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

[fillippone]

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.

In a sort of paradox, now the mNAV is so close to 1, and in the central scenario, it will stay like that, I see less incentive in buying an MSTR share instead of an IBIT one.
When the mNAV is above 1, yes, you are overpaying the underlying bitcoin, but you are also paying for the opportunity to access a BTC yield, and a variable (on the upside, hopefully, mNAV).
When the mNAV is tied to one, the operational overhead of MSTR is actually a disadvantage.

[Free Market Capitalist]

In a sort of paradox, now the mNAV is so close to 1, and in the central scenario, it will stay like that, I see less incentive in buying an MSTR share instead of an IBIT one.
When the mNAV is above 1, yes, you are overpaying the underlying bitcoin, but you are also paying for the opportunity to access a BTC yield, and a variable (on the upside, hopefully, mNAV).
When the mNAV is tied to one, the operational overhead of MSTR is actually a disadvantage.

My reasoning is somewhat different. Actually, if you buy a product like MSTR you should buy it at a discount, so at mNAV below 1. And that's how it has been trading if you calculate the mNAV correctly—or the way Saylor calculated it before July 2025.



As you can see in the chart, MSTR has been trading below 1 mNAV since November 2025. The end of the chart is blurred because you have to sign up or pay to see the whole thing, and I just pass. But it’s clear that if today the Strategy website says the mNAV is 1, it clearly remains below 1.

Why do I say it makes sense to buy at a discount? Because when you buy 1 Bitcoin from IBIT, for example, the risk of losing your Bitcoin is practically zero, since there’s a separation between the distributor, BlackRock, and the custodian, which is Coinbase Custody. This has been the case for many decades in the world of investment funds, and a quick AI search tells me that there hasn’t been a single instance in which fund investors have lost money under this model—where the entity that markets the fund or ETF is separate from the custodian. Blackrock can go bankrupt and you'll still get your Bitcoin (or the money equivalent).

However, when you buy MSTR, you aren’t buying Bitcoin; through Strategy, you’re buying some “exposure” to Bitcoin, which is subject to company risk. And no matter how much Saylor wants to sell you that nonsense about “bitcoin per share” or “sats per share,” MSTR isn’t redeemable for Bitcoin, and its holders would be last in line in the event of bankruptcy.

[Popkon6]

Strategy (MSTR) Faces Renewed Risk Of Removal From Global Equity Indexes
Strategy Inc. (NasdaqGS:MSTR) again faces the possibility of removal from MSCI global equity indexes under rules that target companies focused mainly on asset accumulation.

The renewed index risk raises fresh questions about demand for Strategy shares from index-tracking funds and the resilience of its Bitcoin treasury model.

At the same time, a major loss in value across Bitcoin treasury companies highlights broader concerns about the sustainability of this approach to holding crypto on balance sheets.
Source link: https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/strategy-mstr-faces-renewed-risk-210628837.html

This puts MSTR under pressure again, but is it facing this problem because it is deprived of Bitcoin purchases?
Will the current exclusion of MSTR from this MSCI index increase the risk of new dangers?

[Free Market Capitalist]

Strategy (MSTR) Faces Renewed Risk Of Removal From Global Equity Indexes
Strategy Inc. (NasdaqGS:MSTR) again faces the possibility of removal from MSCI global equity indexes under rules that target companies focused mainly on asset accumulation.

The renewed index risk raises fresh questions about demand for Strategy shares from index-tracking funds and the resilience of its Bitcoin treasury model.

There is an interesting quote about that in the article:

If index rules exclude companies that mainly accumulate assets, some passive funds could be forced sellers. That would test how much current demand comes from long term Bitcoin Strategy believers versus benchmark trackers.

I've replaced the word “Bitcoin” with “Strategy” because it's clear that's what's at stake here. You might be a Bitcoin maximalist who doesn't care whether Strategy stays in the index, gets kicked out, or even goes bankrupt.

At the same time, a major loss in value across Bitcoin treasury companies highlights broader concerns about the sustainability of this approach to holding crypto on balance sheets.

I talked about this on the previous page:

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

[fillippone]

STRATEGY BOUGHT 4,603 BTC ($369.7M) AT AN AVERAGE PRICE OF $80,318



Back at it!

[Free Market Capitalist]

STRATEGY BOUGHT 4,603 BTC ($369.7M) AT AN AVERAGE PRICE OF $80,318

...

Back at it!

Oh yeah! Great plan. Sell at $60K to buy back at $80K. That's the buy high sell low well known saying. If this guy ran a stagnant company for 20 years (after his company crashed during the dot-com bubble due to “creative” accounting, to put it mildly), it was probably because he made brilliant moves like this one.

[Donneski]

STRATEGY BOUGHT 4,603 BTC ($369.7M) AT AN AVERAGE PRICE OF $80,318



Back at it!

And just like that, 4,603 more BTC.
Whatever pressure Strategy is supposedly under from the MSCI issue, Saylor doesn't seem to have received the memo.  

While it seems like everyone else is debating whether the model is sustainable or not, these guys are still stacking. It doesn't even look like they're slowing down anytime soon.

[Popkon6]

STRATEGY BOUGHT 4,603 BTC ($369.7M) AT AN AVERAGE PRICE OF $80,318
...

Back at it!

Oh yeah! Great plan. Sell at $60K to buy back at $80K. That's the buy high sell low well known saying. If this guy ran a stagnant company for 20 years (after his company crashed during the dot-com bubble due to “creative” accounting, to put it mildly), it was probably because he made brilliant moves like this one.

They have been quiet for more than two months and have been deprived of buying Bitcoin, they sold when the price of Bitcoin was at its lowest during these two months. They have started buying Bitcoin whenever the price of Bitcoin has increased, although it may sound strange, but if their buying continues, then it is interesting for them that they are buying Bitcoin at the present time. The Bitcoin market will start to recover, and more and more treasury companies will regain their strength.
This proves that one should not wait to buy Bitcoin and should not be an opportunist. Because those who wait to buy Bitcoin are basically cheated in this way.
But no matter what, they should maintain the continuity of buying Bitcoin.

[Ambatman]

Oh yeah! Great plan. Sell at $60K to buy back at $80K. That's the buy high sell low well known saying. If this guy ran a stagnant company for 20 years (after his company crashed during the dot-com bubble due to “creative” accounting, to put it mildly), it was probably because he made brilliant moves like this one.

Yeah I understand not the most profitable route to take
But I believe they more in long term accumulation and issuing stock can help them bridge that gap from such strategy.
Bitcoin Performing poorly means they barely have or can generate funds to buy
Bitcoin doing well
Mstr rises
They perform ATM
Funds available and they buy Bitcoin. The cycle continues
From trading PoV poor but long term accumulation? Doesn't mean that much on the assumption bitcoin always perform better than prior cycle.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Has anyone noticed that this guy doesn't actually have a company, but rather a makeshift business?

Take a company like Apple or Coca-Cola: it can sell shares and conduct capital increases, but it has a core business. Even the most finance-oriented companies, like banks, have a core business, and then they can go to the market to sell more shares through capital increases to finance projects.

But this guy’s business model is to sell shares. If you look at what he’s done over the last couple of years, 95% of it has been selling MSTR shares. He wanted to shift the model to sell STRC shares but he has had to keep repurchasing them back lately.

Now he's bought Bitcoin again—and how did he do it? By selling MSTR stock.

The price of Bitcoin would have to rise a lot, but like A LOT so that these shady deals work out for him.

[ultrloa]

STRATEGY BOUGHT 4,603 BTC ($369.7M) AT AN AVERAGE PRICE OF $80,318

...

Back at it!

Oh yeah! Great plan. Sell at $60K to buy back at $80K. That's the buy high sell low well known saying. If this guy ran a stagnant company for 20 years (after his company crashed during the dot-com bubble due to “creative” accounting, to put it mildly), it was probably because he made brilliant moves like this one.

Don't know what is their plan man and that decision they made shows Saylor/ Strategy made a poor judgement.

What they have done for Selling their holdings at low price, then comeback to buy at more higher actually weakens their credibility.

Many people mocking at their decision and well Strategy became controversial again due to their recent actions. It seems the latest move they made is giving an assurance to their shareholders that they are still doing something, by showing some activities. Maybe this is the reason why they made that recent purchase.

[Alex077]

STRATEGY BOUGHT 4,603 BTC ($369.7M) AT AN AVERAGE PRICE OF $80,318
...
Back at it!

Oh yeah! Great plan. Sell at $60K to buy back at $80K. That's the buy high sell low well known saying. If this guy ran a stagnant company for 20 years (after his company crashed during the dot-com bubble due to “creative” accounting, to put it mildly), it was probably because he made brilliant moves like this one.

Don't know what is their plan man and that decision they made shows Saylor/ Strategy made a poor judgement.
What they have done for Selling their holdings at low price, then comeback to buy at more higher actually weakens their credibility.
...

Everyone probably already knows that Strategy announced the purchase of 4,603 BTC at an average price of $80,318.
Analysts point out that the company sold 5,310 BTC in three batches in the $60,200–$64,300 range and then bought Bitcoin back at around $80,300.
https://www.strategy.com/press/strategy-acquires-4603-btc-increases-usd-cash-to-1-61-billion-and-repurchases-152-million-of-strc_08-31-2026
So maybe, it looks like Strategy is buying high and selling low - some kind of monkey business from Michael Saylor... But in reality, the situation is a bit more complicated.

By selling Bitcoin at a fairly low price, Saylor was increasing the company’s dollar reserve and at the same time pushing the price of STRC shares back toward the $100 par value. These are shares that pay flexible dividends, currently around 12%, and they sell well during a bear market. But MSTR shares, which rise together with Bitcoin and significantly outperform it, can generate much more profit than Bitcoin when they are sold into a rising market. MSTR reached a high of $139.78 on August 27, while Bitcoin was around $81,200, so for Saylor it actually makes much more sense and is more profitable to buy Bitcoin during a rally or even near the peaks.

That’s because he is selling shares that are rising faster than Bitcoin. For example, BTC went from $60k to $81.2k, which is a gain of about 35%, while MSTR went from around $82 to a high of about $139.8, giving roughly a 70% gain.
So over this period, MSTR generated about twice as much the profit compared to Bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

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.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Is THAT what you believe? The U.S. Government would merely do an executive order without any actual reason except "because those coins are held in centralized entity"?

Laughable.

FIRST get the context on why F.D.R. did that, and SECOND - do you actually believe that they will issue such an order during the current situation.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Is THAT what you believe? The U.S. Government would merely do an executive order without any actual reason except "because those coins are held in centralized entity"?

Laughable.

It was already clear to me that you're a retard because of the nonsense you spout, but you also have serious reading comprehension problems—which, as you'd expect, usually happens to an idiot.

What's laughable is that you don't know what Bitcoin is all about.

FIRST get the context on why F.D.R. did that, and SECOND - do you actually believe that they will issue such an order during the current situation.

FIRST, read again what I said and SECOND quote me where I said the current administration will issue such an order.

You're pathetic.

[Wind_FURY]

Is THAT what you believe? The U.S. Government would merely do an executive order without any actual reason except "because those coins are held in centralized entity"?

Laughable.

It was already clear to me that you're a retard because of the nonsense you spout, but you also have serious reading comprehension problems—which, as you'd expect, usually happens to an idiot.

What's laughable is that you don't know what Bitcoin is all about.

If there was one in this conversation, it's you. Plus is that how YOU answer the debate? Through name-calling and attacking the person?

Ad Hominem. But you wouldn't understand what that is, ser.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Free Market Capitalist]

If there was one in this conversation, it's you. Plus is that how YOU answer the debate? Through name-calling and attacking the person?

Ad Hominem. But you wouldn't understand what that is, ser.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

You're doing the right thing—that way, everyone can see what a coward you are. First you spout nonsense, and when I debunk it, you just run away like a pussy. You're such an idiot that all you can do is spout nonsense about what happens when you have hundreds of thousands of bitcoins in centralized institutions.

[Ambatman]

I noticed few days ago that strategy has created their own Jordan's via collaboration
But payment method isn't even with Bitcoin.
It isn't even an option
This alone speaks volume to how strategy really views bitcoin
Smart choice
He could have at least pretend to accept Bitcoin as one of the payment method.

[fillippone]

I noticed few days ago that strategy has created their own Jordan's via collaboration
But payment method isn't even with Bitcoin.
It isn't even an option
This alone speaks volume to how strategy really views bitcoin
Smart choice
He could have at least pretend to accept Bitcoin as one of the payment method.

A missed opportunity.
Maybe they don't want to encourage spending of bitcoin, as it is seen as a lesser virtue signaling behaviour rather than a compulsive stashing of sats?
Saylor doesn't recommend spending your satoshis.
Maybe this is the reason.

[Ambatman]

A missed opportunity.
Maybe they don't want to encourage spending of bitcoin, as it is seen as a lesser virtue signaling behaviour rather than a compulsive stashing of sats?
Saylor doesn't recommend spending your satoshis.
Maybe this is the reason.

I understand where you coming from especially in respect to bitcoin being a decentralized asset.
But accepting Bitcoin shows as one of means they consider Bitcoin as one of a superior currency
And it's a form of stacking Bitcoin no matter how small
The bitcoin they buying is as a result of someone selling
So I'm not sure it changes much.
They could serve as a precedence that other goods company could implement which would in turn
Improve the price and trajectory of Bitcoin.

[fillippone]

A missed opportunity.
Maybe they don't want to encourage spending of bitcoin, as it is seen as a lesser virtue signaling behaviour rather than a compulsive stashing of sats?
Saylor doesn't recommend spending your satoshis.
Maybe this is the reason.

I understand where you coming from especially in respect to bitcoin being a decentralized asset.
But accepting Bitcoin shows as one of means they consider Bitcoin as one of a superior currency
And it's a form of stacking Bitcoin no matter how small
The bitcoin they buying is as a result of someone selling
So I'm not sure it changes much.
They could serve as a precedence that other goods company could implement which would in turn
Improve the price and trajectory of Bitcoin.

To me, spending bitcoin is using bitcoin, exactly like hodling bitcoin.
Also, spending bitcoin benefits all those who want to support people trying to make the bitcoin economy work in real life.
So I do support the "spend and replace" as well as using bitcoin to buy futile things like MSTR shoes.