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

[Free Market Capitalist]

On getting STRC back to $100, the filing is more specific than the guesswork. Strategy puts the target between $99 and $100 and lists dividend rate adjustments as one of several tools, alongside USD Reserve management, BTC monetization and repurchases of STRC itself. Then it says outright: "We will not necessarily increase the STRC dividend rate solely because STRC trades below its $100 per share stated amount."

So, at the end of the day, Strategy's "strategy" involves constantly changing the strategy depending on how Saylor's ideas change, which, as we can see, happens quite often. In other words, it's basically the same as not having a strategy at all. It's pretty funny that the company is called Strategy. The only thing missing from the equation is the Saylormooners cheering at every new twist and turn.

[Ambatman]

I just came across a thread that showed Strategy CEO phong le stated that Strategy would be the Central Bank of Bitcoin.
Irony is dead: Strategy says they are Bitcoin's "Central Bank"
Despite all they have been doing i still had a little hope that with a rally they would be okay
But this just shows that they don't even understand what Bitcoin is.
Now I'm really concerned about their future.

[ultrloa]

On getting STRC back to $100, the filing is more specific than the guesswork. Strategy puts the target between $99 and $100 and lists dividend rate adjustments as one of several tools, alongside USD Reserve management, BTC monetization and repurchases of STRC itself. Then it says outright: "We will not necessarily increase the STRC dividend rate solely because STRC trades below its $100 per share stated amount."

So, at the end of the day, Strategy's "strategy" involves constantly changing the strategy depending on how Saylor's ideas change, which, as we can see, happens quite often. In other words, it's basically the same as not having a strategy at all. It's pretty funny that the company is called Strategy. The only thing missing from the equation is the Saylormooners cheering at every new twist and turn.

Looks like their strategy changes every time Saylor's mind change, what he did is actually look like they are doing improvisation and just dressed it up or portray as a vision.

That's the irony for changing their name as Strategy since it looks like they are now relying on hype and cheers from their blind followers. What we are seeing right now it seems pure theatrics with no serious planning.

Also look what they are doing now they are selling their BTC to buy STRC and that shows they are not truly committed on Bitcoin. They just use its fame to get good leverage from it.

[Alex077]

I’ll add a little more to the discussion about the Strategy CEO interview, because not all of the important points were mentioned...

In his latest interview with Fox Business, Strategy CEO said that the company will return to actively buying Bitcoin later this year.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6403184912112
According to him, Strategy hasn’t given up on buying Bitcoin at all, and the sales over the past few weeks are just a temporary tactic. Since the beginning of the year, the company has bought around 175,000 BTC and sold about 7,000 BTC, meaning it has bought roughly 25 times more Bitcoin than it has sold.

The recent BTC sales are not so much about the price of Bitcoin, but rather about Strategy’s desire to significantly increase its dollar reserve. According to Le, the reserve has grown from around $800 million to $4.75 billion over the past few months.

This reserve is mainly needed to strengthen their digital credit and preferred stock structure: dividend payments on STRC and the other preferred shares need to look reliable even during a prolonged Bitcoin downturn. According to Le, the current reserve is enough to cover roughly 2.7 years of dividend payments.

The company’s CEO also said that Bitcoin has already been in a bear market for eight months, while Strategy still hasn’t had any financial problems, which is basically true as well...

And most importantly, there was one very important point that many Bitcoiners didn’t really understand - it was only in 2026 that they realized institutional investors don’t treat liquid Bitcoin as the equivalent of dollars.

In other words, the argument that “we have hundreds of thousands of BTC, so the dividends are covered” doesn’t really work for credit investors. For them, having several billion dollars in actual cash is much more important. That’s exactly why Strategy is now holding a much larger dollar reserve.

So basically, Strategy is now changing its risk management model. Before, the logic was almost “maximum Bitcoin, minimum cash.” Now they recognize that having a huge BTC balance alone isn’t enough to develop STRC/STRF/STRK... - investors also want to see a clear and long-lasting dollar reserve to cover dividend payments.

So selling, say, 1,000–2,000 BTC right now doesn’t mean they’re moving away from their original Bitcoin strategy. They’re sacrificing a small portion of their Bitcoin holdings to make the preferred shares more reliable and reduce concerns that, during a prolonged Bitcoin downturn, they might have to suddenly sell BTC just to cover dividend payments.

So yeah, this is basically a pretty concise answer to all the questions we had earlier...

[Free Market Capitalist]

I don't really watch Saylor or Le videos anymore—after having watched practically all of them over the course of a couple of years—but since you brought it up:

And most importantly, there was one very important point that many Bitcoiners didn’t really understand - it was only in 2026 that they realized institutional investors don’t treat liquid Bitcoin as the equivalent of dollars.

That's a big pile of bull crap.

Basically, he's saying that institutional investors are idiots. Every institutional investor knows that Bitcoin is the most liquid digital asset—even investors who don’t own Bitcoin and don’t believe in it. Even Peter Schiff knows about Bitcoin’s liquidity. Who are they trying to fool?

It's gotten to the point where the bubble they live in is completely detached from reality, and since they have a whole bunch of yes-men who applaud every piece of nonsense they spout, they believe their own lies.

Le had better watch out—his nose is getting longer.

[fillippone]

Finally the rally came and MSTR shares got a lift. They are going to close this week around 120 USd, the highest level since mid-Jun.
The working part is STRC, which is instead still trading at 96.10 USD. Bitcoin up, USD reserves up, Bitcoin sold, yet TRC cannot close the gap with the par valuation.   

[Free Market Capitalist]

Finally the rally came and MSTR shares got a lift. They are going to close this week around 120 USd, the highest level since mid-Jun.
The working part is STRC, which is instead still trading at 96.10 USD. Bitcoin up, USD reserves up, Bitcoin sold, yet TRC cannot close the gap with the par valuation.   

Strategy has gone up simply because Bitcoin has gone up. Given that, according to Saylor’s fake calculation it’s at 1 mNAV, if Bitcoin goes up, MSTR will go up, and if it goes down, MSTR will go down. Although, to be precise, it won’t go up as much, and it will go down more because Saylor keeps diluting MSTR.



The fact that STRC isn't reaching par, despite the buybacks and this bitcoin price increase, does seem significant. In this regard, I'd like to share a quote of mine from another thread here.

It made some sense to repurchase STRC at $80 but he is repurchasing it at $95 (by diluting MSTR shareholders and selling Bitcoin below cost basis). Is he gonna keep repurchasing till $99 and then sell at $100? That's the business model?
...

Given all the fiascos, I highly doubt that Saylor will create an “infinite money glitch” by buying back STRC at $99 and reselling them at $100. 

And this about how the dream that Saylor sold to a lot of companies is failing (and that was precisely when he was questioned about that that he got so angry during the interview on “What Bitcoin Did,”):

Bitcoin Treasury Companies Reverse Course as Growing List Abandons Crypto Accumulation

French company abandons crypto treasury strategy, will liquidate Bitcoin holdings

Bitcoin treasury firms abandon accumulation – Who is selling and why?

Another Bitcoin Treasury Firm Is Shutting Down. What Satsuma’s Vote Means for Investors

[Jostle]

I don't trust microstrategy anymore. I think they change and flip around when the going suits them. In the end, take what they say with a major major major pinch of salt.

[Ambatman]

Strategy has gone up simply because Bitcoin has gone up. Given that, according to Saylor’s fake calculation it’s at 1 mNAV, if Bitcoin goes up, MSTR will go up, and if it goes down, MSTR will go down. Although, to be precise, it won’t go up as much, and it will go down more because Saylor keeps diluting MSTR.

I'm suspecting something similar already occurring
Using their method of measuring Mnav with EV
It shows one and hasn't even gone more
And if a person bought Bitcoin and Mstr when Bitcoin was $61K
They would have made more from Bitcoin than a supposed leverage of it.
Either previous ATM are reducing the impact or Saylor performed ATM this week
Believing MSTR was trading at premium.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I'm suspecting something similar already occurring
Using their method of measuring Mnav with EV
It shows one and hasn't even gone more
And if a person bought Bitcoin and Mstr when Bitcoin was $61K
They would have made more from Bitcoin than a supposed leverage of it.
Either previous ATM are reducing the impact or Saylor performed ATM this week
Believing MSTR was trading at premium.

Based on what you’re saying, I’d argue that MSTR is no longer a leverage play on Bitcoin. It acts like an ETF—or even worse—because if you’re an MSTR holder, your stake keeps getting diluted. It's been over a year since he created the preferred shares, claiming that this way it wouldn't dilute shareholders, and yet he's never stopped diluting them.

Now he's betting everything on STRC working out, unless another “brilliant” idea comes along.

Since it's the company with the most Bitcoin, it can hold out until the next bull run, but as I mentioned in my previous message, there are already a lot of companies that tried to copy it and are either abandoning the strategy or going out of business.

But the main problem I see is that many people who bought MSTR or the preferred shares were betting on the jockey, not the horse. In other words, they were betting on Saylor rather than on the company or the product, and more and more people are having doubts about him.

[Taskford]

I'm suspecting something similar already occurring
Using their method of measuring Mnav with EV
It shows one and hasn't even gone more
And if a person bought Bitcoin and Mstr when Bitcoin was $61K
They would have made more from Bitcoin than a supposed leverage of it.
Either previous ATM are reducing the impact or Saylor performed ATM this week
Believing MSTR was trading at premium.

Based on what you’re saying, I’d argue that MSTR is no longer a leverage play on Bitcoin. It acts like an ETF—or even worse—because if you’re an MSTR holder, your stake keeps getting diluted. It's been over a year since he created the preferred shares, claiming that this way it wouldn't dilute shareholders, and yet he's never stopped diluting them.

Now he's betting everything on STRC working out, unless another “brilliant” idea comes along.

Since it's the company with the most Bitcoin, it can hold out until the next bull run, but as I mentioned in my previous message, there are already a lot of companies that tried to copy it and are either abandoning the strategy or going out of business.

But the main problem I see is that many people who bought MSTR or the preferred shares were betting on the jockey, not the horse. In other words, they were betting on Saylor rather than on the company or the product, and more and more people are having doubts about him.

At current stage MSTR seems becoming a hybrid and seems the Bitcoin pure leverage is already over with them.

Their frequent issuances, make them looks like a BTC ETF and this became part of their business model now. Their preferred share supposed to be avoiding this situation, but current actions or patterns shown that this became part of their strategy.

Yeah you are right about jocker vs horse theory, because for sure many people buy MSTR because Saylor is famous and they trust him. Once the trust start to fade with the jockey which is Saylor itself. This is when lots of problems start to occur with them.

[MadSl1m]

The STRC gap is the tell. Both levers are pulled at this point. The coupon already sits at 12% with a monthly review that officially aims at "sustained $99-100 trading". On top of that, the Aug 24 8-K shows they sold about $136M of MSTR stock last week just to fund STRC buybacks. Retiring a $100 claim at 96 is a decent trade on paper. What it actually costs is common shareholders, who get diluted so the pref can be defended. And the pref still won't hold par on a 12% coupon. The market is repricing Strategy's credit, not bitcoin. By their own math the USD reserve covers 3.9 years of dividends and interest, so nothing breaks tomorrow. It just costs more each month to keep things looking calm.

[Wind_FURY]

On getting STRC back to $100, the filing is more specific than the guesswork. Strategy puts the target between $99 and $100 and lists dividend rate adjustments as one of several tools, alongside USD Reserve management, BTC monetization and repurchases of STRC itself. Then it says outright: "We will not necessarily increase the STRC dividend rate solely because STRC trades below its $100 per share stated amount.

So, at the end of the day, Strategy's "strategy" involves constantly changing the strategy depending on how Saylor's ideas change, which, as we can see, happens quite often. In other words, it's basically the same as not having a strategy at all. It's pretty funny that the company is called Strategy. The only thing missing from the equation is the Saylormooners cheering at every new twist and turn.

If "Strategy's strategy" actually collapses the company, then I personally believe that that will be a Golden Opportunity for an institutional entity to bail them out, then gain ownership of the company, then therefore gain control of the Bitcoin in Strategy's vaults.

Is that going to be the U.S. Government?

 

They want to build a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, no?

[Ambatman]

Is that going to be the U.S. Government?

 

They want to build a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, no?

From what I can see so far I don't think the US want to build their strategic reserve by spending money
They prefer confiscation
As can be seen when they stated they would used seized coins as their strategic reserve.

If "Strategy's strategy" actually collapses the company, then I personally believe that that will be a Golden Opportunity for an institutional entity to bail them out, then gain ownership of the company, then therefore gain control of the Bitcoin in Strategy's vaults.

The bail I think you mean would be funding.
Rather than outrightly changing ownership which wouldn't be easy
They'd rather issue preferred stocks for funding and if it gets serious
Selling some of their Bitcoin would help.
It would be an opportunity if the Bitcoin owned value is bigger than the debt accrued.

[Wind_FURY]

Is that going to be the U.S. Government?

 

They want to build a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, no?

From what I can see so far I don't think the US want to build their strategic reserve by spending money
They prefer confiscation

As can be seen when they stated they would used seized coins as their strategic reserve.

Although, what reason does the U.S. Government have to "confiscate" Strategy's Bitcoin? The mere suggestion is already laughable.

If "Strategy's strategy" actually collapses the company, then I personally believe that that will be a Golden Opportunity for an institutional entity to bail them out, then gain ownership of the company, then therefore gain control of the Bitcoin in Strategy's vaults.

The bail I think you mean would be funding. Rather than outrightly changing ownership which wouldn't be easy
They'd rather issue preferred stocks for funding and if it gets serious
Selling some of their Bitcoin would help.

It would be an opportunity if the Bitcoin owned value is bigger than the debt accrued.

I was making a presumption that the company actually collapsed, and with no way out. There will definitely be many entities who would be interested in bailing them out because of all that VALUE in Strategy's vaults.

[Free Market Capitalist]

If "Strategy's strategy" actually collapses the company, then I personally believe that that will be a Golden Opportunity for an institutional entity to bail them out, then gain ownership of the company, then therefore gain control of the Bitcoin in Strategy's vaults.

Is that going to be the U.S. Government?

 

They want to build a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, no?

Among all the nonsense I've heard on the subject, yes, that's one of them. That if Bitcoin's price were to collapse and cause Strategy to go bankrupt, the U.S. government would snap up the Bitcoins at a bargain price as a strategic reserve. I don't think that's likely at all. What is certain, however, is that when you have so many bitcoins held by a centralized entity like Coinbase Custody, if something like Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order 6102 were to be implemented—but with regard to bitcoin—it would be very easy to enforce.

[Ambatman]

Although, what reason does the U.S. Government have to "confiscate" Strategy's Bitcoin? The mere suggestion is already laughable.

Hello
I was just explaining the means the US government prefer having their Bitcoin or using as strategic reserves
I never stated they would have to confiscate Strategy coins
It was a roundabout way of me saying the government buying Strategy would be pipe dream.
So far we have not heard of any news that suggested they bought or would buy Bitcoin.

[Free Market Capitalist]

So far we have not heard of any news that suggested they bought or would buy Bitcoin.

There's no news that they've made any purchases, but in 2025 I heard repeatedly that they were considering buying Bitcoin in “budget-neutral ways.” Here is an example:

U.S. may sell Fort Knox gold for Bitcoin — If it’s 'budget-neutral,' says Trump adviser

I think it's clear by now that there's no way they're going to trade gold for Bitcoin, and since Bo Hines has been repeating that message for a year and a half and they haven't bought anything, I don't think they're going to buy any. Especially with the midterms so close and the polls looking so bad for Trump.

[fillippone]

The fact that STRC isn't reaching par, despite the buybacks and this bitcoin price increase, does seem significant.

Indeed, STRC is now trading at 98sh, and despite all the BTC movement and the reserve ringfencing, not trading at par is a bad sign.
I cannot call a full bull market until STRC trades at 100, honestly!

[Ambatman]

I think it's clear by now that there's no way they're going to trade gold for Bitcoin, and since Bo Hines has been repeating that message for a year and a half and they haven't bought anything, I don't think they're going to buy any. Especially with the midterms so close and the polls looking so bad for Trump.

I really would have loved to say it was fun while it lasted
But it wasn't. I guess we were too optimistic.
Nothing they did improved their debt.

Indeed, STRC is now trading at 98sh, and despite all the BTC movement and the reserve ringfencing, not trading at par is a bad sign.
I cannot call a full bull market until STRC trades at 100, honestly!

Well It just shows that people believe the discount isn't enough and would rather settle for MSTR
Since its directly tied to bitcoins movement unlike STRC.