael Saylor posted a tracker on Orange 🍊. dot on his official X account, explaining that he is going to buy another 10,000 bitcoins next Monday. Michael Saylor's posting of the tracker means that Bitcoin is added back to his holding reserve and held for a fixed indefinite period.

[Popkon6]

Source link: https://x.com/i/status/2005625390283497952

Michael Saylor bought 1229 Bitcoins for $108.8 million. Currently, the company MicroStrategy has been able to hold 672497, with weekly Bitcoin details at wwwsaylortracker.com. We can call their weekly Bitcoin purchase method the regular DCA method. How important is the DCA method and how regular Bitcoin is being created in each of their purchases. Their weekly regular Bitcoin purchases help holders and more treasury companies gain strength, and also save energy to maintain long-term Bitcoin holdings.

[Free Market Capitalist]

We can call their weekly Bitcoin purchase method the regular DCA method. How important is the DCA method and how regular Bitcoin is being created in each of their purchases. Their weekly regular Bitcoin purchases help holders and more treasury companies gain strength, and also save energy to maintain long-term Bitcoin holdings.

Well, what the company actually does is what I would call a reverse DCA. A typical DCA consists of buying the same amount at regular intervals, such as an individual buying $100 worth of Bitcoin every month. Then there is a variant that consists of taking advantage of declines, meaning in the same example it would be $100 every month but taking advantage when there are large declines, say 30% or more, to buy another $100 or more. But Strategy does the opposite: when it can get the most money, that's when it buys the most, and that's when the market is most bullish, so they buy a lot at the top and little or nothing when it drops, which gives a shitty return.

Strategy's average Bitcoin purchase price is $75K, and today's Bitcoin price is $87.5K, which gives a return of 15% whereas a person who just did regular DCA for the same period would have obtained close to 60% return (AI calculated).

[JayJuanGee]

We can call their weekly Bitcoin purchase method the regular DCA method. How important is the DCA method and how regular Bitcoin is being created in each of their purchases. Their weekly regular Bitcoin purchases help holders and more treasury companies gain strength, and also save energy to maintain long-term Bitcoin holdings.

Well, what the company actually does is what I would call a reverse DCA. A typical DCA consists of buying the same amount at regular intervals, such as an individual buying $100 worth of Bitcoin every month. Then there is a variant that consists of taking advantage of declines, meaning in the same example it would be $100 every month but taking advantage when there are large declines, say 30% or more, to buy another $100 or more. But Strategy does the opposite: when it can get the most money, that's when it buys the most, and that's when the market is most bullish, so they buy a lot at the top and little or nothing when it drops, which gives a shitty return.

Strategy's average Bitcoin purchase price is $75K, and today's Bitcoin price is $87.5K, which gives a return of 15% whereas a person who just did regular DCA for the same period would have obtained close to 60% return (AI calculated).

Buying when money is available is DCA.

Buying when price goes down is buying on the dip.  DCA and buying on dip are not the same thing since DCA is not price sensitive, even though some people say that they are going to DCA during dips, they are combining strategies and they are not employing strict DCA which is price insensitive and buys when money is available.

Yes.  MSTR/Saylor do the former and not the latter.  MSTR/Saylor is doing DCA.. yet part of their problem in regards to their buying at higher prices is that the money comes available as the price goes up, which they had kind of engineered raising money that way too.  In some sense, MSTR/Saylor proclaims to be price insensitive, which is a form of DCA, yet they had been using the increases in their stock prices as a way to raise money to buy more bitcoin. .which maybe is strange in some sense as we see that it still likely ends up diluting the shares, even though they were proclaiming their practices to be accretive since they were using the money to buy bitcoin.

You can look at the 200-WMA and see what the cost would have had been for anyone buying bitcoin at a steady pace over the past 4 years, and right now the 200-WMA is nearly $57k. 

You can also calculate various DCA amounts within selected periods using DCA calculating tools, such as this one: https://newhedge.io/bitcoin/dollar-cost-averaging-calculator  It might give you the same or similar results as using AI. 

Of course, we know that MSTR really started going to town on their BTC buys starting from the November 2024 Trump pump, and that is when the money really started flowing into MSTR.  What were they supposed to do?  Keep some of that in cash?  Yeah maybe they should have had held back some money for buying on dips, but that has not been MSTR/Saylor's BTC accumulating philosophy or the premise upon which they were receiving money to buy bitcoin.

I have never said that I completely agree with MSTR/Saylor's approach, yet I am not claiming to understand it either, since it does seem to be a strategy to use other people's money to buy bitcoin that is largely controlled by the company and they generally have figured out ways to not have constraints on what they can do with money that is raised.. whether money is being thrown at them or they are taking actions to dilute shares (while saying that they are not diluting, since they are using the money to buy bitcoin).

[Ruttoshi]

Well, what the company actually does is what I would call a reverse DCA. A typical DCA consists of buying the same amount at regular intervals, such as an individual buying $100 worth of Bitcoin every month.

Actually, it doesn't matter if you're using a specific amount of money to DCA or not, the most important thing is that you are buying regularly every week. The reason why I said so is because, apart from companies that can assign a specific amount for their DCA, an individual with low discretionary income might not be able to do that, because his monthly expenses and basic needs will differ from month to month which will definitely affect his discretionary income because this is what I do experience.

However, investors with good size of discretionary income can easily use a specific amount of money to DCA weekly.

[Ambatman]

I know this thread is about Micro strategy but a news about Metaplanet buying caught my attention
https://bitbo.io/news/metaplanet-q4-bitcoin-buy/
This shows that companies buy without even informing the public
And like the site shared Metaplanet said 
They bought X amount at X price
They said so we believe it's true
I know we talked about this some months ago but sometimes
I believe investors should be granted some level of transparency
Especially on an asset like Bitcoin

Before we talk about risk about Privacy, ZKP exists

Well, what the company actually does is what I would call a reverse DCA. A typical DCA consists of buying the same amount at regular intervals, such as an individual buying $100 worth of Bitcoin every month.

Actually, it doesn't matter if you're using a specific amount of money to DCA or not, the most important thing is that you are buying regularly every week.

Not really Every week could be days, months or even scattered
The essence is consistency and you spreading your purchase through out a period of time.

[JayJuanGee]

Well, what the company actually does is what I would call a reverse DCA. A typical DCA consists of buying the same amount at regular intervals, such as an individual buying $100 worth of Bitcoin every month.

Actually, it doesn't matter if you're using a specific amount of money to DCA or not, the most important thing is that you are buying regularly every week.

Not really Every week could be days, months or even scattered
The essence is consistency and you spreading your purchase through out a period of time.

You are correct Ambatman.  DCA does not have to be for a specific amount and it does not have to be a specific timeframe either. 

Sure, there is some value in consistency whether time and/or amount, yet consistency does not need to be measured in terms of either amount or time, and for example, consistency could be measured in terms of percentage of funds available in a flexible income situation, and some weeks there might be more funds than others, and there could even be some weeks and months in which the buys are skipped based on the amount of income available or it could be based on "other things coming up,"   that could be somewhat subjective.

Whether objective or subjective, a person could have a standing rule that he is going to invest into bitcoin 75% of whatever discretionary funds are available on the dates that the accounting is carried out, and the accounting might take place on days that he is paid or the accounting could be every week on Thursdays, or it could be every week that he determines to be a good week based on his roulette wheel (the ball) not landing on a prime number or some other criteria that he believes to be determinative of when or when not to carry out the accounting.

It may be preferable to be consistent in the buy amounts and/or the frequencies, yet it could be the case that a guy might carry out DCA for several months, and then skip several months when he has some extra expenses (or he is otherwise distracted), and then he might return to DCA when he gets his focus back, so the fact that he carried out an inferior form of DCA, that still would not cause what he did to lose its status as being categorized as DCA, even though it might be categorized as inconsistent DCA, but it still ends up being a form of DCA, especially since the guy (in this hypothetical) is investing into bitcoin based on his availability and the availability funds and (in this hypothetical) he is not strategizing whether or not to buy based on dips - even though surely sometimes subliminally, we might be influenced by the BTC price in our buying actions whether we realize it or not.