Michael Saylor and Bitcoin or Michael Saylor and altcoin?

[bbc.reporter]

This was an argument jokingly made by one of the forum members that I much respect. We argue and tease each other, however, everything is with respect and we do not take it very serious because we accept the reality that we are not very important people in the cryptospace.

In any case, the argument made is maybe Michael Saylor would have made a better investment if he invested in altcoins, Defi or NFT instead of bitcoin. It appears this article shows that the argument might be correct. The article was published on November 3, 2022, however. It presently might not give us the same conclusion.



Microstrategy Could Have Pocketed $1.3B if Saylor Had Bought ETH

Defiant Data Crunch Shows Ether Would Have Paid Off Nicely for Software Maker

Microstrategy would have earned almost $1.3B from a stash of Ether worth $5.3B today, according to The Defiant’s analysis of data from CoinMarketCap and BuyBitcoinWorldwide tracking the firm’s Bitcoin buys. Thanks largely to The Merge, Ethereum’s native token has soared 51% since June 30 compared to Bitcoin’s 7% increase, according to Defiant Terminal data.

The Virginia-based company would have also been earning passive yield by staking ETH. Staking Rewards estimates that Ethereum stakers are earning 4.67% annually, which would equate to $246M at the current ETH price.

Moreover, analysis from Flashbots indicates that stakers running its MEV-Boost software earn 135% more than those who do not. Boosted rewards on a $5.27B stake could net more than $527M each year if ETH’s price is steady.

Read in full https://thedefiant.io/saylor-ether-bitcoin

[buwaytress]

What was the purpose of Micro Strategy doing that though?

I'm pretty sure it was to retain value over the long term, since I remember the comparisons (or the previous currency) was US dollar, which has hit decades-high inflation. 7% appreciation in USD price of Bitxoin feels to me just about equalises the inflation of the dollar.

Intent achieved.

[STT]

Just holding BTC and doing nothing with it shouldnt especially be a strategy for a business, Ive never really understood trying to argue in favor of that.   ETH has a system now where retained deposits are part of their confirmation network so the yield makes some sense.    So a bad strategy to retain BTC and let it sit vs actual use, the actual use has paid off is not that surprising.   Plus six months is still a random result not a proper basis to compare two assets.
   The ETH attempt to implement staking could fail we dont know that yet, its far too early to declare victory but generally I do favor the concept of staking because it keeps the entire user base involved.   BTC has long since lost its mining by anyone origins which makes me sad.   All proper capitalist systems are means of production with the people, both routes are arguable I dont believe in BTC only because of that I think the alternatives explored elsewhere are worth doing; some think it only leads to fraud I appreciate creative activity and BTC can always adopt the best measures found.
   Saylor is far too simplistic imo, storing any commodity forever  can easily end up costing you oil, food, gold, anything at all can decay even while being valid products.

[mk4]

It doesn't matter if he could've made more money with ETH. It's just like saying that a person could've made more money buying a specific stock instead of buying an index(e.g. SPY). Both assets simply have their own risk:reward profiles.

[beerlover]

In any case, the argument made is maybe Michael Saylor would have made a better investment if he invested in altcoins, Defi or NFT instead of bitcoin. It appears this article shows that the argument might be correct.

Better investments in terms of BTC value? Because, only ETH/BTC pair is trading stable through out 2022 like around the value of 0.07BTC with low at 0.048BTC whereas ETH/USDT pair is trading exact similar to BTC/USDT like in Jan 2021 it was around $900 and hit ATH around $4800 in Nov 2021 and trading around $1200 right now.

If you calculate growth rate in USD in 2021, there are many altcoins had performed well in 2021 like dogecoins which got low around 30 satoshi in the beginning of 2021 (or by the end of 2020) and peaked up to 1300+ satoshi in 2021 (and trading around 400 satoshi right now).

If they have opted for altcoins then probably they might not have stopped only with ETH which again might have got them mixed results and then overall performance might have dragged down than bitcoin investment.

[jackg]

Hindsight is always the most accurate way to pick out good investments. Risk often does reap higher rewards but an investment in eth when it was 0.017BTC would also have done a lot better than and investment in Eth in June.

I don't think the risk profile of eth would've made it a worthwhile investment yet though as I don't think it's value has increased enough (unless we're going from the 0.03BTC valuation, in which case, he already missed that).

There's then the chance microstrategy gets the sort of reputation for manipulation that companies like bitmex and Berkshire hathaway have.

[Lucius]

This was an argument jokingly made by one of the forum members that I much respect. We argue and tease each other, however, everything is with respect and we do not take it very serious because we accept the reality that we are not very important people in the cryptospace.

In any case, the argument made is maybe Michael Saylor would have made a better investment if he invested in altcoins, Defi or NFT instead of bitcoin. It appears this article shows that the argument might be correct. The article was published on November 3, 2022, however. It presently might not give us the same conclusion.

I didn't write that because I really think that Saylor should have invested in altcoins, but because you think that from 2020 to today he made all the wrong decisions investing in Bitcoin and considering your positive attitude towards DeFi, NTF and altcoins. Given that the losses of those who, for example, invested in various NTFs are incomparably greater than anyone who invested in Bitcoin, my slightly sarcastic observation went in the direction that Saylor today would not have to worry about what to do with his coins because they would be practically worthless.

Everyone should already know that long-term investing in altcoins has not brought anyone anything good, and I'm sure that Saylor knows that very well. Maybe we should ask Silbert what he thinks about his altcoin adventures and why he is allegedly dumping them all lately?

[hatshepsut93]

And Michael Sayolor or anyone really could have made more profit by buying Dogecoin before Musk started shilling for it. But Dogecoin is shitcoin and so is Ethereum. Buying coins because they might pump, and not because they have potential for real world use is precisely what's wrong with this market, and why claims that crypto in general is a scam are not without merit.

[bbc.reporter]

This was an argument jokingly made by one of the forum members that I much respect. We argue and tease each other, however, everything is with respect and we do not take it very serious because we accept the reality that we are not very important people in the cryptospace.

In any case, the argument made is maybe Michael Saylor would have made a better investment if he invested in altcoins, Defi or NFT instead of bitcoin. It appears this article shows that the argument might be correct. The article was published on November 3, 2022, however. It presently might not give us the same conclusion.

I didn't write that because I really think that Saylor should have invested in altcoins, but because you think that from 2020 to today he made all the wrong decisions investing in Bitcoin and considering your positive attitude towards DeFi, NTF and altcoins. Given that the losses of those who, for example, invested in various NTFs are incomparably greater than anyone who invested in Bitcoin, my slightly sarcastic observation went in the direction that Saylor today would not have to worry about what to do with his coins because they would be practically worthless.

Everyone should already know that long-term investing in altcoins has not brought anyone anything good, and I'm sure that Saylor knows that very well. Maybe we should ask Silbert what he thinks about his altcoin adventures and why he is allegedly dumping them all lately?

I never implied that you said Michael Saylor should invest in altcoins. I said this was a joke. However, it opens an argument that what if Saylor invested in altcoins and it appears there are people who have asked this question already and published some articles.

This is another article I found with more data. This was written on November 4.



The Blockchain Center has a dashboard comparing MicroStrategy’s ‘actual’ and ‘what if’ crypto investments. Per data from the same, its current 130k BTC HODLings is currently worth $ 2.679 billion. However, if it had invested in Ethereum, the firm would be owning around 3.5 million tokens worth $5.596 billion. Resultantly, instead of being down by $1.304 billion USD, MSTR would be up by $1.614 billion with ETH.[/i]

Source https://watcher.guru/news/if-microstrategy-invested-in-ethereum-over-bitcoin-what-would-be-its-valuation



This is the dashboard mentioned in the article. I will keep quiet, everyone should see this data.

https://www.blockchaincenter.net/en/there-is-no-second-best/

I also agree on Saylor's long term argument for bitcoin as an investment. We will witness his investments in profit on 2025 or 2026.

On Barry Silbert, bring your popcorn. It is not the altcoins' fault heheheheheheeee.

[Kemarit]

It's going to be a big gamble for Saylor if he invested on ETH, however, there could be a lot of what if, specially if this goes out in public, maybe ETH will be pump and then really made him some money, but after that, it will go back to where it used to be and maybe investors are going to accused him of manipulation.

So better stick to where he knows will be a good long term investment (just like the majority of us here, which is BTC).

It's a good supposition, but we can't tell the outcome though.

[barbara44]

It's going to be a big gamble for Saylor if he invested on ETH, however, there could be a lot of what if, specially if this goes out in public, maybe ETH will be pump and then really made him some money, but after that, it will go back to where it used to be and maybe investors are going to accused him of manipulation.

So better stick to where he knows will be a good long term investment (just like the majority of us here, which is BTC).

It's a good supposition, but we can't tell the outcome though.

I think ETH is not really that much of a risk at all, it is actually the second biggest coin and for a while it was so close to bitcoin as well in marketcap, couldn't flip it but it was close. I have to say that the best thing we could do about the current market situation is to make good investments unlike many people fail to do that.

I know it is not going to be easy, but understanding ETH could be another investment opportunity in this crypto space as per investor perspective and investing into that is not a risk per so far observed performance tracks, but it is not bigger than bitcoin at least, which is important in my opinion as well.

Micheal Saylor could invest into bitcoin or into ETH and the results would probably be the same, there will be small differences on the day to day, but the long term could be very important and that way bitcoin will win as we are all aware of.

[Lucius]

I think ETH is not really that much of a risk at all, it is actually the second biggest coin and for a while it was so close to bitcoin as well in marketcap, couldn't flip it but it was close.

No matter how stupid someone thinks Saylor is, the man just invests in Bitcoin in various ways and is responsible for his actions, which is the hallmark of adults and responsible people. Regardless of the current price of Bitcoin, in the long term it is a better investment than any altcoin, especially the one you mention, and especially after it moved to POS. This made the centralized project even more closed, and also subject to various internal manipulations that could result in a disaster at any moment.

Furthermore, do you know what gives the project its size? The fact that Vitalik does not even know what the max supply of his token is, and although he said it was 100 million, it is currently 122 million, and now he claims that it will still be 150 million. In other words, x6 more tokens in circulation put it in second place by market capitalization, which is pure manipulation and nothing more.

[ShowOff]

Microstrategy Could Have Pocketed $1.3B if Saylor Had Bought ETH

Or maybe Microstrategy would have made much more profit than they say had Saylor invested in Doge.  

But Saylor seems more convincing as a bitcoin investor than ETH, that's the way he's been doing it so far. Here is one of the pinned tweet that I read the most from his Twitter profile. No ETH or anything else, but it's just bitcoin.

Source: https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1307029562321231873?s=20

#Bitcoin is a swarm of cyber hornets serving the goddess of wisdom, feeding on the fire of truth, exponentially growing ever smarter, faster, and stronger behind a wall of encrypted energy.

[tabas]

It comes to that point that when the market is quite passive, there could be these calculations and interesting articles of what IFs from these rich and influential folks in the space.
I guess it's just a matter of preference just like any other person that invests a lot in bitcoin and even saw people telling them that they could earn more with an altcoin or with a meme coin, doesn't breaks the idea that being patient and stable with bitcoin is the best long term plan. While after the merge or the transition of pow to pos for ETH, it's more of a rich's game now but I don't think he's willing to join them with it. He's got a more solid long term plan through bitcoin.

[savetheFORUM]

It comes to that point that when the market is quite passive, there could be these calculations and interesting articles of what IFs from these rich and influential folks in the space.
I guess it's just a matter of preference just like any other person that invests a lot in bitcoin and even saw people telling them that they could earn more with an altcoin or with a meme coin, doesn't breaks the idea that being patient and stable with bitcoin is the best long term plan. While after the merge or the transition of pow to pos for ETH, it's more of a rich's game now but I don't think he's willing to join them with it. He's got a more solid long term plan through bitcoin.

It seems that they are bored so while waiting for the market to become active again, these people can think of these things for a while so that they still have something to talked about and won't be zero in terms of content.

It's normal that when the market dips, Bitcoin is also starring or the first one to dive and it's also the coin who can dumped a lot but if the market pumps, BTC is again the coin that can lead the way and they will see that altcoin like ETH are going to be left behind in terms of gains. We know that Michael Saylor is an avid fan of Bitcoin so even if ETH is upgraded now, it won't remove the fact that he is still loyal to his first and main coin which is Bitcoin.

[tabas]

It comes to that point that when the market is quite passive, there could be these calculations and interesting articles of what IFs from these rich and influential folks in the space.
I guess it's just a matter of preference just like any other person that invests a lot in bitcoin and even saw people telling them that they could earn more with an altcoin or with a meme coin, doesn't breaks the idea that being patient and stable with bitcoin is the best long term plan. While after the merge or the transition of pow to pos for ETH, it's more of a rich's game now but I don't think he's willing to join them with it. He's got a more solid long term plan through bitcoin.

It seems that they are bored so while waiting for the market to become active again, these people can think of these things for a while so that they still have something to talked about and won't be zero in terms of content.

It's normal that when the market dips, Bitcoin is also starring or the first one to dive and it's also the coin who can dumped a lot but if the market pumps, BTC is again the coin that can lead the way and they will see that altcoin like ETH are going to be left behind in terms of gains. We know that Michael Saylor is an avid fan of Bitcoin so even if ETH is upgraded now, it won't remove the fact that he is still loyal to his first and main coin which is Bitcoin.

He's a perma bull unless he states and changes his ways and starts to tell things about altcoins. But, so far we can't see him doing such because he only shows on what type of investor he is together with his company. They're for the long term and that's the typical company in finance that sees the fortune into something and while they consider it still as an early time, they're not wasting any moment and opportunity while they can. And I'm sure that it's not just going to be Michael Saylor and his company that will be the content and subject of this type of articles.

[darewaller]

It comes to that point that when the market is quite passive, there could be these calculations and interesting articles of what IFs from these rich and influential folks in the space.
I guess it's just a matter of preference just like any other person that invests a lot in bitcoin and even saw people telling them that they could earn more with an altcoin or with a meme coin, doesn't breaks the idea that being patient and stable with bitcoin is the best long term plan. While after the merge or the transition of pow to pos for ETH, it's more of a rich's game now but I don't think he's willing to join them with it. He's got a more solid long term plan through bitcoin.

It seems that they are bored so while waiting for the market to become active again, these people can think of these things for a while so that they still have something to talked about and won't be zero in terms of content.

It's normal that when the market dips, Bitcoin is also starring or the first one to dive and it's also the coin who can dumped a lot but if the market pumps, BTC is again the coin that can lead the way and they will see that altcoin like ETH are going to be left behind in terms of gains. We know that Michael Saylor is an avid fan of Bitcoin so even if ETH is upgraded now, it won't remove the fact that he is still loyal to his first and main coin which is Bitcoin.

If I know Michael Saylor, he would have bought the worst kind of defi or nft out there and he would have lost money. If we are talking about percentages of making profit, then we could say there are some alts who have made more profits than bitcoin in the last 5 years, and there are many many many of them that did worse. Which one he would pick? That's the question, would he be able to pick the ones that would have made him more money? Or would he pick the ones that would made him less? I believe, %100 guaranteed, he would have picked some horrible ones.

The reason for this is the fact that he is too stubborn to realize he is on the wrong path and would have lost a lot more.

[franky1]

ill wait for this topics update in 2024

because
ethereums value:price is at a 20x+ speculated bubble. being held up purely due to btc arbitrage**
their post merge correction is yet to detonate down to the (99.5x cheaper) warning

bitcoins value:price is not even a 2x. meaning bitcoins buy is still good value
saylor has not bought an asset that has been above a 7x speculated bubble to date. meaning he has always locked in more store of value

he is not interested in day trading the coins/value for daily profits. he is in for the long term hold. so waiting it out. means just that waiting it out.

no point in looking at your pension money daily if your not old enough to retire. so speculating while young is pointless.. however knowing that the "other" pension plan you didnt go into is hyper speculating to a 20x premium which is going to correct down by atleast 5-20x. vs the one your in which is going to increase over time to higher amount.. will net him more in the long run
**
ethereum pretends to be unique, having its own community.. but its 99% shadow tracing and sheep following bitcoin market wiggles because ethereum has no independent community price discovery


a unique community with a different culture would have a different economic sentiment and its own market speculated wiggles that differ vastly from bitcoins.. but ethereum has not broken away ethereum has not set its own culture/sentiment speculation..

if it did it would have corrected down from its post merge change of value. to correct down to a lower price by a factor of 20x

saylor sees in bitcoins independent community of certain features and functions.

though bitcoin has stalled and been waiting for 5 years for a flawed subnetwork to do "something" that was promised.. but failed multiple times.. he sees that bitcoins has many features that make it better than ethereum and once a few things are kicked back into gear. bitcoin will show its strength, which is still there hidden in the mist of "patience"
..
there will be subnetworks off bitcoin that will do many functions and fill many niches.. LN is not one of them(failure). so once people actually innovate. both onchain and offchain.. then the realisations will become a reality and show themselves
...
looking at things like transactions a block
bitcoins demands are majority of real transaction need. where as ethereums transactions are just filler transactions done just to be done. in short.. spam

[GreatArkansas]

In any case, the argument made is maybe Michael Saylor would have made a better investment if he invested in altcoins, Defi or NFT instead of bitcoin. It appears this article shows that the argument might be correct.

Better investments in terms of BTC value? Because, only ETH/BTC pair is trading stable through out 2022 like around the value of 0.07BTC with low at 0.048BTC whereas ETH/USDT pair is trading exact similar to BTC/USDT like in Jan 2021 it was around $900 and hit ATH around $4800 in Nov 2021 and trading around $1200 right now.
(....)

It's became almost the same stable also once the market started to tank.
Also when we talk about all-time highs of these both assets, they are almost the same and  Ethereum got higher losses from the peak versus Bitcoin.
So if you are thinking about good or much better ROI if we start buying Ethereum, then both of them will go back to their all-time high, then we got more ROI to Ethereum.

[bbc.reporter]

I think ETH is not really that much of a risk at all, it is actually the second biggest coin and for a while it was so close to bitcoin as well in marketcap, couldn't flip it but it was close.

No matter how stupid someone thinks Saylor is, the man just invests in Bitcoin in various ways and is responsible for his actions, which is the hallmark of adults and responsible people. Regardless of the current price of Bitcoin, in the long term it is a better investment than any altcoin, especially the one you mention, and especially after it moved to POS. This made the centralized project even more closed, and also subject to various internal manipulations that could result in a disaster at any moment.

Furthermore, do you know what gives the project its size? The fact that Vitalik does not even know what the max supply of his token is, and although he said it was 100 million, it is currently 122 million, and now he claims that it will still be 150 million. In other words, x6 more tokens in circulation put it in second place by market capitalization, which is pure manipulation and nothing more.

If I am being honest with you, I do not think Michael Saylor is stupid for investing in bitcoin, however, he says many stupid things similar to what is shown in this video. This was taken from an interview when bitcoin was trading above $50k.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wIhTGB3wqV0&embeds_euri

If many people followed his advice, they would have lost more than 50% if they invested all of their savings, they would also be paying interest rates on mortgages and loans while having a 50% loss.