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

[Bluedrem]

Some things that Saylor has done recently come off as a bit much, especially since he is contradicting his earlier approach without acknowledging it, and even making mistakes without apologizing and/or recognizing the mistakes (or at least the differing viewpoints on some of his tactics).  He might have had put himself in a worse position based on how public that he has become, so it might be more difficult to not contradict ourselves from time to time.

Yes, you are right that the person who once said that he would not sell his Bitcoin portfolio very easily and that he would continue to buy no matter what the price was and that selling for the second time would really shake the trust of other people who follow Michael Saylor.
It is a bit like the story of the shepherd and the lion where the shepherd deceived the villagers by telling them that he was in danger for the first two days and when he was really in danger on the third day, people no longer believed him.
When Saylor initially said not to sell and to accept more Bitcoin, it was much more acceptable because he had kept his word for so many years but the question is how much people can trust him after this sale.
However, I am not sure if the strategy has actually changed their plans, it could be that they want to monitor the impact of their Bitcoin sale for which they did it and are preparing to make a big purchase later.

[JayJuanGee]

Some things that Saylor has done recently come off as a bit much, especially since he is contradicting his earlier approach without acknowledging it, and even making mistakes without apologizing and/or recognizing the mistakes (or at least the differing viewpoints on some of his tactics).  He might have had put himself in a worse position based on how public that he has become, so it might be more difficult to not contradict ourselves from time to time.

Yes, you are right that the person who once said that he would not sell his Bitcoin portfolio very easily and that he would continue to buy no matter what the price was and that selling for the second time would really shake the trust of other people who follow Michael Saylor.
It is a bit like the story of the shepherd and the lion where the shepherd deceived the villagers by telling them that he was in danger for the first two days and when he was really in danger on the third day, people no longer believed him.
When Saylor initially said not to sell and to accept more Bitcoin, it was much more acceptable because he had kept his word for so many years but the question is how much people can trust him after this sale.
However, I am not sure if the strategy has actually changed their plans, it could be that they want to monitor the impact of their Bitcoin sale for which they did it and are preparing to make a big purchase later.

Saylor/MSTR painted themselves into a corner.

So, yeah, it is too bad that he had been so emphatic about the earlier statements about "never selling."

Once he had made those statements, he needed to figure out a way to address the statements rather than either acting like he had not made them or by proclaiming that he had really said something else, and the public had not understood him properly.

There likely needed to be some acknowledgement and/or maybe an apology.. yet it can be difficult to take such a large shift without some blowback.

So far the sales have not really been very BIG, so the sales really don't matter very much in material terms, even though  they do matter in the absolutist terms that MSTR/Saylor had painted themselves into.

MSTR/Saylor is likely correct in terms of changing their "never sell your bitcoin" position, even though it seems awkward to be selling at price points that they either should be buying or that they should just be holding through the correction.  Yet at the same time, they had put themselves into a position where they do not have a sufficient amount of cash, so that is another way in which they had created their own situation in the various ways that they had been exhausting whatever had been their cash reserves, including but not limited to resolving debt that did not need to be resolved, and buying too many bitcoin. 

Sure, there is no problem to buy some bitcoin on the dip, but they likely should have had been buying in moderation in order to preserve their cash reserves and/or to even build their cash reserves since they had been continuing to generate money (or maybe some of the money that they were generating was just smoke and mirror and they were merely converting various assets so that they could keep up the allusion that they (MSTR) are always buying?).

[Ambatman]

Saylor/MSTR painted themselves into a corner.

So, yeah, it is too bad that he had been so emphatic about the earlier statements about "never selling."

Now looking more like Bitcoin Trading company
Will call it reverse since they buy high and sell low.
Though like you already stated never selling is too childish and something you'd see on a kids story book.

even though it seems awkward to be selling at price points that they either should be buying or that they should just be holding through the correction.

using The US as a case study of a treasury institution
I think if I'm not mistaken they sold some of their gold some years back because things weren't looking good.
Saylor issue to me wasn't selling buy his actions that lead selling to be an option.
Maybe from the mountain he's standing at the sky is pink.

[Alex077]

@JayJuanGee I didn't intentionally leave my quote right next to yours. If that came across the wrong way or bothered you in any way, I apologize.
---------------------
About selling at the highs and buying the dips-I think we need to look at the details. Saylor isn't buying Bitcoin with his existing cash. He sells shares first, raises capital, and only then buys BTC.

MSTR usually rises together with Bitcoin, and sometimes it even outperforms it on the way up. But when the market drops, MSTR also tends to fall harder than Bitcoin. Shareholders would immediately start thinking something is wrong with the company if it’s selling shares while the price is falling.
So I’ll repeat myself a bit: a lot of what Strategy does looks illogical from a Bitcoiner’s point of view, and that’s exactly why Saylor gets criticized. But he has his own corporate logic, and it’s not always clear to the rest of us. That said, I’m not trying to justify his actions at all. I’m just trying to dig into the details and find the logic behind it.
We’ll see how this all ends, but in any case, Strategy is definitely worth watching closely.

[Popkon6]

Strategy Announces Earnings Release Date and Live Video Webinar for Second Quarter 2026 Financial Results

STRF/STRC/STRK/STRD/MSTR; LuxSE: STRE), the largest corporate holder of bitcoin and the world’s first Bitcoin Treasury Company, today announced it will report its financial results for the second quarter of 2026 after the U.S. financial markets close on Thursday, July 30, 2026 and will host a live Video Webinar at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time that day to discuss the results.
Source link: https://www.strategy.com/press/strategy-announces-earnings-release-date-and-live-video-webinar-for-second-quarter-2026-financial-results_07-09-2026

Strategy has announced the date of the company's second-quarter dividend results and it will be shown to everyone in Zoom. There will be various media and TV channels that will show the results of this second quarter all over the world and also a wide broadcast of Bitcoin.
There will be various people present who are top holders of Bitcoin, but it will be published by various channels all over the world and the message of Bitcoin will spread more and more and people's confidence will increase more

[fillippone]

I don’t expect much from this earnings release.
They will show balance in deep red, with some realised losses on their purchases.
Usually, the interesting part is the communication stance they adopt, and I guess they will be on the defensive line this time. They are gathering much negative attention, they must be careful with public sentiment.

[Alex077]

Saylor came up with an  interesting way to reassure investors and showcase what Strategy is capable of. He has launched an open credit model on strategy.com/credit, where anyone can now enter their own assumptions for Bitcoin's price, volatility, and expected return to estimate the company's resilience, credit risk, and a range of other metrics.

In other words, anyone who's still unsure or skeptical can test different scenarios for themselves and see how Strategy's securities perform under various market conditions.
The model is designed to highlight the transparency of Strategy's STRC digital credit product, since its main source of market risk is tied directly to Bitcoin and its underlying metrics.
The tool lets investors model the risks of Strategy's debt and preferred stock, which are backed by a Bitcoin reserve worth more than $52 billion.

According to Saylor, the goal is to make risk assessment as transparent and easy to understand as possible, because in the end, the key variable driving everything is Bitcoin itself.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I don’t expect much from this earnings release.
They will show balance in deep red, with some unrealised losses on their purchases.
Usually, the interesting part is the communication stance they adopt, and I guess they will be on the defensive line this time. They are gathering much negative attention, they must be careful with public sentiment.

I added "un" in bold because I think that's an obvious typo. But yeah, the thing is, you can't base your business model on unrealized gains and then not expect criticism when you have a bunch of unrealized losses instead.

[ultrloa]

I don’t expect much from this earnings release.
They will show balance in deep red, with some realised losses on their purchases.
Usually, the interesting part is the communication stance they adopt, and I guess they will be on the defensive line this time. They are gathering much negative attention, they must be careful with public sentiment.

The numbers they show really looks ugly and somehow everyone following their progress somehow expect this situation to happen. Crucial part is on how they take position on how they explain about those losses, since when they are in heavy scrutiny. The tone of their earning calls seems matter the most rather than actual reds we see.

Well if they came out so defensive, maybe it can ignite fear. But if they try to frame it as somehow losses that they can able to control and those things are just part of their survival strategy. Maybe with this they will not create any bad issue and it can erase those negative sentiments which maybe start to build up.

[Italian Panic]

I don’t expect much from this earnings release.
They will show balance in deep red, with some unrealised losses on their purchases.
Usually, the interesting part is the communication stance they adopt, and I guess they will be on the defensive line this time. They are gathering much negative attention, they must be careful with public sentiment.

I added "un" in bold because I think that's an obvious typo. But yeah, the thing is, you can't base your business model on unrealized gains and then not expect criticism when you have a bunch of unrealized losses instead.

True, but the clever bit is that they pass on unrealised gains to investors because their business model is very fine in this respect. It’s a perpetual appreciation of assets to mask deficits that become structural, and a well engineered asymmetry. When the market is doing well, they privatise the profits, when the market is doing badly, the losses are socialised.

[fillippone]

I don’t expect much from this earnings release.
They will show balance in deep red, with some unrealised losses on their purchases.
Usually, the interesting part is the communication stance they adopt, and I guess they will be on the defensive line this time. They are gathering much negative attention, they must be careful with public sentiment.

I added "un" in bold because I think that's an obvious typo. But yeah, the thing is, you can't base your business model on unrealized gains and then not expect criticism when you have a bunch of unrealized losses instead.

Well, for sure they are sitting on a huge unrealised losses, but last time they sold they did so below the average purchasing price, so they netted  xrealised loss on that specific market operation.

[AakZaki]

I don’t expect much from this earnings release.
They will show balance in deep red, with some realised losses on their purchases.
Usually, the interesting part is the communication stance they adopt, and I guess they will be on the defensive line this time. They are gathering much negative attention, they must be careful with public sentiment.

I added "un" in bold because I think that's an obvious typo. But yeah, the thing is, you can't base your business model on unrealized gains and then not expect criticism when you have a bunch of unrealized losses instead.

I think he means the realized losses from MSTR based on purchase data from June 8, 2026 to June 22, then sales from June 30, 2026 to July 6, 2026.

Yes I have also calculated it among the times I mentioned above, MSTR has suffered a realized loss of around $15,717,363.

One thing I highlight about buying and selling in that time period is that it is inversely proportional to the Blackrock ETF company.
When MSTR buys, IBIT sells.
When MSTR sells, IBIT actually buys.

However, during that period, IBIT actually outperformed Strategy in terms of returns. Meanwhile, Strategy appeared to lack a competent financial advisory team. Lol

[fillippone]

One thing I highlight about buying and selling in that time period is that it is inversely proportional to the Blackrock ETF company.
When MSTR buys, IBIT sells.
When MSTR sells, IBIT actually buys.

I think these two phenomena are completely unrelated.
Strategy has been consistently buying over the last few years, while the ETF has had in-and-outs.
I don't see causality in this observation.

However, during that period, IBIT actually outperformed Strategy in terms of returns. Meanwhile, Strategy appeared to lack a competent financial advisory team. Lol

Strategy underperformed Bitcoin, which I tracked by IBIT. Quite an impressive feat as Bitcoin underperformed almost every conceivable asset class on Earth!

[Ambatman]

One thing I highlight about buying and selling in that time period is that it is inversely proportional to the Blackrock ETF company.
When MSTR buys, IBIT sells.
When MSTR sells, IBIT actually buys.

I might recall wrongly but I'm sure IBIT should be an ETF
One that was popular then with Grayscale and BlackRock.
So they buy when Investors want to which is different from Strategy.
IBIT sells the top because that's when most starts taking profit
While that's when Saylor can generate more money to buy more Bitcoin
And vice versa.

However, during that period, IBIT actually outperformed Strategy in terms of returns. Meanwhile, Strategy appeared to lack a competent financial advisory team. Lol

IBIT in itself don't generate returns for their clients.
Because of how investors react it's more liken to trading.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Well, for sure they are sitting on a huge unrealised losses, but last time they sold they did so below the average purchasing price, so they netted  xrealised loss on that specific market operation.

It doesn't have to. A while back, I wasn't sure if the FIFO rule applied to companies like Strategy that buy and sell Bitcoin, but I looked it up on Gemini AI and see that it doesn't apply—they're free to choose which Bitcoins to sell (from those purchased at price X). In other words, they may have chosen to report Bitcoins purchased at a higher price to the U.S. tax authorities in order to report a loss and offset a profit—or vice versa.

I wish they would make it that easy for us individuals to report our gains or losses.

[nikola22]

Michael Saylor says "Orange dots tell only part of the story". it seems we need to create a team of experts who will decipher his phrases. although it's possible that it means nothing again.



https://x.com/saylor/status/2076281310646079839

[MusaMohamed]

I think these two phenomena are completely unrelated.
Strategy has been consistently buying over the last few years, while the ETF has had in-and-outs.
I don't see causality in this observation.

Strategy invested their money sooner than companies with Bitcoin Spot ETFs that only began to buy bitcoin since Bitcoin Spot ETF approvals in January 2024. Strategy has ins and out but they are mostly buying bitcoins, barely selling bitcoins, whereas Bitcoin Spot ETFs are considerably active in buying and selling bitcoins.

If anything similar in activities of Strategy and Bitcoin Spot ETF companies and their Bitcoin treasuries, it is short term similarity like how Bitcoin and Gold markets sometimes have high correlation. While sooner or later, Bitcoin and Gold, Strategy and Bitcoin Spot ETFs will have opposite move in market and their actions.

Like recent months, gold has similar movements with Bitcoin and people no longer say things like if there is war, news about wars, gold will soar in price.