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

[Bluedrem]

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.

Yes, there is no room to say that Metaplanet is more stable or will not collapse if some metrics are ahead of Metaplanet Strategy. Because no project can be called more stable just by being ahead of some metrics. Despite being ahead of metrics, a company can collapse due to lack of proper management, wrong management decisions, management accounting errors, weak corporate governance, over-reliance on short-term debt, liquidity mismatch.
For example, we can talk about FTX, the second largest telecom company in the United States, WorldCom, and the 150-year-old investment bank Lehman Brothers.
We have seen how FTX, with a market cap of 32 billion, collapsed due to fund mismanagement and related reasons despite having good metrics.
Therefore, we cannot identify something as less risky and big as risk-free just by being ahead of metrics.
Therefore, when comparing Strategy and Metaplanet, we can compare Strategy to the leader of a pack of wolves who always crosses the desert path of inaccessible mountains and valleys from the front, making the path easier for the wolves behind. That is, Metaplanet can learn from Strategy and reduce its own risks by watching it.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

A decent number of the bearwhales likely were able to see quite a bit of potential froth in the market with so many (questionably failing) companies going to bitcoin with a one-way bet... Preparing for BTC to go up, yet perhaps not much of a plan in the event that the BTC price were to go sideways or down... .. So then there seems to have had been opportunities to flush out some of the leverage - which so many of us likely to caution the use of leverage - especially if you don't have enough of an income to service the debt on the leverage.

For companies who had sufficient income to service the debt on any of the leverage, then they would not necessarily get purged out since they would be able to survive both deep drawdowns in valuation and also extended drawdowns in valuation - not that 3 months (so far) has really been very much time in terms of bitcoin's drawdown, so far. 

Any of us, whether a person or a company, should already know our finances enough to be able to get through a year or two or perhaps even three years of drawdown and/or flat.  I know from personal experience that it does not feel good to be in the negative and even to potentially have had invested in bitcoin at higher levels than prudent with an expectation that the price was either going to go up or sideways, but not down...So yeah, with companies they have to double whammy of the BTC price going down and their share prices going down too... and surely with share prices, there can be a bit of contagion in regards to sentiment that downwardly spirals upon itself.

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.

Yes, there is no room to say that Metaplanet is more stable or will not collapse if some metrics are ahead of Metaplanet Strategy. Because no project can be called more stable just by being ahead of some metrics. Despite being ahead of metrics, a company can collapse due to lack of proper management, wrong management decisions, management accounting errors, weak corporate governance, over-reliance on short-term debt, liquidity mismatch.
For example, we can talk about FTX, the second largest telecom company in the United States, WorldCom, and the 150-year-old investment bank Lehman Brothers.
We have seen how FTX, with a market cap of 32 billion, collapsed due to fund mismanagement and related reasons despite having good metrics.

You seem to be using a different kind of company in the event that you are wanting to compare companies like Metaplanet or Strategy to companies that were found out to have had been committing high levels of fraud... The high level of fraud cannot be assumed without evidence, even though some of the ideas in regards to the ways that they can fail might apply, so for example, if there is loss of confidence (even if for incorrect reasons), then companies can begin to spiral into worse and worse circumstances.

Therefore, we cannot identify something as less risky and big as risk-free just by being ahead of metrics.
Therefore, when comparing Strategy and Metaplanet, we can compare Strategy to the leader of a pack of wolves who always crosses the desert path of inaccessible mountains and valleys from the front, making the path easier for the wolves behind. That is, Metaplanet can learn from Strategy and reduce its own risks by watching it.

I will grant you that if some of the strategies are being copied, then there can be ways to learn from what went right and what went wrong, and even though I am not such a big fan of sentiment, there are likely ways in which the market is also comparing the strategies of these various bitcoin companies to figure the extent to which they are alike and/or how they might differ, and surely some of the difficulties in regards to assessing how companies might differ also relates back to some of the fundamentals of the underlying (namely bitcoin), so we see that even if some companies could be on the border of collapse or no longer being able to service their various obligations, they may end up getting bailed out (rescued) by a sudden upward appreciation in bitcoin's price.

 Would a BTC price appreciation of 20% or more do?  Surely there would be a bit of potential return of positive sentiment if there were a 20% increase in the bitcoin price within the next 2-6 weeks (from our current $90.6k to $108k or higher).. and even returning to $108k might end up contributing to even more upward contagion in bitcoin's price dynamics.

[Free Market Capitalist]

A decent number of the bearwhales likely were able to see quite a bit of potential froth in the market with so many (questionably failing) companies going to bitcoin with a one-way bet... Preparing for BTC to go up, yet perhaps not much of a plan in the event that the BTC price were to go sideways or down... .. So then there seems to have had been opportunities to flush out some of the leverage - which so many of us likely to caution the use of leverage - especially if you don't have enough of an income to service the debt on the leverage.

Well, on this point precisely, I believe that Strategy has prepared itself for potential bear markets; it is the best prepared for this despite Saylor being a bull. The problem lies with many other companies, which also lack sufficient cash flow because they are businesses in decline. Strategy does not have cash flow per se (that of the BI software part is negligible in this regard), but it does have the most access to liquidity by far compared to the others selling their products (shares and preferreds).

Another thing is that there are aspects of the business model that I think they are detrimental. I don't quite understand Saylor's obsession with ATMing the common stock down to 1 mNAV, contradicting what he said six months ago.

[Taskford]

A decent number of the bearwhales likely were able to see quite a bit of potential froth in the market with so many (questionably failing) companies going to bitcoin with a one-way bet... Preparing for BTC to go up, yet perhaps not much of a plan in the event that the BTC price were to go sideways or down... .. So then there seems to have had been opportunities to flush out some of the leverage - which so many of us likely to caution the use of leverage - especially if you don't have enough of an income to service the debt on the leverage.

Well, on this point precisely, I believe that Strategy has prepared itself for potential bear markets; it is the best prepared for this despite Saylor being a bull. The problem lies with many other companies, which also lack sufficient cash flow because they are businesses in decline. Strategy does not have cash flow per se (that of the BI software part is negligible in this regard), but it does have the most access to liquidity by far compared to the others selling their products (shares and preferreds).

Another thing is that there are aspects of the business model that I think they are detrimental. I don't quite understand Saylor's obsession with ATMing the common stock down to 1 mNAV, contradicting what he said six months ago.

Strategy may don't have significant cash flow coming from their BI software, but demonstrate its unique position because they can obtain liquidity easier than other declining companies. This is somehow advantage if there are bear market situations happens, since there access to their capital really matter than on their operating income.

For Saylor on ATM of stock, this one looks contradicting if we compare to his early post, but one of the good side they get from this is strategy have flexibility. They are converting their equity to Bitcoin reserve,  this one strengthen up their positions especially they are dealing with Bitcoin for long term. This situation have advantages and disadvantages, but on positive side Strategy is I think prepared on possible declines that's why they consistently accumulating Bitcoin then continue to aim for long term.

[Nothingtodo]

MicroStrategy has purchased and held another 1,287 Bitcoins today. MicroStrategy's total Bitcoin holdings are 673,783 Bitcoins. MicroStrategy purchased 1,287 Bitcoins today at a price of $90,371 per Bitcoin. MicroStrategy has USD 2.25 billion in reserves in cash and Bitcoin holdings of $62.5 billion in Bitcoin value.

[Ambatman]

MicroStrategy has purchased and held another 1,287 Bitcoins today. MicroStrategy's total Bitcoin holdings are 673,783 Bitcoins. MicroStrategy purchased 1,287 Bitcoins today at a price of $90,371 per Bitcoin. MicroStrategy has USD 2.25 billion in reserves in cash and Bitcoin holdings of $62.5 billion in Bitcoin value.

They were quite some difference on today's post
This is the first time since I could remember where the price they bought wasn't shared
And the discrepancy between their marketcap and Bitcoin holding is getting bigger
Shows MSTR price is discounted but investors don't care
Now that's something.

[KawasakiNinja1_]

MicroStrategy has purchased and held another 1,287 Bitcoins today. MicroStrategy's total Bitcoin holdings are 673,783 Bitcoins. MicroStrategy purchased 1,287 Bitcoins today at a price of $90,371 per Bitcoin. MicroStrategy has USD 2.25 billion in reserves in cash and Bitcoin holdings of $62.5 billion in Bitcoin value.

This was another buying trend for them like every week, but did you notice a difference in the type of posts they made on X today? In each of the previous posts, we saw that this company's purchase price was the dollar amount of its total holdings and it mentioned that 23.2% of YTD yield was earned in 2025. However, it is a very good thing that they have added more capital to their USD reserves, meaning they have increased their USD reserves because their post already clearly states that they have increased their reserves by $62 million.

[durg0319]

A decent number of the bearwhales likely were able to see quite a bit of potential froth in the market with so many (questionably failing) companies going to bitcoin with a one-way bet... Preparing for BTC to go up, yet perhaps not much of a plan in the event that the BTC price were to go sideways or down... .. So then there seems to have had been opportunities to flush out some of the leverage - which so many of us likely to caution the use of leverage - especially if you don't have enough of an income to service the debt on the leverage.

Well, on this point precisely, I believe that Strategy has prepared itself for potential bear markets; it is the best prepared for this despite Saylor being a bull. The problem lies with many other companies, which also lack sufficient cash flow because they are businesses in decline. Strategy does not have cash flow per se (that of the BI software part is negligible in this regard), but it does have the most access to liquidity by far compared to the others selling their products (shares and preferreds).

Another thing is that there are aspects of the business model that I think they are detrimental. I don't quite understand Saylor's obsession with ATMing the common stock down to 1 mNAV, contradicting what he said six months ago.

It kinda feels like Strategy's pretty has lots of funds  compared to the rest, but some of Saylor's moves just don't line up with long term efficiency, you know? Dropping common stock down to 1 mNAV can change the perspectives of how investors see things and shake their confidence, even if the cash pile is solid. Liquidity's great and all.but it doesn't fix those deeper structural probs or how the market perceives it.so yeah, these choices will really show if the strategy can hold up when shit hits the fan or they are under pressure.

[Free Market Capitalist]

It kinda feels like Strategy's pretty has lots of funds  compared to the rest, but some of Saylor's moves just don't line up with long term efficiency, you know? Dropping common stock down to 1 mNAV can change the perspectives of how investors see things and shake their confidence,

Well, it seems we are already there:



The only thing that seems clear is that STRC is back to $100 after raising its dividend to 11%, but the sustainability of this will depend heavily on the rest of the cycle. For any financial analyst who is not a Bitcoin permabull, it is basically junk preferred stock.

[fillippone]

MSCI dropped the bomb: Strategy won’t be removed from their indexes:

STANDARD ANNOUNCEMENTS - January 06, 2026 at 09:10 PM GMT
Announcement for January 06, 2026 at 09:10 PM GMT

THIS IS AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE MSCI GLOBAL STANDARD INDEXES

MSCI ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE TREATMENT OF DIGITAL ASSET TREASURY COMPANIES

MSCI has determined at this time not to implement the proposal to exclude digital asset treasury companies ("DATCOs") from the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes ("MSCI Indexes") as part of the February 2026 Index Review. However, MSCI intends to open a broader consultation on the treatment of non-operating companies generally. This broader review is intended to ensure consistency and continued alignment with the overall objectives of the MSCI Indexes, which seek to measure the performance of operating companies and exclude entities whose primary activities are investment-oriented in nature.

Feedback from the consultation confirmed institutional investor concern that some DATCOs exhibit characteristics similar to investment funds, which are not eligible for inclusion in the MSCI Indexes. Feedback also highlighted that DATCOs may represent a subset of a wider group of entities whose business activities are predominantly investment-oriented rather than operational.

Distinguishing between investment companies and other companies that hold non-operating assets, such as digital assets, as part of their core operations rather than for investment purposes requires further research and consultation with market participants. For instance, assessing index eligibility across a range of these types of entities may require additional inclusion assessment criteria, such as financial-statement-based or other indicators.

For the time being, the current index treatment of DATCOs identified in the preliminary list published by MSCI of companies whose digital asset holdings represent 50% or more of their total assets will remain unchanged:

- DATCOs currently included in MSCI Indexes will continue to be included, provided they continue to meet all other index inclusion requirements.

- MSCI will not implement increases to the Number of Shares (NOS), Foreign Inclusion Factor (FIF) or Domestic Inclusion Factor (DIF) for these securities.

- MSCI will defer any additions or size-segment migrations for all securities included in the preliminary list.

- MSCI may update the preliminary list as necessary to reflect relevant changes in company disclosures related to digital asset holdings.

THIS IS AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE MSCI GLOBAL STANDARD INDEXES

                                     End of announcement.
                                     Further announcements may occur as needed.

Source

This is quite unexpected news, and I was more keen on expecting the opposite outcome.
That’s better for Strategy shareholders. Bitcoin unaffected.

[Mr_Brilliant$]

A decent number of the bearwhales likely were able to see quite a bit of potential froth in the market with so many (questionably failing) companies going to bitcoin with a one-way bet... Preparing for BTC to go up, yet perhaps not much of a plan in the event that the BTC price were to go sideways or down... .. So then there seems to have had been opportunities to flush out some of the leverage - which so many of us likely to caution the use of leverage - especially if you don't have enough of an income to service the debt on the leverage.

Well, on this point precisely, I believe that Strategy has prepared itself for potential bear markets; it is the best prepared for this despite Saylor being a bull. The problem lies with many other companies, which also lack sufficient cash flow because they are businesses in decline. Strategy does not have cash flow per se (that of the BI software part is negligible in this regard), but it does have the most access to liquidity by far compared to the others selling their products (shares and preferreds).

Another thing is that there are aspects of the business model that I think they are detrimental. I don't quite understand Saylor's obsession with ATMing the common stock down to 1 mNAV, contradicting what he said six months ago.

Strategy looks just more ready for a bear market than most of these other companies. A lot of them are already on life support because their businesses are dying, while Strategy at least has huge access to liquidity… Even if the BI side is not doing much, the ability to tap markets through shares gives them way more breathing room.

And watching the common stock get pushed down toward 1 mNAV after he was saying something different months ago  is not just okay to me, feel like the something changed.

[Ambatman]

MSCI dropped the bomb: Strategy won’t be removed from their indexes:

- MSCI will not implement increases to the Number of Shares (NOS), Foreign Inclusion Factor (FIF) or Domestic Inclusion Factor (DIF) for these securities.

This is quite unexpected news, and I was more keen on expecting the opposite outcome.
That’s better for Strategy shareholders. Bitcoin unaffected.

This look Good on paper but it's not because of the section I bolded
One of strategy source of financing is equity, issuing shares
And this kills the major  benefit from an MSCI inclusion i.e the forced buying loop for issued shares.
So when MSTR issue new shares index funds do not need to buy any additional shares.

[Free Market Capitalist]

MSCI dropped the bomb: Strategy won’t be removed from their indexes:

- MSCI will not implement increases to the Number of Shares (NOS), Foreign Inclusion Factor (FIF) or Domestic Inclusion Factor (DIF) for these securities.

This is quite unexpected news, and I was more keen on expecting the opposite outcome.
That’s better for Strategy shareholders. Bitcoin unaffected.

This look Good on paper but it's not because of the section I bolded
One of strategy source of financing is equity, issuing shares
And this kills the major  benefit from an MSCI inclusion i.e the forced buying loop for issued shares.
So when MSTR issue new shares index funds do not need to buy any additional shares.

Exactly. This greatly limits the liquidity they will be able to obtain through ATMs, as MSCI indices will not buy those shares. It remains to be seen whether indices such as the Nasdaq 100 will follow the same criteria in the future. So, while this is good news in principle because it allows Bitcoin Treasury Companies to be included in the index, it limits their main source of liquidity, which is not as good news as it might seem at first glance, but many people have only read the headline.

[KawasakiNinja1_]

List of Top 21 Bitcoin Holders in 2025

The truth is that we all know that this company is buying Bitcoins in a systematic manner and that they are at the top. Anyway, Michael Saylor's company is in second place in the list of top 21 Bitcoin holders in 2025, and this list shows that the mysterious creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi, is at the top.

It is also mentioned here how many Bitcoins a person or company owns and what percentage of the total Bitcoin supply they own. We can see here that the total Bitcoins of the Strategy as of 2025 were about 672k and they own 3.20% of the total Bitcoin supply, I think this company has reached such heights due to buying Bitcoin on a regular basis with great dedication.

$40 billion worth of bitcoin.

That's how much the 21 largest holders accumulated in 2025.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

[tiCeR]

List of Top 21 Bitcoin Holders in 2025

...

As if this list could ever be correct. Yes Satoshi is roughly correct I guess although I remember these are just estimations based on mining behaviour and wallet connections in the early days if I recall correctly. Strategy is correct because they have to publish it. Same counts for some others on the list.

When I read China 15k, there is no way anyone could verify that number. What about Russia, not even 12k? Or for instance, other countries that have an incentive to circumvent sanctions.

I strongly believe that there are big players who have, for a good reason, anonymously accumulated BTC for a long time. Accumulating 12k+ BTC was and is peanuts for many countries that have a strong incentive to do exactly that.

[Ambatman]

I just found out today that Strategy has a merch shore
Where they sell physical products like the type Saylor wears in his Ai generated image
And surprisingly they don't accept Bitcoin.
It's like they see Bitcoin as Gold and not a medium of exchange.
You can check it out here https://x.com/Pledditor/status/2009622533918912795?t=Wz48W_JZiEy2820jOat3AA&s=09

[fillippone]

MSCI dropped the bomb: Strategy won’t be removed from their indexes:

- MSCI will not implement increases to the Number of Shares (NOS), Foreign Inclusion Factor (FIF) or Domestic Inclusion Factor (DIF) for these securities.

This is quite unexpected news, and I was more keen on expecting the opposite outcome.
That’s better for Strategy shareholders. Bitcoin unaffected.

This look Good on paper but it's not because of the section I bolded
One of strategy source of financing is equity, issuing shares
And this kills the major  benefit from an MSCI inclusion i.e the forced buying loop for issued shares.
So when MSTR issue new shares index funds do not need to buy any additional shares.

Exactly. This greatly limits the liquidity they will be able to obtain through ATMs, as MSCI indices will not buy those shares. It remains to be seen whether indices such as the Nasdaq 100 will follow the same criteria in the future. So, while this is good news in principle because it allows Bitcoin Treasury Companies to be included in the index, it limits their main source of liquidity, which is not as good news as it might seem at first glance, but many people have only read the headline.

I think this has a slightly different meaning.
This means that the number of shares included in the index cannot improve .i.e., the weight of Strategy in the index cannot improve, even if, due to a price rise, Strategy's weight grows in terms of market capitalisation.

[Ambatman]

I think this has a slightly different meaning.
This means that the number of shares included in the index cannot improve .i.e., the weight of Strategy in the index cannot improve, even if, due to a price rise, Strategy's weight grows in terms of market capitalisation.

I think we all saying same thing.
The biggest advantage such inclusion usually give is force buying
If Strategy issues shares MSCI won't increase it since its fixed
The only thing that is variable is the price
So if the price increases then the weight would.

If I'm not mistaken weight is the product of NOS, current price and FIF divided by the total marketcap of all index
So yeah price is a factor
But the other multiplier under this law is neglected.



Well it's better than been excluded and they never said it was permanent

For the time being, the current index treatment of DATCOs

[IjawMan]

MSCI dropped the bomb: Strategy won’t be removed from their indexes:

STANDARD ANNOUNCEMENTS - January 06, 2026 at 09:10 PM GMT
Announcement for January 06, 2026 at 09:10 PM GMT

THIS IS AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE MSCI GLOBAL STANDARD INDEXES

MSCI ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE TREATMENT OF DIGITAL ASSET TREASURY COMPANIES

MSCI has determined at this time not to implement the proposal to exclude digital asset treasury companies ("DATCOs") from the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes ("MSCI Indexes") as part of the February 2026 Index Review. However, MSCI intends to open a broader consultation on the treatment of non-operating companies generally. This broader review is intended to ensure consistency and continued alignment with the overall objectives of the MSCI Indexes, which seek to measure the performance of operating companies and exclude entities whose primary activities are investment-oriented in nature.

Feedback from the consultation confirmed institutional investor concern that some DATCOs exhibit characteristics similar to investment funds, which are not eligible for inclusion in the MSCI Indexes. Feedback also highlighted that DATCOs may represent a subset of a wider group of entities whose business activities are predominantly investment-oriented rather than operational.

Distinguishing between investment companies and other companies that hold non-operating assets, such as digital assets, as part of their core operations rather than for investment purposes requires further research and consultation with market participants. For instance, assessing index eligibility across a range of these types of entities may require additional inclusion assessment criteria, such as financial-statement-based or other indicators.

For the time being, the current index treatment of DATCOs identified in the preliminary list published by MSCI of companies whose digital asset holdings represent 50% or more of their total assets will remain unchanged:

- DATCOs currently included in MSCI Indexes will continue to be included, provided they continue to meet all other index inclusion requirements.

- MSCI will not implement increases to the Number of Shares (NOS), Foreign Inclusion Factor (FIF) or Domestic Inclusion Factor (DIF) for these securities.

- MSCI will defer any additions or size-segment migrations for all securities included in the preliminary list.

- MSCI may update the preliminary list as necessary to reflect relevant changes in company disclosures related to digital asset holdings.

THIS IS AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE MSCI GLOBAL STANDARD INDEXES

                                     End of announcement.
                                     Further announcements may occur as needed.

Source

This is quite unexpected news, and I was more keen on expecting the opposite outcome.
That’s better for Strategy shareholders. Bitcoin unaffected.

Good the decision did not make it into the opposite outcome. Much as it would have affected Strategy shareholders, causing a forced liquidation of position which in a response loop would have impacted on bitcoin price negatively with a short term price-crash...

MSCI position as announced has no doubt eliminated all apprehensions that could have deterred more institutions from increasing their strategic holdings of bitcoin in the future.