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

[TopT3ns]

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.

It is much better to be consistent in the course of action rather than to have a specific number, more so when the financial stability of a person is not always well grounded on a monthly basis. The plan of settling the assets in a weekly paying policy is viable even in cases where the amount to be paid is adjusted based on the remaining income after meeting the basic needs. The truth about life requires adjustments and thus a fixed figure can only harm the cash flows of an individual and the thinking of small investors with a scanty amount of money.

This modification in the figure enables us to live long term in the market without compromising the quality of life we enjoy on a daily basis in order to achieve strict investment requirements. The most important principle is to keep on brooding assets a bit at a time since it is hard work that we have a chance to actually enjoy the asset growth in the future.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Buying when money is available is DCA.

But buying the tops and not buying or buying very little at the bottoms is the worst DCA possible.

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.  

Lol, you are arguing with me about something I already said and you quoted it. I bolded it so it is even more clear. As I said there, the $100 a month is just an example.

But it all boils down to this: Saylor bases his model on a 30% CAGR for Bitcoin for the next 20 years. So he will keep buying bitcoin, paying 10% dividend to the preferreds and the other 20% would go to appreciate the common stock, MSTR. But with that garbage DCA he is doing the numbers don't add up if we analyze what has happened for the past 5 and a half years, since he started buying Bitcoin.

The Bitcoin CAGR for those 5 and a half years has been 46%. And yet he has only achieved a 15% return on his Bitcoin holdings. That gives a garbage 2,7% return if we divide it into those 5 and a half years.

The disparity in numbers is too great.

Even if Bitcoin appreciates by an average of 30% CAGR over the next 20 years, with that garbage DCA, the CAGR for MSTR will be much lower. I don't think I'm the only one who has done those numbers, hence the drop in the stock price.

[fillippone]

Buying when money is available is DCA.

But buying the tops and not buying or buying very little at the bottoms is the worst DCA possible.

Agree, but I think that Strategy is buying Bitcoin with all the money they can gather each time.
They can probably sell more shares via an ATM or even issue more debt when the market is bullish, rather than when it is weak, which makes more sense to buy.
In short, they are not trying to game the market, but they buy whenever they get inflows.
One notable exception to this: when they received the funds for their "dividend ringfencing" operations.

[JayJuanGee]

Buying when money is available is DCA.

But buying the tops and not buying or buying very little at the bottoms is the worst DCA possible.

Part of the underlying presumption of DCA is that we have no fucking clue where the price is going, which means that we hardly have any clue about whether we are at a top or a bottom.  

Sure the longer that we are in bitcoin or experienced with markets then there might be some presumption that we are sophisticated enough to get some assessment regarding whether we are at a top or a bottom, yet there might be a bit of Dunning-Kruger effect if we really believe that we know these kinds of things, especially with a paradigm-shifting asset like bitcoin.

Of course, with MSTR and/or Saylor we project our own ideas upon him and presume that Saylor is smarter and/or more sophisticated and/or that he should know better about whether the BTC price is at tops and/or bottoms. .yet it is quite likely that part of MSTR/Saylor's fog relates to Saylor's own presumptions that bitcoin is in such early days that it does not matter at what price it is bought - and that BTC prices can go shooting up at any moment - like taking a stair-step up and never returning to current prices, even if the prices might seem high at the time... so there is some potential value in investing in bitcoin at any price in regards to the DCA, even if retrospectively we can look back and say that we should have had attempted to be more strategic in the timing of our bitcoin buys.

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.  

Lol, you are arguing with me about something I already said and you quoted it. I bolded it so it is even more clear. As I said there, the $100 a month is just an example.

Maybe I am arguing, and maybe I am just attempting to clarify some aspects of the matter?  even though it does seems that we disagree a bit about some aspects of the application of DCA, since I want to assert and clarify that DCA and buying the dip and lump sum buying are each slightly differing ways to accumulate bitcoin, even though in practice sometimes they will be combined, yet even though other times, it might be preferable to not combine them and to just apply them in their pure form, especially in regards to DCA, whether we are newbies or thinking that we are more sophisticated players.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't disagree with attempts to try to improve upon DCA, yet I do disagree with presumptions that guys are going to necessarily do better in any meaningful way when they attempt to hybridize DCA by combining it with buying on dips and/or lump sum investing.

Also don't get me wrong in my own historical practices.  I did most of my initial BTC accumulation in my first 14-ish months of being in bitcoin, and sure I accumulated more after that, yet I combined DCA, lump sum and buying on dips, so I am surely not opposed to guys attempting to figure out ways that they might individualize such strategies in terms of their own individual circumstances, yet each of us might not get it right, even though we might feel better when we engage in various individualization tactics in our own bitcoin accumulation journey.

But it all boils down to this: Saylor bases his model on a 30% CAGR for Bitcoin for the next 20 years. So he will keep buying bitcoin, paying 10% dividend to the preferreds and the other 20% would go to appreciate the common stock, MSTR. But with that garbage DCA he is doing the numbers don't add up if we analyze what has happened for the past 5 and a half years, since he started buying Bitcoin.

The Bitcoin CAGR for those 5 and a half years has been 46%. And yet he has only achieved a 15% return on his Bitcoin holdings. That gives a garbage 2,7% return if we divide it into those 5 and a half years.

The disparity in numbers is too great.

I cannot really argue with you about any of this, and surely with Saylor/MSTR, there likely may well be some problems with his being so public about his strategy, which likely has the downside of luring in the most strenuous of attackers upon his systems.. so MSTR and bitcoin end up being attacked, which may or may not end up succeeding.. It is still to be found out.

Of course, we likely realize that there are problems with any attempt to project out into the future based on historical returns, even when diminishing returns are incorporated into the model.  I have the same problem with my own fuck you status projections, and several times I have had to adjust my projections to be a wee bit less bullish... .. and I had been thinking that I was being conservative in my own projections.  In my latest table, I still have not updated the November 2025 numbers in my posting which the November 2025 numbers are going to drag down the future projections (which I can see in my personal - Excel - version of the table).

Even if Bitcoin appreciates by an average of 30% CAGR over the next 20 years, with that garbage DCA, the CAGR for MSTR will be much lower. I don't think I'm the only one who has done those numbers, hence the drop in the stock price.

Even though MSTR/Saylor's arguments regarding "getting access to cheaper credit" and "being sophisticated bitcoiners" were appealing reasons to invest into MSTR with expectations that they might be able to beat the returns in the underlying, surely there have been problems in any expectations that third parties, such as MSTR/Saylor would be able to outperform the underlying and/or that the advantages of owning MSTR (or any of its derivative products) would necessarily be better than owning the underlying.  Of course, there are still reasons to own MSTR and/or its various derivative products for some players who might not be able to easily own/hold the underlying directly and of course, there sometimes can also be tax advantages in regards to the way some investors into MSTR (and the derivative products) might be going through tax advantaged investment vehicles.

quote author=JayJuanGee link=topic=5268108.msg66237585#msg66237585 date=1767113157]

Agree, but I think that Strategy is buying Bitcoin with all the money they can gather each time.
They can probably sell more shares via an ATM or even issue more debt when the market is bullish, rather than when it is weak, which makes more sense to buy.
In short, they are not trying to game the market, but they buy whenever they get inflows.
One notable exception to this: when they received the funds for their "dividend ringfencing" operations.

Been watching mstr for a while and their dedication is insane, they really dont care about the local bottoms as long as they get more coins into the vault

You did not quote in the above-referenced post correctly, MusicLand. You attributed the quote to me rather than to fillippone.  

You need to be careful not to make those kinds of mistakes - especially since you are a newbie, you have to learn how to do your quoting of posts correctly so that you are not providing incorrect information. 

You can go back and edit your post in order to make the quote attribution show correct information.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Agree, but I think that Strategy is buying Bitcoin with all the money they can gather each time.
They can probably sell more shares via an ATM or even issue more debt when the market is bullish, rather than when it is weak, which makes more sense to buy.
In short, they are not trying to game the market, but they buy whenever they get inflows.
One notable exception to this: when they received the funds for their "dividend ringfencing" operations.

I do know that. What I just pointed out is that the numbers don't work, and by a large shot. Someone doing regular DCA with most known assets since August, 2020 would have obtained a much higher profitability than Strategy. That's true for gold, the S&P 500 or even for Bitcoin.

On the other hand, the mNAV keeps falling, now it's at 1.05, so it is clear he is going to ATM the stock to 1.

Been watching mstr for a while and their dedication is insane, they really dont care about the local bottoms as long as they get more coins into the vault

I am starting to think it is really insane but in the opposite sense to what you are thinking.

JJG: I'll read and reply to your post later on.

[Abuobyda218]

The leading USA 🇺🇸 Bitcoin treasury company closed at 1.04x mNAV today👇 @saylor @Strategy 👇🇺🇸

Buying $MSTR at $152 seems like a great opportunity.
https://x.com/i/status/2006491837641744765

[avp2306]

Buying when money is available is DCA.

But buying the tops and not buying or buying very little at the bottoms is the worst DCA possible.

Part of the underlying presumption of DCA is that we have no fucking clue where the price is going, which means that we hardly have any clue about whether we are at a top or a bottom.  

Sure the longer that we are in bitcoin or experienced with markets then there might be some presumption that we are sophisticated enough to get some assessment regarding whether we are at a top or a bottom, yet there might be a bit of Dunning-Kruger effect if we really believe that we know these kinds of things, especially with a paradigm-shifting asset like bitcoin.

Of course, with MSTR and/or Saylor we project our own ideas upon him and presume that Saylor is smarter and/or more sophisticated and/or that he should know better about whether the BTC price is at tops and/or bottoms. .yet it is quite likely that part of MSTR/Saylor's fog relates to Saylor's own presumptions that bitcoin is in such early days that it does not matter at what price it is bought - and that BTC prices can go shooting up at any moment - like taking a stair-step up and never returning to current prices, even if the prices might seem high at the time... so there is some potential value in investing in bitcoin at any price in regards to the DCA, even if retrospectively we can look back and say that we should have had attempted to be more strategic in the timing of our bitcoin buys.

The point of DCA is somehow same like admitting that we cannot predict the bottoms and tops of Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not move similar to those traditional asset. Those people think that its easy for them to be consistent might just fall into Dunning Kruger trap.

MSTR and Saylor's strategy is I think not about knowing the entry point since usually what we can see to them is they have strong belief that Bitcoin is in early phase and they can accumulate whatever price reach and they have funds available to use to accumulate. He usually focus for long term and not for short term exposure.

[Vompola]

They must be careful with MSTR ATM feature, they need to keep BTC yield positive, in order to play the “runnning a bitcoin business” thesis credible.
In case the issue too many shares, without buying, the BTC yield will turn even more negative.

This is already affecting their stocks performance
Imagine who would want to buy a share where more would be issued and in turn reduce yours value.
I think many would be finding buying Bitcoin instead more attractive
And if this plays out and leads to price increase
MSTR value would rise and the cycle could continue.
They should slow down in their purchase if it's going to be equity financed.

As long as the BTC yield is positive, issuing shares is not an issue for the stockholders. This means that the number of Satoshis per share is growing making every share more valuable in BTC terms.
The real hurdle rate, in other words, is Bitcoin.

This discussion is reasonable because when BTC decreases, share issuance becomes problematic. If management can consistently generate positive BTC yields, then I think issuing new shares is not value reducing but rather value adding because it represents more Satoshi. Measuring things with paper money doesn't really give the right picture, in this case each target return is Bitcoin itself.
I should add a few points here separately, such as,

•We actually give more importance to short-term fluctuations, I think that the long-term growth of BTC per share is more important than giving importance to it.

•Holding Bitcoin is a big opportunity for investors, which is why we should stay away from taking action against this opportunity.

•Another important point that I mentioned earlier is that the main incentive of management is not with fiat-based performance but with the growth of BTC in shares.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Part of the underlying presumption of DCA is that we have no fucking clue where the price is going, which means that we hardly have any clue about whether we are at a top or a bottom.  

Sure the longer that we are in bitcoin or experienced with markets then there might be some presumption that we are sophisticated enough to get some assessment regarding whether we are at a top or a bottom, yet there might be a bit of Dunning-Kruger effect if we really believe that we know these kinds of things, especially with a paradigm-shifting asset like bitcoin.

See, that's what I am talking about. We don't have a crystal ball but if we have some experience we have very clear clues. For example, the moving average. but without getting into technicalities, if in 2026 the price beats the previous ATH, we'll know we're at a peak. What we won't know is whether the price will continue to rise or not. And if the price reaches, say, $150K and then drops 30%, we don't know if it will continue to fall, but it is an indication of a good time to buy, or buy more, if we believe in Bitcoin's medium- and long-term ability to trend upward.

Of course, with MSTR and/or Saylor we project our own ideas upon him and presume that Saylor is smarter and/or more sophisticated and/or that he should know better about whether the BTC price is at tops and/or bottoms. .yet it is quite likely that part of MSTR/Saylor's fog relates to Saylor's own presumptions that bitcoin is in such early days that it does not matter at what price it is bought - and that BTC prices can go shooting up at any moment - like taking a stair-step up and never returning to current prices, even if the prices might seem high at the time... so there is some potential value in investing in bitcoin at any price in regards to the DCA, even if retrospectively we can look back and say that we should have had attempted to be more strategic in the timing of our bitcoin buys.

Yes, but that story is hard to believe. I remember when Saylor became famous in 2020 and started saying nonsense like “borrow against your paid-for house to buy Bitcoin.” At that time, he was talking about a CAGR of 200%, and it's true that was Bitcoin's CAGR in the past, but it's no longer the case. Now he talks a lot about the 50% CAGR of the last 5 years, which is also not true. The CAGR for the last 5 and a half years, since Strategy's first purchase of Bitcoin, is still 46%, but if you only count the last 5 years, it has already dropped to 26%. If 2026 is positive, the CAGR may rise, but in the end, the assumption that Bitcoin will rise by an average of 30% over the next 20 years is just that, an assumption, which was also based on a higher revaluation in the early years, and the first year of the prediction has started badly, very badly.

Maybe I am arguing, and maybe I am just attempting to clarify some aspects of the matter?  even though it does seems that we disagree a bit about some aspects of the application of DCA, since I want to assert and clarify that DCA and buying the dip and lump sum buying are each slightly differing ways to accumulate bitcoin, even though in practice sometimes they will be combined, yet even though other times, it might be preferable to not combine them and to just apply them in their pure form, especially in regards to DCA, whether we are newbies or thinking that we are more sophisticated players.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't disagree with attempts to try to improve upon DCA, yet I do disagree with presumptions that guys are going to necessarily do better in any meaningful way when they attempt to hybridize DCA by combining it with buying on dips and/or lump sum investing.

It is clear that there is no single way to do DCA, and I myself do not do perfect DCA with exactly the same amount at exact intervals. But I have bolded that word because, in reality, I think combining DCA with lump sums or contributing more during dips is a pretty smart strategy, but it is the exact opposite of what Saylor does, which is to combine it with huge buys at the top, not the tips, which is when he makes the most money.

Also don't get me wrong in my own historical practices.  I did most of my initial BTC accumulation in my first 14-ish months of being in bitcoin, and sure I accumulated more after that, yet I combined DCA, lump sum and buying on dips, so I am surely not opposed to guys attempting to figure out ways that they might individualize such strategies in terms of their own individual circumstances, yet each of us might not get it right, even though we might feel better when we engage in various individualization tactics in our own bitcoin accumulation journey.

Sure, but you see? You built up your holdings in the opposite way to Saylor; you accumulated most of them at the beginning. It's clear that in those different circumstances, Saylor couldn't raise tens of billions of dollars in 2020 and has accumulated as he could.

Even though MSTR/Saylor's arguments regarding "getting access to cheaper credit" and "being sophisticated bitcoiners" were appealing reasons to invest into MSTR with expectations that they might be able to beat the returns in the underlying, surely there have been problems in any expectations that third parties, such as MSTR/Saylor would be able to outperform the underlying and/or that the advantages of owning MSTR (or any of its derivative products) would necessarily be better than owning the underlying.  

Precisely on this point, when Saylor was asked why people should buy MSTR instead of Bitcoin directly, he replied that Strategy has the ability to borrow at 0% or almost 0%. But that supposed advantage is offset by the lower returns from its DCA, where it buys most when the price is highest.

I think I've written a JJG-style post, lol.

The leading USA 🇺🇸 Bitcoin treasury company closed at 1.04x mNAV today👇 @saylor @Strategy 👇🇺🇸

Buying $MSTR at $152 seems like a great opportunity.
https://x.com/i/status/2006491837641744765

A great opportunity to buy a company that has been steadily eroding its mNAV ever since Saylor said he was going to use preferreds to avoid eroding it. Lol.

The point of DCA is somehow same like admitting that we cannot predict the bottoms and tops of Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not move similar to those traditional asset. Those people think that its easy for them to be consistent might just fall into Dunning Kruger trap.

It's one thing not to know where the market is headed, but it's another thing to buy $100 worth of Bitcoin today and, assuming the price reaches $150K next year, go into debt to buy $10K worth at that point, which is what Saylor is doing. That's the worst possible form of DCA.

[JayJuanGee]

Part of the underlying presumption of DCA is that we have no fucking clue where the price is going, which means that we hardly have any clue about whether we are at a top or a bottom.  

Sure the longer that we are in bitcoin or experienced with markets then there might be some presumption that we are sophisticated enough to get some assessment regarding whether we are at a top or a bottom, yet there might be a bit of Dunning-Kruger effect if we really believe that we know these kinds of things, especially with a paradigm-shifting asset like bitcoin.

See, that's what I am talking about. We don't have a crystal ball but if we have some experience we have very clear clues. For example, the moving average. but without getting into technicalities, if in 2026 the price beats the previous ATH, we'll know we're at a peak. What we won't know is whether the price will continue to rise or not. And if the price reaches, say, $150K and then drops 30%, we don't know if it will continue to fall, but it is an indication of a good time to buy, or buy more, if we believe in Bitcoin's medium- and long-term ability to trend upward.

I frequently suggest that anyone in their first 4 years of accumulating bitcoin, just buy at bitcoin at any price and continue to accumulate BTC and reassess after 4 years.  Of course, if you are coming to bitcoin with resources in which you are able to invest outside of merely your discretionary income then you have some advantages.

Even for you FMC, you have been around the forum since August 2020, so you have had about 5.5 years to accumulate bitcoin in the event that you started accumulating around the time of your forum registration..so there would be a certain advantage in that.. and even more of an advantage if you had resources to lump sum invest and/or front load your bitcoin investment.

I surely am not suggesting that guys who have funds available should defer investing by DCAing, since DCA surely can be a practice in which guys are investing as soon as funds come available to them.  They are not deferring, except in the case when they have a lump sum amount that they might consider for either investing right away, DCA or buying on dips, and in those cases they would be deferring their investment if they choose to DCA rather than to invest right away.. which could be reasonable to a point, but might not be a good idea.. .. but it is hard to know, especially for a newbie.

On the other hand, if a person had already been investing several years, then his already established bitcoin stash will help to inform him about the extent to which he might consider it a good idea to continue to buy at any price or if he might find more value in buying on dips.  Guys who already established a lot may or may not be advantaged by continuing to buy at any price.. .. yet at what point such slowing down in bitcoin accumulation might be a better choice remains discretionary.. and guys may or may not come to the correct decision based on their own assessements about whether they have enough or more than enough bitcoin, yet.

For example, I frequently suggest that a guy who invests 25% of his income per year will reach 1 year's of his income invested into bitcoin after 4 years, yet a guy who invests only around 10% may well take close to 10 years to reach 1 whole year of his income invested into bitcoin, so the amount a person is able to put into bitcoin could really make differences, including considerations whether bitcoin and cash are his only investments/savings or if he might have other investments, and if he has other investments besides bitcoin and cash, then surely he also might have more options as compared to guys who are less spread out in their ways of holding value.

Of course, with MSTR and/or Saylor we project our own ideas upon him and presume that Saylor is smarter and/or more sophisticated and/or that he should know better about whether the BTC price is at tops and/or bottoms. .yet it is quite likely that part of MSTR/Saylor's fog relates to Saylor's own presumptions that bitcoin is in such early days that it does not matter at what price it is bought - and that BTC prices can go shooting up at any moment - like taking a stair-step up and never returning to current prices, even if the prices might seem high at the time... so there is some potential value in investing in bitcoin at any price in regards to the DCA, even if retrospectively we can look back and say that we should have had attempted to be more strategic in the timing of our bitcoin buys.

Yes, but that story is hard to believe. I remember when Saylor became famous in 2020 and started saying nonsense like “borrow against your paid-for house to buy Bitcoin.” At that time, he was talking about a CAGR of 200%, and it's true that was Bitcoin's CAGR in the past, but it's no longer the case. Now he talks a lot about the 50% CAGR of the last 5 years, which is also not true. The CAGR for the last 5 and a half years, since Strategy's first purchase of Bitcoin, is still 46%, but if you only count the last 5 years, it has already dropped to 26%. If 2026 is positive, the CAGR may rise, but in the end, the assumption that Bitcoin will rise by an average of 30% over the next 20 years is just that, an assumption, which was also based on a higher revaluation in the early years, and the first year of the prediction has started badly, very badly.

I am not sure if Saylor is purposefully misleading others, and many times, I have tried to warn people to not necessarily do the same things that Saylor/MSTR is doing, especially when it comes to their own cashflow management, and I even several times criticized Saylor for his own (and MSTR's) level of allocation into bitcoin, but it is not like he is not a BIG boy who can make his own choices, and the extent to which he might have had lured others into investing into his company or maybe going into debt to buy bitcoin, those were likely not good suggestions and guys have to be responsible for their own ways of drawing lines and managing their cash.

I was attempting to describe part of what I thought was motivating Saylor/MSTR to accumulate so aggressively and not necessarily questioning whether or not Saylor really believes those ways of spinning bitcoin, and the extent to which he might have had been being disingenuine or trying to trick people into either buying bitcoin or buying MSTR and/or the later bitcoin derivative products.  There are a lot of folks overly bashing on Saylor/MSTR, and I have my doubts about whether he was being disingenuine.  I doubt that shareholder lawsuits would prevail, even though there could be situations in which they are brought..  You are likely making arguments that the sceptical chymist had been making over the years and now you are wanting to make some of those kinds of similar arguments?  Maybe the sceptical chymist now has a stronger ally in this thread.. hahahahaha

Maybe I am arguing, and maybe I am just attempting to clarify some aspects of the matter?  even though it does seems that we disagree a bit about some aspects of the application of DCA, since I want to assert and clarify that DCA and buying the dip and lump sum buying are each slightly differing ways to accumulate bitcoin, even though in practice sometimes they will be combined, yet even though other times, it might be preferable to not combine them and to just apply them in their pure form, especially in regards to DCA, whether we are newbies or thinking that we are more sophisticated players.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't disagree with attempts to try to improve upon DCA, yet I do disagree with presumptions that guys are going to necessarily do better in any meaningful way when they attempt to hybridize DCA by combining it with buying on dips and/or lump sum investing.

It is clear that there is no single way to do DCA, and I myself do not do perfect DCA with exactly the same amount at exact intervals.

Maybe my arguments are somewhat petty or semantic, and I was not really telling anyone what to do or not to do, but instead suggesting that DCA and buying the dip and lump sum were different, so it is misleading and/or confusing to suggest that DCA has to take place on dips and bullshit like that - since if someone were to be brand new to bitcoin, it is likely better for them to just get started with DCA rather than fucking around trying to figure out dips or not...and then maybe after they accumulate for a while, then they might be in a better postion to strategize their buys, but if they are coming to bitcoin with absolutely no bitcoin or even a low coin amount, they may need to spend some time accumulating bitcoin at any price before they fuck around trying to figure out if the price might go up, down or sideways, and I am not saying this out of any kind of FOMO consideration, but instead in terms of the practicality that if someone has either no coins are very low amounts of coin, they are not sufficiently/adequately prepared for UP... and they are ONLY prepared for down, and it seems to me that in bitcoin at all times, we should be attempting to make sure that we are sufficiently and adequately prepared for up, and it could take many years for someone to really start to feel that he is sufficiently and adequately prepared for up, especially guys with low discretionary income levels. If someone has low discretionary income levels they might not even be capable orf investing even 10% of their income into bitcoin, so it could take them 10 years or more to just get one year of their income into bitcoin.

But I have bolded that word because, in reality, I think combining DCA with lump sums or contributing more during dips is a pretty smart strategy,

Sure if you have various forums of income, or other investments.  There are many folks who struggle to muster up even 10% of their income to be able to put into bitcoin, and if they are investing in bitcoin they need to make sure that they don't over do it, so they have to keep some cash on hand too, so that they don't end up overinvesting and not having money to take care of extra expenses that might come up or if they might have issues in regards to being able to spare whatever money they put into bitcoin, since it seems to me that if guys are investing in bitcoin, then they are locking up their funds for 4-10 years or longer.  I don't believe in trading and/or gambling with bitcoin since I consider bitcoin to be an investment not a trade or a gambling thingie.

So sure, if guys have funds, they have options between the three ways of accumulating bitcoin through buys, and it seems to me that an overwhelming majority of normal people do not have extra funds to give them options, even though surely once in  while they might come across extra funds that gives them options, otherwise they are better off to put systems in place to buy bitcoin regularly, consistently, persistently ongoingly, regularly and perhaps even aggressively, and they can do that through DCA... but yeah, if they have extra funds they can supplement DCA with buying the dip and/or lump sum buying. I have no problem with that.

By the way, DCA is not necessarily buying on a schedule, and instead it can be buying as soon as the money is available and the amount can also vary based on how much is available.. so maybe some weeks $100 is available and other weeks, $40 and other weeks $300 and other weeks $1k and other weeks some various other amount.  there is no need to have any exact same amount, even though some folks set up automatic DCAs in that kinds of a way.  I personally prefer manual DCAs rather than automatic ones, even though both can be done too.

but it is the exact opposite of what Saylor does, which is to combine it with huge buys at the top, not the tips, which is when he makes the most money.

Saylor is likely still DCAing even though he is using various financial tools to generate income for his DCA buys.  Sure his amount vary, but he is still largely figuring out how much to buy each week based in money available and various other considerations that do not tend to be about price but instead about money being available or not, which I would argue puts his buys into a pretty straight-forward DCA kind of an approach, even if he and others might not characterize what they are doing as DCA, but it does not matter if they try to call it something else.

Also don't get me wrong in my own historical practices.  I did most of my initial BTC accumulation in my first 14-ish months of being in bitcoin, and sure I accumulated more after that, yet I combined DCA, lump sum and buying on dips, so I am surely not opposed to guys attempting to figure out ways that they might individualize such strategies in terms of their own individual circumstances, yet each of us might not get it right, even though we might feel better when we engage in various individualization tactics in our own bitcoin accumulation journey.

Sure, but you see? You built up your holdings in the opposite way to Saylor; you accumulated most of them at the beginning. It's clear that in those different circumstances, Saylor couldn't raise tens of billions of dollars in 2020 and has accumulated as he could.

Yeah, but what is your point and why does it matter?  Yeah, we know that he has been buying more based on money coming available at higher prices so he ends up doubling his cost per BTC in a short time because he buys like 2x or 3x his previous buys in a short period of time, especially since the Trump pump in 2024..  I am not that excited about that way of buying, but he still ends up getting a lot of BTC that end up being pretty much unencumbered and using other people's money and seemingly all within legally acceptable methodologies.  Most individuals could not do that kind of shit, even if they could figure out some ways to do it, but there sometimes are likely examples of individuals being able to do similar things, but Saylor and MSTR really leaned into theirs and Saylor/MSTR still has a lot of credibility in the bitcoin space - even though a lot of folks are on the attack, and maybe you are falling into that camp, too FMC? If you said that you were using a low percentage of your overall BTC stash, then lesson learned?  I don't know.  Do you want to go on the attack in regards to what MSTR/Saylor is doing?

Even though MSTR/Saylor's arguments regarding "getting access to cheaper credit" and "being sophisticated bitcoiners" were appealing reasons to invest into MSTR with expectations that they might be able to beat the returns in the underlying, surely there have been problems in any expectations that third parties, such as MSTR/Saylor would be able to outperform the underlying and/or that the advantages of owning MSTR (or any of its derivative products) would necessarily be better than owning the underlying.  

Precisely on this point, when Saylor was asked why people should buy MSTR instead of Bitcoin directly, he replied that Strategy has the ability to borrow at 0% or almost 0%. But that supposed advantage is offset by the lower returns from its DCA, where it buys most when the price is highest.

What he said was true, but it might not have had been a good reason to buy MSTR (or any MSTR derivative products) rather than buying bitcoin itself.

I think I've written a JJG-style post, lol.

Yeah.  You are wearing me out. I had enough of this topic, since I likely do not give closely as many shits as you about the whole matter, even though MSTR and/or Saylor continue to have some affects on bitcoin as a whole, too.

The leading USA 🇺🇸 Bitcoin treasury company closed at 1.04x mNAV today👇 @saylor @Strategy 👇🇺🇸

Buying $MSTR at $152 seems like a great opportunity.
https://x.com/i/status/2006491837641744765

A great opportunity to buy a company that has been steadily eroding its mNAV ever since Saylor said he was going to use preferreds to avoid eroding it. Lol.

The point of DCA is somehow same like admitting that we cannot predict the bottoms and tops of Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not move similar to those traditional asset. Those people think that its easy for them to be consistent might just fall into Dunning Kruger trap.

It's one thing not to know where the market is headed, but it's another thing to buy $100 worth of Bitcoin today and, assuming the price reaches $150K next year, go into debt to buy $10K worth at that point, which is what Saylor is doing. That's the worst possible form of DCA.

You are correct FMC.. it might not be a good idea to buy MSTR (or any of its derivative products) rather than just staying focused on accumulating (through buying) bitcoin itself.

[ultrloa]

It's one thing not to know where the market is headed, but it's another thing to buy $100 worth of Bitcoin today and, assuming the price reaches $150K next year, go into debt to buy $10K worth at that point, which is what Saylor is doing. That's the worst possible form of DCA.

You are correct FMC.. it might not be a good idea to buy MSTR (or any of its derivative products) rather than just staying focused on accumulating (through buying) bitcoin itself.

That's why I really like buying Bitcoin directly since we will not have this indirect exposure on Bitcoin just like if we buy MSTR. We can make everything simple by buying Bitcoin directly and try to avoid going to other assets like MSTR. Since we don't need to rely on some companies balance sheet or any of their dynamics.

MSTR maybe good for investors want some equities, but if they are betting for BTC much better if they directly buy it to avoid having any unnecessary pressure.

[Ambatman]

Buying $MSTR at $152 seems like a great opportunity.
https://x.com/i/status/2006491837641744765

Many now that wanted to buy MSTR earlier last year
Would prefer buying Bitcoin itself
For some months it seems they don't really care about common stock holders
Which I understand is playing the long game but it's integrity towards common shares its failing
Mnav is 1.04
Already close to the level where phong le CEO of strategy said they could sell as a last resort.

[JayJuanGee]

It's one thing not to know where the market is headed, but it's another thing to buy $100 worth of Bitcoin today and, assuming the price reaches $150K next year, go into debt to buy $10K worth at that point, which is what Saylor is doing. That's the worst possible form of DCA.

You are correct FMC.. it might not be a good idea to buy MSTR (or any of its derivative products) rather than just staying focused on accumulating (through buying) bitcoin itself.

That's why I really like buying Bitcoin directly since we will not have this indirect exposure on Bitcoin just like if we buy MSTR. We can make everything simple by buying Bitcoin directly and try to avoid going to other assets like MSTR. Since we don't need to rely on some companies balance sheet or any of their dynamics.

MSTR maybe good for investors want some equities, but if they are betting for BTC much better if they directly buy it to avoid having any unnecessary pressure.

If we buy MSTR and/or its derivative products, we have bought various paper claims and we have helped MSTR to acquire more bitcoin, and we have also exposed ourselves to some of their execution risk that may or may not end up helping us to profit directly, since surely there could well be times (and there have been) that MSTR and/or its derivative products have performed better than bitcoin (and even better than cash), and sure there could be some governments, institutions and/or even individuals with certain kinds of accounts (such as retirement) that are ONLY authorized to buy third party products rather than guying bitcoin directly, so they might choose to own MSTR and/or its derivative products.  As individuals we can directly own bitcoin, and even some governments and/or institutions might be able to figure out ways to directly own bitcoin... so  maybe if we choose to own both, then we have to figure out how much we might be ready, willing and/or able to hold of each of those.  With any potentially risky item or trading or shitcoin, I tend to start out with the idea of no more than 10% of the size of our bitcoin should be allowed to be invested in such potentially risky item, and I would consider MSTR and/or its derivative products to fit in such category, and sure of course, guys are free to come to their own calculations.  

I recall so many instances in 2017 in which guys were so excited about shitcoins that they either did not own any bitcoin, or they had the reverse allocation, so they would have 90% of their holdings in various shitcoins and 10% in bitcoin.. which in retrospect is seen as truly retarded, and I surely tried to tell them that they were being retarded at the time, yet it can frequently be difficult to help people to both recognize and to control their inclinations towards wanting to speed up the process of getting rich, so they end up diluting their focus on bitcoin, losing their way and/or even denying that bitcoin is the prize... I remember so much about bitcoin as grandpa coin.. hahahahaha.. and those guys who failed/refused to sufficiently/adequately maintain a decent bitcoin holding size ended up really losing their opportunities to build meaningful wealth such as the guys who had either held bitcoin through 2017 and thereafter and/or the guys who continued to stack bitcoin during those times and perhaps being able to get to a point of having enough or more than enough bitcoin.. And surely even a relatively small budget of consistent buying of bitcoin that started in 2017 may well could have reached overaccumulation status by now and perhaps even earlier.

So for example even a guy who might have had been earning around $30k per year in early 2017, he might have had invested $100 per week (which is about 17% of his income in bitcoin), and by now he would have had invested around $47k (1.5x of his annual income), and he would have had accumulated around 5.41 BTC, which largely right now would be enough bitcoin to get him started with sustainable withdrawal at $30k per year.  Sure, he could continue to accumulate bitcoin and perhaps in a year or two, his sustainable withdrawal rate from an ongoing $100 per week investment into bitcoin may well put him at a withdrawal rate that is close to double the current $30k per year rate.  Guys can measure these matters and figure out ways to really empower themselves from directly owning and building up their bitcoin, even though it could still well take a decently long time to really stay focused on ongoing bitcoin accumulation through buying and even not overdoing it and/or putting your bitcoin at risk by fucking around with otherwise risky side distractions whether MSTR (its derivative products) or even other various paper bitcoin products that are available (such as spot bitcoin ETFs and/or other of those kinds of products).

Buying $MSTR at $152 seems like a great opportunity.
https://x.com/i/status/2006491837641744765

Many now that wanted to buy MSTR earlier last year
Would prefer buying Bitcoin itself
For some months it seems they don't really care about common stock holders
Which I understand is playing the long game but it's integrity towards common shares its failing
Mnav is 1.04
Already close to the level where phong le CEO of strategy said they could sell as a last resort.

Yep.  A lot has changed in the last year with Strategy and/or its various products, and surely it was fairly recently (maybe various points in early 2025) that MSTR was on the top of the world and so many guys were really excited to be in MSTR and even those who did not have MSTR were regretting not having had been in MSTR.. and even in this thread we had guys very excited and even lecturing guys for their not being in MSTR..  as if owning MSTR was such an "obvious" no brainer play.  Guys who held onto their MSTR or even kept buying MSTR as it kept plummeting ended up serving as exit liquidity for MSTR's ability to get more bitcoin for itself, since the Bitcoin that MSTR holds is largely unencumbered, while shareholders ended up paying the price and even thinking that Saylor et al were acting in their best interests... yet I still doubt that Saylor and/or MSTR agents ended up violating any rules (I don't claim to be an expert in terms of if there might be ways for them to be prosecuted.. Ok.. now I am starting to sound like the sceptical chymist)..  He's gotta be coming in here pretty soon and telling us all "I told you so," no?  Surely certain aspects of his thesis seem to be playing out.. .and even the MSTR situation seems to be evolving in ways that they likely are acting worse than what guys had expected them to act in terms of dilution of shares and the kinds of things that centralized entities will do, especially when they get desperate and seem to be spiraling..

By the way, I will still criticize many of the earlier critics of MSTR since many times they were assessing MSTR's debt situation as if MSTR was encumbering its debt, which we know that MSTR was not guilty of that particular error, even though maybe in recent times, they are seemingly guilty of even a BIGGER error around the use of consumer confidence to dilute their shares, which surely does not seem to be a good situation to be in or a practice to be following.. yet again, not sure if their behaviors are devolving into legally actionable territories, yet.

[avp2306]

The point of DCA is somehow same like admitting that we cannot predict the bottoms and tops of Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not move similar to those traditional asset. Those people think that its easy for them to be consistent might just fall into Dunning Kruger trap.

It's one thing not to know where the market is headed, but it's another thing to buy $100 worth of Bitcoin today and, assuming the price reaches $150K next year, go into debt to buy $10K worth at that point, which is what Saylor is doing. That's the worst possible form of DCA.

Correct, because DCA is somehow done to reduce or manage the risk by gradual accumulation and not expand the risk they taken by borrowing more funds.

Saylor seems to be engaging on leverage speculation.

For average investor this is one of worst way to engage in because they are using the borrowed money to buy Bitcoins in different level, but let see how they solve those issues they are facing but still I think Saylor provably knows what he do here.

[fillippone]

Buying $MSTR at $152 seems like a great opportunity.
https://x.com/i/status/2006491837641744765

Many now that wanted to buy MSTR earlier last year
Would prefer buying Bitcoin itself
For some months it seems they don't really care about common stock holders
Which I understand is playing the long game but it's integrity towards common shares its failing
Mnav is 1.04
Already close to the level where phong le CEO of strategy said they could sell as a last resort.

Just remember that mNAV being below 1 (actually close) is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for them to sell Bitcoins.
The other necessary conditions is thstcthey have to service some form of payment (either dividend or debt) AND their ringfenced amount of cash has been depleted. 

[JayJuanGee]

The point of DCA is somehow same like admitting that we cannot predict the bottoms and tops of Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not move similar to those traditional asset. Those people think that its easy for them to be consistent might just fall into Dunning Kruger trap.

It's one thing not to know where the market is headed, but it's another thing to buy $100 worth of Bitcoin today and, assuming the price reaches $150K next year, go into debt to buy $10K worth at that point, which is what Saylor is doing. That's the worst possible form of DCA.

Correct, because DCA is somehow done to reduce or manage the risk by gradual accumulation and not expand the risk they taken by borrowing more funds.

Saylor seems to be engaging on leverage speculation.

For average investor this is one of worst way to engage in because they are using the borrowed money to buy Bitcoins in different level, but let see how they solve those issues they are facing but still I think Saylor provably knows what he do here.

Yeah, but when the BTC price goes up, would MSTR really be borrowing money in any kind of a traditional sense when they are taking money from equity..

Sure, they would be borrowing from sentiment or good will or borrowing from the momentum to use that kind of fake pumpening value to buy more bitcoin that is largely unencumbered and a pristine form of capital (asset).

Even if the value of each of MSTR's shares is less because it is diluted while they are creating a situation to have more bitcoin per share, but if the dollar value of the bitcoin goes down and then the dollar value of the MSTR shares go down too, then the good will and positive sentiment fades away so they cannot really use that intangible value any more in order to buy tangible assets (to the extent that bitcoin is tangible), but the coins that MSTR are still not encumbered in any traditional sense of encumbrance, yet their shares are diluted in value based on the BTC price drops and even diluted by the price drops of the shares.  

It does not seems to be very correct to imply that MSTR is encumbering itself when it uses the increased value (based on sentiment and good will) to buy bitcoin as the bitcoin price is going up like that, even though when the BTC price goes down, the shares seem to end up getting double whammied, even though normies seem to still be willing to buy MSTR shares out of expectation that the BTC price will go back up which will thus also drag the MSTR share prices back up.

[Ambatman]

Just remember that mNAV being below 1 (actually close) is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for them to sell Bitcoins.
The other necessary conditions is thstcthey have to service some form of payment (either dividend or debt) AND their ringfenced amount of cash has been depleted. 

Yeah I understand
But for the past month or so
Saylor has been one of the reasons for the fall of their mnav not just Bitcoin
Issuing more share is killing investors confidence
Thereby affecting not just their existing shares but marketcap


Metaplanet is having a better mnav than Strategy despite higher average purchasing price
But this may be as a result Japan having only metaplanet
To grant Bitcoin holders over there tax advantage.

[fillippone]

Metaplanet is having a better mnav than Strategy despite higher average purchasing price
But this may be as a result Japan having only metaplanet
To grant Bitcoin holders over there tax advantage.

If Strategy is a risky business, Metaplanet is even more dangerous. Metaplanet has exceeded Strategy on every possible metric, and if Strategy's mNAV collapsed, I cannot see why Metaplanet shouldn't follow the same path.

[ultrloa]

Metaplanet is having a better mnav than Strategy despite higher average purchasing price
But this may be as a result Japan having only metaplanet
To grant Bitcoin holders over there tax advantage.

If Strategy is a risky business, Metaplanet is even more dangerous. Metaplanet has exceeded Strategy on every possible metric, and if Strategy's mNAV collapsed, I cannot see why Metaplanet shouldn't follow the same path.

It doesn't really mean that Metaplanet is more bigger compare to Strategy it will possible collapse the same as them. Strategy failure is linked to its issues on liquidity and also its own leverage.

Metaplanet may encounter same risk as what Strategy may experience, but everything will truly depends on how they manage everything and keep the trust of their investor, Its not about because they exceed on Strategy metrics.

[Free Market Capitalist]

... I tend to start out with the idea of no more than 10% of the size of our bitcoin should be allowed to be invested in such potentially risky item, and I would consider MSTR and/or its derivative products to fit in such category, and sure of course, guys are free to come to their own calculations.  

Or even 5%, which is the usual percentage for risky bets in sensible portfolios. But up to 10% is fine too.

I recall so many instances in 2017 in which guys were so excited about shitcoins that they either did not own any bitcoin, or they had the reverse allocation, so they would have 90% of their holdings in various shitcoins and 10% in bitcoin.. which in retrospect is seen as truly retarded, and I surely tried to tell them that they were being retarded at the time, yet it can frequently be difficult to help people to both recognize and to control their inclinations towards wanting to speed up the process of getting rich, so they end up diluting their focus on bitcoin, losing their way and/or even denying that bitcoin is the prize... I remember so much about bitcoin as grandpa coin.. hahahahaha.. and those guys who failed/refused to sufficiently/adequately maintain a decent bitcoin holding size ended up really losing their opportunities to build meaningful wealth such as the guys who had either held bitcoin through 2017 and thereafter and/or the guys who continued to stack bitcoin during those times and perhaps being able to get to a point of having enough or more than enough bitcoin.. And surely even a relatively small budget of consistent buying of bitcoin that started in 2017 may well could have reached overaccumulation status by now and perhaps even earlier.

From what I've seen, something similar happened, especially in the first half of 2025, with Bitcoin treasury companies, some people even began selling Bitcoin to buy companies with crazy mNAVs in anticipation that, in the future, with Bitcoin per share growth, the final result of exposure to Bitcoin would be much greater.

But for the past month or so
Saylor has been one of the reasons for the fall of their mnav not just Bitcoin
Issuing more share is killing investors confidence
Thereby affecting not just their existing shares but marketcap

Not last month, but more precisely in the last six months, since he said he would only go long common stock above 2.5 mNAV and inexplicably changed his strategy. Six months ago was also when Jim Chanos said he was shorting MSTR to buy Bitcoin. His thesis is that mNAV greater than 1 is unjustified, that it should be 1, and by shorting he was absorbing the excess mNAV to buy Bitcoin.

If Strategy is a risky business, Metaplanet is even more dangerous. Metaplanet has exceeded Strategy on every possible metric, and if Strategy's mNAV collapsed, I cannot see why Metaplanet shouldn't follow the same path.

What I think is at stake now is the business model of Bitcoin Treasury Companies, which began popping up in 2025 like mushrooms in a damp forest in autumn. Strategy probably still has future ahead of it, and maybe a handful more but there are hundreds now. I don't think there's much future in the idea that any business in decline can not only be saved but also obtain crazy valuations simply by buying Bitcoin and selling paper (stocks, bonds, preferreds).

Much depends on what happens in 2026. If it is moderately bullish, Strategy and the largest companies will be able to save the day, but if we have entered the winter of the cycle, there will be FUD that will take a lot of these companies down with it.