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

[Free Market Capitalist]

And here I thought volatility was a feature and not a bug

Lol

MSTR should be the one there not STRC

Yes, that's the point. MSTR should be the asset in that comparison; if he wants to compare STRC, he should compare it to Treasury bills, government bonds, corporate debt, money market funds, and the like.

No purchases this week for Strategy!

...

We already knew STRC was going to hit a weak week:

...

But this means that Strategy didn't sell a single stock through their ATM program? Or that the same very program has been halted because of the improved 21b+21b offering?

I am not sure but I don't expect purchases this week either since they don't usually make purchases during the last week of the quarter. Unless they considered the previous week to be the closing week.

[JayJuanGee]

Michael Saylor
The chart above was shared from Michael Saylor's Official X showing 30-day volatility with Bitcoin showing a high of 50% and STRC showing a low of 2%. Volatility basically refers to the risk of an investment, where the higher the volatility percentage, the greater the risk from that investment, and although the profit or loss is also higher with the risk. From this perspective, when examining 30-day volatility, Bitcoin's volatility has been the highest due to the Iran and Israel-America joint wars, but Michael Saylor's STRC has surprisingly become the least risky asset.

That’s just another one of Saylor’s usual load of nonsense that you guys swallow whole without thinking. He’s comparing apples to oranges.
An asset with a relatively stable price that pays a dividend should be compared to fixed income, not that garbage comparison.

What he needs to explain is how, after nearly six years of buying Bitcoin, he’s paying an 11.5% dividend when he has a negative return on his Bitcoin purchases—which are supposed to be the basis for paying it.

Isn't the rationale of the differing MSTR products implied with some of their communications about the underlying BTC's performance, and the different MSTR products complement one another?

In other words, it seems to me that the different MSTR products do not necessarily stand on their own, and MSTR/Saylor have already largely suggested this as a rationale for the varying products, meaning that STRC can pay the 11.5% dividend (yield) and still be profitable in the whole scheme of things, so long as the overall average for bitcoin's performance ends up being greater than 11.5% over several years (such as over 4 years or more).. So, Saylor believes that he is being prudent to wait out the long term, even though the short term may well have some downward periods that will just play out over 4-ish years or more.

So in that sense, MSTR/Saylor believes that he is being reasonably conservative in his estimate of profitability for all of the MSTR products and their combination of performance since the overall average of bitcoin's returns had been more than 2x over the 10-ish years prior to MSTR/Saylor getting into bitcoin (so looking at 2010-ish to 2020-ish).  

Of course, we know that some of Saylor's earlier projections (such as those he was making into 2021) were that those greater BTC returns (such as 2x-ish annualized ) would continue into the future, yet he was largely recognizing that he was not correct to continue to project greater than 2x on an annualized basis into the future, so in recent times, perhaps since 2023 or so, Saylor started to admit that 2x was not sustainable forever,  and he started to project that BTC returns would continue to gravitate downwardly into the future as he had noticed (or realized?) that the bitcoin returns had been ongoingly gravitating downwardly.

Nonetheless, Saylor was still projecting BTC returns to be higher in near future times (such as greater than 50%), but then to gravitate down to 30%-ish annualized and perhaps not go below 30% annualized until 5-10 years or more into the future.. and yeah during these downward price periods, MSTR/Saylor projections seem pie in the sky optimistic.. yet his suggestion would be that all of the products will end up working themselves out over 4 year plus timelines.  

Sure. Maybe Saylor is not explaining properly?  I am not sure, even though I have been tentatively thinking that his overall message has been implied, and the various ride or die investors are on-board with Saylor/MSTR in regards to the overall picture of the underlying BTC going up, even though surely part of the reason that Saylor/MSTR have been able to ongoingly raise good money is based on a certain level of ongoing confidence that investors have in regards to everything working themselves out and the underlying asset (BTC) being able to recover over longer periods, especially 4 years or more (even though surely some of the investors in the non-STRC products got greatly hammered by the mostly downward trajectory in the non-STRC products since early 2025).  

[nikola22]

Stretch Dividend Rate maintained at 11.50% for April 2026. so we may see some big purchases during April.



https://x.com/saylor/status/2039130658555990512

[Ambatman]

Isn't the rationale of the differing MSTR products implied with some of their communications about the underlying BTC's performance, and the different MSTR products complement one another?

In other words, it seems to me that the different MSTR products do not necessarily stand on their own, and MSTR/Saylor have already largely suggested this as a rationale for the varying products, meaning that STRC can pay the 11.5% dividend (yield) and still be profitable in the whole scheme of things, so long as the overall average for bitcoin's performance ends up being greater than 11.5% over several years (such as over 4 years or more).. So, Saylor believes that he is being prudent to wait out the long term, even though the short term may well have some downward periods that will just play out over 4-ish years or more.

Well i would like to add that the 11.5% isn't a fixed rate
It changes to keep STRC trading near $100
Rate reduced when demand is high
And increased when it is low.

Average doesn't mean much if the sequence are scattered
Say
First year  -30%
Second year +80
Third yeart -20%
Fourth year +90%

Even if the average seems good, most investors are moved by short term changes
And may impact their ability to generate capital hence why STRC isn't fixed (though if not properly managed it would cost them more)
I believe one of the thing that might help is that
they have cash reserve to cover dividends payout during poor performance.

[Free Market Capitalist]

In other words, it seems to me that the different MSTR products do not necessarily stand on their own, and MSTR/Saylor have already largely suggested this as a rationale for the varying products, meaning that STRC can pay the 11.5% dividend (yield) and still be profitable in the whole scheme of things, so long as the overall average for bitcoin's performance ends up being greater than 11.5% over several years (such as over 4 years or more)..

I'm surprised you'd say that, because as I've said many times throughout this thread, the main problem with Saylor's strategy is that he doesn't capture Bitcoin's full potential return on his purchases; since he buys a lot when the price goes up and little or nothing when it goes down, his returns are much lower.

I’ll say it again: right now, Bitcoin has had a total return of 16% over the last 5 years, which works out to a 3% CAGR. Has Saylor earned 16% on his Bitcoin purchases? No. He has unrealized losses on his purchases; he has a negative return.

If even you don’t understand or don’t remember that, I’m not surprised that Saylor finds so many unsuspecting people who buy his products.

So, Saylor believes that he is being prudent to wait out the long term, even though the short term may well have some downward periods that will just play out over 4-ish years or more.

Rather than being cautious, the truth is that he based his model on a radical hypothesis, and when the numbers disprove it, instead of revising the hypothesis, he just keeps charging ahead. It’s quite reminiscent of PlanB and his S2F model, which, when it started to fail, instead of acknowledging he’d been wrong, he kept reformulating it and kept getting it wrong non-stop. At least PlanB wasn’t playing with billions of other people’s money.

Nonetheless, Saylor was still projecting BTC returns to be higher in near future times (such as greater than 50%), but then to gravitate down to 30%-ish annualized and perhaps not go below 30% annualized until 5-10 years or more into the future.. and yeah during these downward price periods, MSTR/Saylor projections seem pie in the sky optimistic.. yet his suggestion would be that all of the products will end up working themselves out over 4 year plus timelines.  

Yes, but here’s the thing. Until relatively recently, Saylor had been saying that Bitcoin had been growing at a 50% CAGR over the past five years. Now that it’s been growing at just a 3% CAGR over the past five years, you don’t hear him mention it anymore. The last 5 years of Bitcoin’s 17-year history account for 30% of that time—a very significant period.

[JayJuanGee]

In other words, it seems to me that the different MSTR products do not necessarily stand on their own, and MSTR/Saylor have already largely suggested this as a rationale for the varying products, meaning that STRC can pay the 11.5% dividend (yield) and still be profitable in the whole scheme of things, so long as the overall average for bitcoin's performance ends up being greater than 11.5% over several years (such as over 4 years or more)..

I'm surprised you'd say that, because as I've said many times throughout this thread, the main problem with Saylor's strategy is that he doesn't capture Bitcoin's full potential return on his purchases; since he buys a lot when the price goes up and little or nothing when it goes down, his returns are much lower.

Saylor is just buying all of the time - whenever he has money, and coincidentally more money comes in when the price is going up.

And, maybe he is just overly bullish in his perspective, so he cannot help to continue to buy.  He might be broken in some ways.

I’ll say it again: right now, Bitcoin has had a total return of 16% over the last 5 years, which works out to a 3% CAGR.

One of the reasons that I like to measure from the 200-WMA is in order to not get overly selective based on spot prices...  Sure, spot prices are real, but the 200-WMA smoothens out the irregularities. 

In the past 5 years, the 200-WMA went from $10,650 to $59,350.    That is 5.5x over 5 years.  Pretty damned good.  That is a 41% CAGR for the 200-WMA.

Here's what the Excel spreadsheet input looks like for a 41% CAGR on the 200-WMA:

2021                  $10,650.00
2022                  $15,016.50
2023                  $21,173.27
2024                  $29,854.30
2025                  $42,094.57
2026                  $59,353.34
2027                  $83,688.21

Has Saylor earned 16% on his Bitcoin purchases? No. He has unrealized losses on his purchases; he has a negative return.

As a company they have gone from mediocre wealth (like half a billion) to many many billions (more than $50 billion) and not too many encumbrances, relatively speaking..

If even you don’t understand or don’t remember that, I’m not surprised that Saylor finds so many unsuspecting people who buy his products.

Sure there is retail and there are also institutions and some products that seem to be meeting a demand that is not being met in the current market that MSTR is fulfilling with its various productss.

And, yeah, I don't claim to understand.  That's for sure.

So, Saylor believes that he is being prudent to wait out the long term, even though the short term may well have some downward periods that will just play out over 4-ish years or more.

Rather than being cautious, the truth is that he based his model on a radical hypothesis, and when the numbers disprove it, instead of revising the hypothesis, he just keeps charging ahead. It’s quite reminiscent of PlanB and his S2F model, which, when it started to fail, instead of acknowledging he’d been wrong, he kept reformulating it and kept getting it wrong non-stop. At least PlanB wasn’t playing with billions of other people’s money.

Saylor is still considered to be an innovator in regards to his investment into bitcoin and the various financial products, and sure, he might be off with his theories and he might be a bit too bullish.

I am not going to proclaim that he is being disinqenuine, even though I liked him better in the earlier times, and he seems to be pumping the various financial products in the past year and a half or so, and even seeming to be getting further and further away from the peer to peer attribute of bitcoin that brings power to bitcoin... so I have some things that irritate me about him, too.
 

Nonetheless, Saylor was still projecting BTC returns to be higher in near future times (such as greater than 50%), but then to gravitate down to 30%-ish annualized and perhaps not go below 30% annualized until 5-10 years or more into the future.. and yeah during these downward price periods, MSTR/Saylor projections seem pie in the sky optimistic.. yet his suggestion would be that all of the products will end up working themselves out over 4 year plus timelines.  

Yes, but here’s the thing. Until relatively recently, Saylor had been saying that Bitcoin had been growing at a 50% CAGR over the past five years. Now that it’s been growing at just a 3% CAGR over the past five years, you don’t hear him mention it anymore. The last 5 years of Bitcoin’s 17-year history account for 30% of that time—a very significant period.

I understand the putting a favorable spin angle.. so I wouldn't really dispute you about any of his spinning nature and even avoiding some of the unfavorable facts.

[Ambatman]

I’ll say it again: right now, Bitcoin has had a total return of 16% over the last 5 years, which works out to a 3% CAGR. Has Saylor earned 16% on his Bitcoin purchases? No. He has unrealized losses on his purchases; he has a negative return.

The biggest impact of them going treasury isn't what they have gained from holding Bitcoin alone
But the impact it has had on their shares.
Compare the performance MSTR and Bitcoin 2021 you can tell the share has an higher net positive.


And sitting at an unrealised loss, it's because he doesn't have to time the market
He just buys
He isn't trading and isn't looking for the best price
Just capital.
Buying at the range above $100K did increase their average cost price
It's like saying they should have stopped buying when average cost was $50K.


Like we normally say it's either Saylor becomes a visionary or a fool who couldn't weigh his risk
If Bitcoin was above $100K I doubt he would have much scrutiny
But sadly life isn't fairy tale
Things are not always positive
Let's watch and see how they pass this stage
Meanwhile Twenty one or something treasury company
Has an average of $100K+ in cost.

[Donneski]

I’ll say it again: right now, Bitcoin has had a total return of 16% over the last 5 years, which works out to a 3% CAGR. Has Saylor earned 16% on his Bitcoin purchases? No. He has unrealized losses on his purchases; he has a negative return.

The biggest impact of them going treasury isn't what they have gained from holding Bitcoin alone
But the impact it has had on their shares.
Compare the performance MSTR and Bitcoin 2021 you can tell the share has an higher net positive.


And sitting at an unrealised profit, it's because he doesn't have to time the market
He just buys
He isn't trading and isn't looking for the best price
Just capital.
Buying at the range above $100K did increase their average cost price
It's like saying they should have stopped buying when average cost was $50K.


Like we normally say it's either Saylor becomes a visionary or a fool who couldn't weigh his risk
If Bitcoin was above $100K I doubt he would have much scrutiny
But sadly life isn't fairy tale
Things are not always positive
Let's watch and see how they pass this stage
Meanwhile Twenty one or something treasury company
Has an average of $100K+ in cost.

A lot of people are already judging Saylor's MSTR even when it's still very much early. It's important to understand that Saylor isn't even timing the market that's why he's always buying regardless of the market sentiments so it's unfair or will I say too early for anyone to think that unrealised losses means failure.
Just like you said, Saylor could end up becoming the most visionary Bitcoiner or someone who totally miscalculated risk. For now, we're yet to ascertain where to place him because there's still a lot to come. Taking such risks and making Bitcoin more globalised should be commended. I don't want to be too certain but from what I've gathered about the market recently, I think he'll end up becoming a visionary hero.

[Free Market Capitalist]

One of the reasons that I like to measure from the 200-WMA is in order to not get overly selective based on spot prices...  Sure, spot prices are real, but the 200-WMA smoothens out the irregularities. 

In the past 5 years, the 200-WMA went from $10,650 to $59,350.    That is 5.5x over 5 years.  Pretty damned good.  That is a 41% CAGR for the 200-WMA.

Here's what the Excel spreadsheet input looks like for a 41% CAGR on the 200-WMA:

2021                  $10,650.00
2022                  $15,016.50
2023                  $21,173.27
2024                  $29,854.30
2025                  $42,094.57
2026                  $59,353.34
2027                  $83,688.21

I'm not sure why you're using the 200-WMA, which is supposed to help identify trends. What I mean is this.



A 17.5% return over the past 5 years works out to just over a 3% CAGR.

But if you like, you can compare that 200-day moving average with the 200-day moving average of the S&P 500 or gold, and you’ll see that Bitcoin’s CAGR is very poor compared to those of these two assets.

As a company they have gone from mediocre wealth (like half a billion) to many many billions (more than $50 billion) and not too many encumbrances, relatively speaking..

They did the same 26 years ago.

Saylor is still considered to be an innovator in regards to his investment into bitcoin and the various financial products, and sure, he might be off with his theories and he might be a bit too bullish.

I am not going to proclaim that he is being disinqenuine, even though I liked him better in the earlier times, and he seems to be pumping the various financial products in the past year and a half or so, and even seeming to be getting further and further away from the peer to peer attribute of bitcoin that brings power to bitcoin... so I have some things that irritate me about him, too.

The problem arises when you base your new products on numbers that don't hold up.

The biggest impact of them going treasury isn't what they have gained from holding Bitcoin alone
But the impact it has had on their shares.
Compare the performance MSTR and Bitcoin 2021 you can tell the share has an higher net positive.

Yes but the problem is the trend.

And sitting at an unrealised profit, it's because he doesn't have to time the market

Wrong, he is at an unrealized loss.

If Bitcoin was above $100K I doubt he would have much scrutiny

If it were over $100K, he would certainly still be under scrutiny, since he wouldn't have a 30% return his Bitcoin stash.

[JayJuanGee]

One of the reasons that I like to measure from the 200-WMA is in order to not get overly selective based on spot prices...  Sure, spot prices are real, but the 200-WMA smoothens out the irregularities. 

In the past 5 years, the 200-WMA went from $10,650 to $59,350.    That is 5.5x over 5 years.  Pretty damned good.  That is a 41% CAGR for the 200-WMA.

Here's what the Excel spreadsheet input looks like for a 41% CAGR on the 200-WMA:

2021                  $10,650.00
2022                  $15,016.50
2023                  $21,173.27
2024                  $29,854.30
2025                  $42,094.57
2026                  $59,353.34
2027                  $83,688.21

I'm not sure why you're using the 200-WMA, which is supposed to help identify trends. What I mean is this.

A 17.5% return over the past 5 years works out to just over a 3% CAGR.

I personally believe that it is better to use long term averages such as the 200-WMA in order to valuate holdings and to make decisions in regards to what to do. Spot prices tend to be all over the place, even though sure, at any particular time if we are buying or selling we are using spot price at that particular moment - yet Saylor/MSTR proclaim that they are never selling (absent getting forced into having to do so), so there can be various ways to valuate holdings and even project forward such valuations.

But if you like, you can compare that 200-day moving average with the 200-day moving average of the S&P 500 or gold, and you’ll see that Bitcoin’s CAGR is very poor compared to those of these two assets.

Why would I use such a short time period, when I already pointed out the 200-WMA order to make a longer term proclamation in a way to valuate BTC holdings?  200-day is similar to the 30 Week moving average.. it is way too short to get any meaning, since it is only half of a year.  The 200-WMA is a 4 year weekly average, and Bitcoin has 4 year cycles. Sure we can proclaim that the 4-year cycles has been disappearing or becoming less important, yet at the same time, the longer moving averages make more sense to me.. and likely longer-term moving averages motivate Saylor/MSTR too.

As a company they have gone from mediocre wealth (like half a billion) to many many billions (more than $50 billion) and not too many encumbrances, relatively speaking..

They did the same 26 years ago.

Huh?  Times have changed. I don't see what is so relevant about 26 years ago.  You are wanting to suggest that they are going to repeat in their same mistakes, but instead with bitcoin this time around?  Sure, it is possible, but we are also dealing with some different current dynamics and a different asset (namely bitcoin) even though we have  lot of conflicting macro factors in current times, including trying to figure out the extent to which bitcoin might be able to stand up - even considering that some of the financial systems being built up around bitcoin are variations of cooptation attacks, whether Saylor/MSTR is an insider or an outsider, there can be various winners and or losers when systems are evolving, and we have some macro level changes that seem to be taking place.

Saylor is still considered to be an innovator in regards to his investment into bitcoin and the various financial products, and sure, he might be off with his theories and he might be a bit too bullish.

I am not going to proclaim that he is being disinqenuine, even though I liked him better in the earlier times, and he seems to be pumping the various financial products in the past year and a half or so, and even seeming to be getting further and further away from the peer to peer attribute of bitcoin that brings power to bitcoin... so I have some things that irritate me about him, too.

The problem arises when you base your new products on numbers that don't hold up.

Hard for me to believe that I might be considered as defending Saylor/MSTR here, even though one of my main points was to attempt to provide a framework for long term evaluation, even if the long term values might not end up working out.  We know that the future is tough to figure out and yeah, sure it is possible that Saylor/MSTR might have had been putting too many chips on their point of view, and even with his continuing to make plays and/or to double down, he could be getting himself into trouble that is similar to his past gambling behaviors, to the extent that he might not have had learned lessons from previously (given the scenario of history repeating itself in regards to Saylor and his company).

In the meantime, Saylor/MSTR have been (and likely will continue) to get rich in the process with the stacking up of assets (namely bitcoin) using other people's money.

So maybe each of us is concerned about some of the seeming injustices that involve using seemingly gullible people to continue to invest in MSTR and the various MSTR bitcoin-related financial products, yet do either of us proclaim that Saylor/MSTR's conduct rises to a high enough level to be actionable (such as in a court of law?)..   It may well not be quite at those levels, yet.. or at least based on what either you and/or I have been saying in regards to material representations (or misrepresentations) that Saylor/MSTR have been making.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that Saylor/MSTR have been making material misrepresentations that rise to the level of legally actionable? 

Of course, we don't have to have legally actionable in order to complain about what they are doing and/or to convince others to not get involved with Saylor/MSTR products - even though surely those products could still work out as either trades or as investments... including that some folks might consider their position to be in the 1% to 10% territories as being responsible hedges, and other guys might be willing to go outside of those ranges.  I surely have not bought any of those products yet, even though getting a 11.5% could be pretty attractive way of generating cash if a guy might not be worried about being able to get in and out of such a product.  Those level of returns attract capital, even though I understand that Ponzi schemes tend to employ the same kinds of large return tactics to attract capital.

[bitmover]

A 17.5% return over the past 5 years works out to just over a 3% CAGR.

But if you like, you can compare that 200-day moving average with the 200-day moving average of the S&P 500 or gold, and you’ll see that Bitcoin’s CAGR is very poor compared to those of these two assets.

I agree that in the last 5 years bitcoin performance is very poor, specially compared to sp500 and gold

But if you take a look at 10years, you will find a very different performance.

But I get your point and I am also thinking about it: maybe bitcoin performance will be worse in the future. Maybe in a few cycle we wont even reach past  cycle ATH.  Imagine that.

I think I have too much btc now, and I am considering relocating a big portion of my stash to gold and sp500 if we reach 100k again in the next 2 years.

[Ambatman]

Wrong, he is at an unrealized loss.

Sigh
I believe it's obvious it was a mistake /typo on my part since the following statement backs them being at loss.
And is quite a common knowledge they are in the negative.

If it were over $100K, he would certainly still be under scrutiny, since he wouldn't have a 30% return his Bitcoin stash.

Their average price is around $75,694 if I'm not mistaken
And 30% increase is just $98,402
So I believe it's higher than 30% if it was above $100K.

I agree that in the last 5 years bitcoin performance is very poor, specially compared to sp500 and gold

I believe it's quite one sided if we comparing Bitcoin Bull then with its Bear now.
Compare Bitcoin price of 2022 closing with now and even in such Red it's still positive.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I personally believe that it is better to use long term averages such as the 200-WMA in order to valuate holdings and to make decisions in regards to what to do. Spot prices tend to be all over the place, even though sure, at any particular time if we are buying or selling we are using spot price at that particular moment - yet Saylor/MSTR proclaim that they are never selling (absent getting forced into having to do so), so there can be various ways to valuate holdings and even project forward such valuations.

I don't believe that because that system will always yield a higher return on more volatile assets like Bitcoin, and besides, it's not the standard way to calculate CAGR. When I search on Google, the first result that comes up is the following answer, based on this article:



https://www.bajajfinserv.in/investments/annualised-return

In other words, the way I calculate it.

Why would I use such a short time period, when I already pointed out the 200-WMA order to make a longer term proclamation in a way to valuate BTC holdings?  200-day is similar to the 30 Week moving average.. it is way too short to get any meaning, since it is only half of a year.  The 200-WMA is a 4 year weekly average, and Bitcoin has 4 year cycles. Sure we can proclaim that the 4-year cycles has been disappearing or becoming less important, yet at the same time, the longer moving averages make more sense to me.. and likely longer-term moving averages motivate Saylor/MSTR too.

That was a typo on my behalf. I meant 200 WMA. But I take that back; given that the 200-WMA calculation favors more volatile assets or assigns them a higher, fictitious return.

Huh?  Times have changed. I don't see what is so relevant about 26 years ago.  You are wanting to suggest that they are going to repeat in their same mistakes, but instead with bitcoin this time around?  Sure, it is possible, but we are also dealing with some different current dynamics and a different asset (namely bitcoin) even though we have  lot of conflicting macro factors in current times, including trying to figure out the extent to which bitcoin might be able to stand up - even considering that some of the financial systems being built up around bitcoin are variations of cooptation attacks, whether Saylor/MSTR is an insider or an outsider, there can be various winners and or losers when systems are evolving, and we have some macro level changes that seem to be taking place.

Times haven't changed that much—Saylor jumped on the dot-com bandwagon and now he's jumped on the Bitcoin bandwagon. If you add to that the fact that he had to restate his financials and pay $8 million to avoid going to jail, it's not unreasonable to think he's being a bit creative when he pitches the numbers on his preferred stocks, like STRC.

Hard for me to believe that I might be considered as defending Saylor/MSTR here,

Lol

In the meantime, Saylor/MSTR have been (and likely will continue) to get rich in the process with the stacking up of assets (namely bitcoin) using other people's money.

Yes, Saylor for sure, the problem is for the investors.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that Saylor/MSTR have been making material misrepresentations that rise to the level of legally actionable?  

No. I think he must have been advised by his lawyers. And I don't think there is anything actionable right now, but that’s because in these matters, action is only taken when people actually lose money. However, I’m certain that other regulators wouldn’t allow him to pay that 11.5% dividend based on nothing. Saylor has good connections with this administration.

Their average price is around $75,694 if I'm not mistaken
And 30% increase is just $98,402
So I believe it's higher than 30% if it was above $100K.

When the price of Bitcoin was in the low 100,000s, Strategy wasn't even close to achieving a 30% return on the Bitcoin it had purchased through its reverse DCA strategy.

I agree that in the last 5 years bitcoin performance is very poor, specially compared to sp500 and gold

But if you take a look at 10years, you will find a very different performance.

And if we compare Bitcoin’s 17-year history, it still comes out better. What I'm focusing on here is the trend.

But I get your point and I am also thinking about it: maybe bitcoin performance will be worse in the future. Maybe in a few cycle we wont even reach past  cycle ATH.  Imagine that.

What I believe is that Bitcoin has reached a point—as happens with any successful asset—where, having reached a high price and a large market cap, its returns have started to level off.

So, I don’t think that from now on we’re going to have nothing but bad cycles for Bitcoin, but it is perfectly possible that we’re in for one or two crappy cycles, followed by a good cycle, and maybe another really good one.

But for those of us who hold Bitcoin and manage it using our private keys, this won’t affect us as much as it will someone who has based his products on a specific rate of return for the next 20 years. And in the early years—when the prediction is supposed to hold true the most—at the upper end of the return range (50% according to Saylor), we see a significant gap between the forecast and the actual return.

[JayJuanGee]

I personally believe that it is better to use long term averages such as the 200-WMA in order to valuate holdings and to make decisions in regards to what to do. Spot prices tend to be all over the place, even though sure, at any particular time if we are buying or selling we are using spot price at that particular moment - yet Saylor/MSTR proclaim that they are never selling (absent getting forced into having to do so), so there can be various ways to valuate holdings and even project forward such valuations.

I don't believe that because that system will always yield a higher return on more volatile assets like Bitcoin, and besides, it's not the standard way to calculate CAGR.

Well?  Maybe I am too invested in such system of using the 200-WMA, which it seems that I had been increasingly gravitating towards using such 200-WMA valuations since around 2020 - and I think my gravitation towards the 200-WMA came before 2020, too.

So then I also built up sustainable withdrawal ideas around such 200-WMA, too.. I think that it is a much better way to valuate a bitcoin stash and to attempt to figure out how to navigate through our bitcoin accumulation phase in order to attempt to get to a target that we might consider to be enough or more than enough bitcoin (on a personal level), so then we might go through our maintenance phase prior to either going into some kind of a sustainable withdrawal in cases where we don't want to deplete our principle or liquidation in the event that we might want to deplete our principle.. and so yeah, we may well want to know the difference between having goals of depleting our principle or not, since systems that do not deplete the principle should be able to be followed perpetually, meaning forever and ever and ever...

I have a thread on sustainable withdrawal that goes over both price based sustainable withdrawal and time-based sustainable withdrawal (and from my perspective, the 200-WMA tends to apply more to the time-based sustainable withdrawal)  and @bitmover collaborated with me to create (and adapt from time to time) our time-based sustainable withdrawal guidelines and tool.

When I search on Google, the first result that comes up is the following answer, based on this article:

https://www.bajajfinserv.in/investments/annualised-return
In other words, the way I calculate it.

Sure.  Standard ways of calculating are likely to be more relatable, and perhaps I gravitated towards the 200-WMA because I find it to be more helpful in an attempt to look longer term.. even though the CAGR may well end up performing in similar ways, even though the start date and the end date for measuring will affect the ultimate number and the 200-WMA is constantly rolling using the average trade-weighted BTC price .. which so far has continued to go up..  even though it did get down to as low as 19% (annualized) over the period of our 16-ish months between June 2022 and October 2023 in which the BTC price spent a lot of time at or below the 200-WMA, including spending quite a bit of time in the 30% to 35% below the 200-WMA in early November 2022.

I have some snap shots of 6 month averages of the spot price compared with the 200-WMA on my fuck you status chart (last updated in August 2025).

Why would I use such a short time period, when I already pointed out the 200-WMA order to make a longer term proclamation in a way to valuate BTC holdings?  200-day is similar to the 30 Week moving average.. it is way too short to get any meaning, since it is only half of a year.  The 200-WMA is a 4 year weekly average, and Bitcoin has 4 year cycles. Sure we can proclaim that the 4-year cycles has been disappearing or becoming less important, yet at the same time, the longer moving averages make more sense to me.. and likely longer-term moving averages motivate Saylor/MSTR too.

That was a typo on my behalf. I meant 200 WMA. But I take that back; given that the 200-WMA calculation favors more volatile assets or assigns them a higher, fictitious return.

Not completely fictitious since long term actors may well still be comparing the 200-WMA to the BTC spot price in order to determine what to do (or whether to adjust whatever is already being done), and of course, there can also be some advantages in considering a delayed indicator in order to not necessarily act too rashly and to get some long term sense of the matter that can also be helpful in guiding us in terms of whether we might want to stay on course or to adjust what we are doing or planning to do.

Huh?  Times have changed. I don't see what is so relevant about 26 years ago.  You are wanting to suggest that they are going to repeat in their same mistakes, but instead with bitcoin this time around?  Sure, it is possible, but we are also dealing with some different current dynamics and a different asset (namely bitcoin) even though we have  lot of conflicting macro factors in current times, including trying to figure out the extent to which bitcoin might be able to stand up - even considering that some of the financial systems being built up around bitcoin are variations of cooptation attacks, whether Saylor/MSTR is an insider or an outsider, there can be various winners and or losers when systems are evolving, and we have some macro level changes that seem to be taking place.

Times haven't changed that much—Saylor jumped on the dot-com bandwagon and now he's jumped on the Bitcoin bandwagon.

I agree that he might have a gambling personality problem.  It surely takes all types to affect what is going on in the world, and whatever level of crazy that he might be doing may or may not work out better this time for him (and for the rest of us, too, to the extent that his behaviors have affects on the overall bitcoin market and/or those folks interacting around his various bitcoin derivative products).

If you add to that the fact that he had to restate his financials and pay $8 million to avoid going to jail, it's not unreasonable to think he's being a bit creative when he pitches the numbers on his preferred stocks, like STRC.

Sure.  Rich people can get away with quite a lot, and it probably helps to have good lawyers and have conduct that is in the ambiguous zone... Even if "jail time" is being threatened, a negotiated agreement can alo reflect that the government might not be completely confident that they are going to be able to prevail on the case, and sure, they might have budgetary considerations too, since it does cost the government to prosecute cases, and sometimes there could be press around certain kinds of cases if it gets to the trial stage which tends to be more public than a settlement agreement.  Outcomes of trials tend to create precedent, and settlement agreements tend to create a lot less precedent... not that governments do not change precedent from time to time too - meaning that they don't always follow precedent.

Hard for me to believe that I might be considered as defending Saylor/MSTR here,

Lol

In the meantime, Saylor/MSTR have been (and likely will continue) to get rich in the process with the stacking up of assets (namely bitcoin) using other people's money.

Yes, Saylor for sure, the problem is for the investors.

They are BIG boys and girls, and yeah sure, sometimes adults get tricked.. yet are you wanting to say that there is anything legally actionable about Saylor's/MSTR's behaviors.  I am inclined to notice that you seem to be getting more and More and MOAR worked up about it.  hahahahahaha.. especially after (or around the time that) you sold whatever MSTR related products (or was it just the stock?) that you were holding (or you were experimenting with?, since you were claiming it was a "small" amount).
 

Or perhaps you are suggesting that Saylor/MSTR have been making material misrepresentations that rise to the level of legally actionable?  

No. I think he must have been advised by his lawyers. And I don't think there is anything actionable right now, but that’s because in these matters, action is only taken when people actually lose money. However, I’m certain that other regulators wouldn’t allow him to pay that 11.5% dividend based on nothing. Saylor has good connections with this administration.

Sure.. Those are reasonable points, since there a variety of factors, and I am not claiming to know all of the areas the law.. Many times bad intentions or deception has to be shown in many legal contexts, even though from time to time, there can be some violations that would be strict liability in which no bad intent is needed to be shown... and so even if he might cross over lines from time to time, there may well need to be a certain extreme level of egregiousness and clarity of a violation for prosecutors to want to pursue anything, and even if investors were to want to bring class action suits, there would need to be some arguable abilities to proclaim likeliness of success or colorable claims - otherwise the attorneys bringing such suits might get accused of bringing frivolous lawsuits, and I imagine that Saylor/Strategy has pretty decent counsel, they are used to defending various lawsuits and they also have likely been proactive in their research since they have been (and continue to be) bringing innovative products.. and even proclaiming that their products are innovative and that there are some unknowns, even though surely sometimes Saylor is a bit outrageous in his bitcoin claims (even contradictory, sometimes), so maybe he can claim bitcoin is going to perform stupendously,^** while at the same time, not to necessarily proclaiming anything about his products, so then his products are inferred to be connected, but still not guaranteed.

**It maybe goes without saying (even though I am going to say it) that there is a difference (in legal culpability) in making claims about the expected performance (or non-performance) of a commodity, such as bitcoin, as compared to making claims about expected performance of products that he is offering.
 

Their average price is around $75,694 if I'm not mistaken
And 30% increase is just $98,402
So I believe it's higher than 30% if it was above $100K.

When the price of Bitcoin was in the low 100,000s, Strategy wasn't even close to achieving a 30% return on the Bitcoin it had purchased through its reverse DCA strategy.

Yeah but who cares?  He can proclaim what he expects bitcoin to do on average over a long period of time, and bitcoin may or may not do that. So what?  Also, we know that the claim is not even about every year, it is about over a long period of time, and he does not even need to be correct.  People are dumb if they consider Saylor's expectations as guarantees, even if we average out the next 4-6 years and we still see CAGRs way below 30% (what if they are only 3% over the next 6 years.. and that would be 1/10th the claimed amount... so what? Saylor is not bound by his claims about what he expects a commodity, such as bitcoin, to do.).
 

I agree that in the last 5 years bitcoin performance is very poor, specially compared to sp500 and gold
But if you take a look at 10years, you will find a very different performance.

And if we compare Bitcoin’s 17-year history, it still comes out better. What I'm focusing on here is the trend.

So far, Bitcoin's upward price trajectory is less and less and less. I personally don't like to start to measure the bigger impact price performance matters of bitcoin until January 2012.. January 1, 2012 seems like a more or less nice starting date with the 200-WMA and the BTC spot price right around $5... Sure, not exactly, but close enough as a starting point.  $5-ish each.

But I get your point and I am also thinking about it: maybe bitcoin performance will be worse in the future. Maybe in a few cycle we wont even reach past  cycle ATH.  Imagine that.

What I believe is that Bitcoin has reached a point—as happens with any successful asset—where, having reached a high price and a large market cap, its returns have started to level off.

If you think that bitcoin is mature or even close to mature, you are likely to be wrong.... even though you are free to believe whatever you like.  

 

So, I don’t think that from now on we’re going to have nothing but bad cycles for Bitcoin, but it is perfectly possible that we’re in for one or two crappy cycles, followed by a good cycle, and maybe another really good one.

It is true that we have a lot of BIGGER players chiming into the bitcoin battle.. and either trying to break it, tame it or coopt it... so yeah, these current battles can result in uncertainties.. Maybe the bullshit happening in Iran is indirectly related to bitcoin, too?
 

But for those of us who hold Bitcoin and manage it using our private keys, this won’t affect us as much as it will someone who has based his products on a specific rate of return for the next 20 years. And in the early years—when the prediction is supposed to hold true the most—at the upper end of the return range (50% according to Saylor), we see a significant gap between the forecast and the actual return.

What you seem to be implying here seems to be part of the battle in regards to the various paper products that are both corrupting bitcoin prices, yet seem to be inevitably part of any attempt to transition bitcoin or to increase various aspects of its adoption, even though various aspect of the various paper bitcoin products undermine quite a few aspect of what bring power to bitcoin.. .. and at the same time, the various powers that be likely want the powers (and features) of bitcoin for themselves, but they don't want the normies to be able to benefit from self-sovereignty, privacy in transactions and/or any of the various benefits that remain potentials that can come through bitcoin...

The various battles and volatility seem close to inevitable to the extent that internal battles with developers, node runners and miners might also play into the mix whether there is chiming in by governments, financial institutions, or status quo rich folks (and nouveau richie bitcoin folks, too).