When Would Michael Saylor (MicroStrategy) Sell Bitcoin?

[Cryptohygenic]

They 're building their entire product on Bitcoin. They don't store Bitcoin just as a hedge against inflation. They are serious about it, so don't expect them to sell soon.

The institution had been on the bitcoin space since 2020 which is 5 years now, some would say they have just been here in a short time with the duration to think that they could sell so soon in comparison with other investors who had hold over two times market cycles of 8 years plus.
Not that I am expecting them to sell so soon but my question is, if they sell now, does it signify they are too quick to sell?
I am curious because looking through the window, their obligations is to make profits and hedge against inflation right? So what if the formality of them selling now is to cause market fall and then rebuy again at good low entry just to take profits and solve their needs.
I am just saying because this is a decentralized financial system where every investors do have right to decide about their investment plans.
So I just think anything is possible to happen because we don't have to approve them before to sell or neither are we to encourage them to keep holding.
The anxiety of us about them selling off their bitcoin is the fear of market sentiments which the volume of their assets is large enough to cause Investors panic if they finally sells them.

[Lucius]

~snip~
If they ever reached a point where they absolutely had to sell their Bitcoin holdings, it would likely mean a terminal scenario for Bitcoin had already begun.

What kind of somewhat sick obsession is there with whether someone will or will not sell what they bought in order to ultimately make a profit? What's worse is that people think this could be the beginning of the end for BTC, while at the same time most are rooting for MS to buy even more BTC.

No matter how one looks at it, the idea that only one company has so much BTC in its possession is simply bad and BTC should not be used in that way - unless people today think that BTC is just a passing thing that needs to be used as best as possible before it becomes useless?

[fikrett]

When will he sell he sell his Bitcoin? It's not something that can be guessed at the moment because it's just one time he did that and that was three years ago with reasons best known to him
 MStr as the company is now known have continued to flex their muscle where Bitcoin is concerned so it's going to be highly unlikely that he'd sell soon.

He will sell, or he won't - so what about it in the broader perspective?

[Majestic-milf]

When will he sell he sell his Bitcoin? It's not something that can be guessed at the moment because it's just one time he did that and that was three years ago with reasons best known to him
 MStr as the company is now known have continued to flex their muscle where Bitcoin is concerned so it's going to be highly unlikely that he'd sell soon.

He will sell, or he won't - so what about it in the broader perspective?

  What about it? He owns the largest Bitcoin in the company and can choose whether to sell or not, that's up to him. We can't begin to guess what's in the minds of these big investors and just have to flow with whatever we see.

[el kaka22]

We can't possibly know the exact date. But, it would be also a bit foolish to think that they would "never" sell, maybe in 40 years? That still is selling, sure it is very down the line, but it is still selling. Could anyone here guarantee that they won't sell within the next 40 years? Of course not and that is why we need to be careful about it. This of course doesn't mean they will sell 40 years later, it could be tomorrow, it could be after I die, so what we do is take them into consideration when buying bitcoin.

We can't wait for them to sell and get out before we buy, and we can't sell because they are selling, then we are missing profit chances. So, this is why we need to be careful with our purchases while thinking about all the whales.

[Darker45]

In the absence of such urgent reason to sell, I don't think Strategy will do it. So far, it appears Saylor is meant to carry his coins with him to the grave.

They can't decide that on their own, it will depend on the tariff war and the economic situation. Saylor invests in bitcoin just for profit, money like all of us, I don't believe the claim that he will never sell his bitcoin.

Of course. Their decision is ultimately dependent on the circumstances. And then there's the fact that Saylor doesn't strictly own Strategy. He's influential in the company's overall direction, but he doesn't have a unilateral power as to its decisions.

But as to his personal Bitcoin holdings, he's made pronouncements in the past that he intends to destroy his private keys when he dies. His Bitcoin will die with him. He compared himself to Satoshi in that his burned coins contribute to the value of every coin left. Whether that's true or not, only time can tell.

[nutildah]

What kind of somewhat sick obsession is there with whether someone will or will not sell what they bought in order to ultimately make a profit? What's worse is that people think this could be the beginning of the end for BTC, while at the same time most are rooting for MS to buy even more BTC.

Well it certainly won't mean "the end for bitcoin," but Microstrategy selling would reflect a loss of confidence in the market and could possibly spur panic selling and a downward spiral, especially if MS has to sell more in order to stay afloat as a company. But let's face it: most people hold BTC because they are expecting to profit from it, not because they actually intend on using it.

No matter how one looks at it, the idea that only one company has so much BTC in its possession is simply bad and BTC should not be used in that way - unless people today think that BTC is just a passing thing that needs to be used as best as possible before it becomes useless?

I agree with this... that's why Saylor isn't a good role model for actual bitcoiners. Or anybody, for that matter.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Michael Saylor has for me made others believe that Bitcoin is worth investing in with his huge acquisition and am sure he and his Microstrategy aren't done yet.
 Am sure there's also a long term HODLing plan in play that's to avoid the short falls of selling under duress and this should compensate for any financial lapses they might face during the time this plan is ongoing, otherwise it isn't worth buying this much BTC just to sell off to settle rising company debts.

I think Michael Saylor may sell BTC when he intends to diversify into other noteworthy crypto currency or altcoins or investment that's entirely different from crypto.

[fuguebtc]

I think Michael Saylor may sell BTC when he intends to diversify into other noteworthy crypto currency or altcoins or investment that's entirely different from crypto.

He is a bitcoin maximalist and even stated that will never sell his bitcoins, so I think he will never sell bitcoins just to buy shitcoins. He has put his heart and soul into bitcoin and his company so the only scenario that would force him to sell bitcoin is to save the company if the economic situation gets worse and causes problems for the business. Other than that, I don't think there is any other reason why he would sell bitcoin.

However, we are all the same, investing is to make profit so he can also sell bitcoin if he reaches his goal.

[rdluffy]

MicroStrategy's 8-K disclosure states: "We may sell bitcoin to meet financial obligations, and such sales could occur at prices below our cost basis or at otherwise unfavorable prices." (This is standard language in all their 8-K reports)
However, it's unlikely MicroStrategy would sell even a single satoshi.

This is the excerpt from the document you are quoting



If anyone is interested, the full document can be found at the following link
Complete document and source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1050446/000119312525073989/d938485d8k.htm



We've always known that Saylor will obviously need to sell BTC if he needs to pay off his debts and can no longer take out loans
But so far he's been buying BTC at any price, including in the 100k range, and I remember when BTC fell a long time ago, many people thought he'd have to sell and he didn't

I don't think it will come to that. His idea is very basic: BTC will always go up in the long term because fiat currencies are always being devalued. It's as simple as that

[Taskford]

MicroStrategy's 8-K disclosure states: "We may sell bitcoin to meet financial obligations, and such sales could occur at prices below our cost basis or at otherwise unfavorable prices." (This is standard language in all their 8-K reports)
However, it's unlikely MicroStrategy would sell even a single satoshi.

Here's why:
If forced to liquidate for any reason, it would trigger significant market collapse, creating a downward spiral where they'd need to sell more and more BTC at increasingly worse prices.
MicroStrategy would do everything possible to avoid this outcome. If they ever reached a point where they absolutely had to sell their Bitcoin holdings, it would likely mean a terminal scenario for Bitcoin had already begun.
That said, difficulty in repaying individual convertible notes wouldn't by itself trigger such an apocalyptic Bitcoin scenario.

In essence, MicroStrategy's Bitcoin strategy appears to be genuinely long-term, with selling as an absolute last resort that they would strenuously avoid through alternative financing options.

I guess you cannot get an accurate answer towards your question since same as you people also don't have any idea on when Microstrategy would sell their Bitcoins. For sure they won't give any clue on that incident since for sure they want to play with the market.

But I guess you can get an idea about their possible action if you follow Saylor on X https://x.com/saylor then he start saying negative about Bitcoin  maybe this is the least indicator to determine that they might sell their Bitcoin.

But again I don't really think don't think that selling of their Bitcoins will happen soon.

[Lucius]

What kind of somewhat sick obsession is there with whether someone will or will not sell what they bought in order to ultimately make a profit? What's worse is that people think this could be the beginning of the end for BTC, while at the same time most are rooting for MS to buy even more BTC.

Well it certainly won't mean "the end for bitcoin," but Microstrategy selling would reflect a loss of confidence in the market and could possibly spur panic selling and a downward spiral, especially if MS has to sell more in order to stay afloat as a company. But let's face it: most people hold BTC because they are expecting to profit from it, not because they actually intend on using it.

Maybe it just seems that way to me, but except in the US, Saylor and his investments in BTC are not very well known, at least judging by how many people follow him on social networks. I have never heard of him and his company in my local media, although BTC is often mentioned.

Even when (not if) the time comes for his company to sell part of BTC, it will probably be a smaller amount and will go through the OTC - so I don't see that such an event should seriously affect the price.

No matter how one looks at it, the idea that only one company has so much BTC in its possession is simply bad and BTC should not be used in that way - unless people today think that BTC is just a passing thing that needs to be used as best as possible before it becomes useless?

I agree with this... that's why Saylor isn't a good role model for actual bitcoiners. Or anybody, for that matter.

Fortunately, he does not succeed in convincing others that what he is doing is meaningful, because if we imagine that there are only 5 companies doing the same thing in the past 5 years, we can say that then the risk would be x5 higher than it is now. However, when we add spot BTC ETFs and the fact that they all use custodial solutions of practically one and the same company, then all of this does not look good.

The small man (the majority) will always sell to make a profit, and the big man will always be able to afford to buy far more than these first ones. In other words, more and more BTC will eventually be owned by people who never cared about Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency, but that is a reality that cannot be escaped.

[Swordsoffreedom]

They can't decide that on their own, it will depend on the tariff war and the economic situation. Saylor invests in bitcoin just for profit, money like all of us, I don't believe the claim that he will never sell his bitcoin.

But as to his personal Bitcoin holdings, he's made pronouncements in the past that he intends to destroy his private keys when he dies. His Bitcoin will die with him. He compared himself to Satoshi in that his burned coins contribute to the value of every coin left. Whether that's true or not, only time can tell.

I don't know if you or anyone else believes what he says but honestly, I don't believe it. It is suspicious that he said he bought bitcoin not for profit while making exaggerated predictions about bitcoin like: bitcoin will reach $13 million by 2045 or reach $49 million in the future. If he really intended to burn those bitcoins, he should have thrown away the seed phrase immediately, not when he died.


He cannot be compared to Satoshi because Satoshi created bitcoin with the intention of using it as a currency and not as an investment as Saylor and his company are doing with bitcoin.


By the way, for those who don't know: Saylor holds 17,732 BTC and was purchased in 2020. While Strategy holds over 528,185 BTC at an average price of $67k.


https://cryptorank.io/news/feed/d5b14-michael-saylor-predicts-bitcoin-will-reach-13-million-per-coin

[d5000]

He is a bitcoin maximalist and even stated that will never sell his bitcoins, so I think he will never sell bitcoins just to buy shitcoins. He has put his heart and soul into bitcoin and his company [...]

This is a common misinterpretation. We don't know what Saylor really thinks about Bitcoin.

In his communication he's basically trying to fuel his own business model, which is completely rational. And this business model depends on Bitcoin increasing in price. So he's basically doing the same thing as for example Apple claiming that smartphones are essential tools for everything.

I dunno if MSTR exaggerated with their recent BTC buys over $90,000. These buys were sorta necessary to attract more capital in a bullish phase, and they need bullish phases and FOMO for people and institutions buying their shares.

As for the consequences of a MSTR insolvency, I believe this could drive the Bitcoin price below $50,000 again, for sure, but it would be in any manner "terminal". It basically would be similar to what the FTX insolvency or the Terra/Luna case caused to Bitcoin in 2022. It would have some psychological consequences too, so it could lead to a deep crypto winter, but not deeper than the ones we've already experienced. Heck, when MtGox got bankrupt, Bitcoin "only" fell about 85%, and this was in a moment when MtGox was essentially the only important Bitcoin company (besides from some minor startups) and the order books were much thinner than now.

[takuma sato]

He is a bitcoin maximalist and even stated that will never sell his bitcoins, so I think he will never sell bitcoins just to buy shitcoins. He has put his heart and soul into bitcoin and his company [...]

This is a common misinterpretation. We don't know what Saylor really thinks about Bitcoin.

In his communication he's basically trying to fuel his own business model, which is completely rational. And this business model depends on Bitcoin increasing in price. So he's basically doing the same thing as for example Apple claiming that smartphones are essential tools for everything.

I dunno if MSTR exaggerated with their recent BTC buys over $90,000. These buys were sorta necessary to attract more capital in a bullish phase, and they need bullish phases and FOMO for people and institutions buying their shares.

As for the consequences of a MSTR insolvency, I believe this could drive the Bitcoin price below $50,000 again, for sure, but it would be in any manner "terminal". It basically would be similar to what the FTX insolvency or the Terra/Luna case caused to Bitcoin in 2022. It would have some psychological consequences too, so it could lead to a deep crypto winter, but not deeper than the ones we've already experienced. Heck, when MtGox got bankrupt, Bitcoin "only" fell about 85%, and this was in a moment when MtGox was essentially the only important Bitcoin company (besides from some minor startups) and the order books were much thinner than now.

Saylor bought a ton of BTC to try to frontrun the potential nation-state buying wave which could have happened when the Bitcoin Reserve Strategy was announced, but so far there has been no frontrunning of nation-states to this plan. Therefore, Saylor bought a ton of BTC when he could have bought lower. But in any case, he already has the BTC and he is in a good position, since corporations will have a hard time trying to take the #1 spot from Strategy as the corporation with the largest holdings of BTC. The implication of being a monopoly on BTC holdings are not fully priced in within the current share value. This implies a rational NAV premium by default, since no other corporation is going to catch them at this point. The possibilities of being major BTC holder are also not fully understood. As predicted by Hal Finney years ago, Bitcoin banks may be a thing in the future and Saylor may be the JP Morgan of Bitcoin.

As far as dumping below 50k. The thing is, for MSTR to be insolvent, the price would need to go much, much lower. MSTR would be at a loss only under $15k if you actually run the numbers, so Saylor is doing a good job at keeping leverage at rational levels.

[The Cryptovator]

When you realise their accumulation strategy, you can imagine when they would sell as well. They are accumulating when they need; price doesn't matter to them. This indicates their goal is to hold Bitcoin for the long term. Also, that means they could sell Bitcoin when they really need to sell; it would meet some obligations or comply with company policies. Unless there is something they need to comply with, I don't think they are going to dump their holding.

If seriously they need to sell early at any point before achieving their goal, we have to be witness a massive dump in the Bitcoin price. More than a pump when they bought; we will see the dump when they sell. We have to keep this in mind always because the entire market would crash when institutional investors sell their Bitcoin holdings. Hope we will not see such situations very soon.

[BITCOIN4X]

~Snip

Saylor bought a ton of BTC to try to frontrun the potential nation-state buying wave which could have happened when the Bitcoin Reserve Strategy was announced, but so far there has been no frontrunning of nation-states to this plan. Therefore, Saylor bought a ton of BTC when he could have bought lower. But in any case, he already has the BTC and he is in a good position, since corporations will have a hard time trying to take the #1 spot from Strategy as the corporation with the largest holdings of BTC. The implication of being a monopoly on BTC holdings are not fully priced in within the current share value. This implies a rational NAV premium by default, since no other corporation is going to catch them at this point. The possibilities of being major BTC holder are also not fully understood. As predicted by Hal Finney years ago, Bitcoin banks may be a thing in the future and Saylor may be the JP Morgan of Bitcoin.

As far as dumping below 50k. The thing is, for MSTR to be insolvent, the price would need to go much, much lower. MSTR would be at a loss only under $15k if you actually run the numbers, so Saylor is doing a good job at keeping leverage at rational levels.

Regardless of Saylor's goal of buying a lot of bitcoins and continuing to accumulate them, it is clearly not something that some people want. Ownership is a concern among people, of course because in the end Saylor also aims to make a profit from his investment. He can sell bitcoin at any time at any price, that is his right and we should be aware the market will crash because of it.

Some people consider Saylor and his bitcoin holdings a red flag in the long term, but others don't. At least I still think Saylor will not sell his bitcoins on the market like in general, but he can sell them to various other companies when he wants to sell them. This way, the market will not be too volatile and the sale will not have as bad an impact as the sales some governments have made with confiscated bitcoin.

[takuma sato]

~Snip

Saylor bought a ton of BTC to try to frontrun the potential nation-state buying wave which could have happened when the Bitcoin Reserve Strategy was announced, but so far there has been no frontrunning of nation-states to this plan. Therefore, Saylor bought a ton of BTC when he could have bought lower. But in any case, he already has the BTC and he is in a good position, since corporations will have a hard time trying to take the #1 spot from Strategy as the corporation with the largest holdings of BTC. The implication of being a monopoly on BTC holdings are not fully priced in within the current share value. This implies a rational NAV premium by default, since no other corporation is going to catch them at this point. The possibilities of being major BTC holder are also not fully understood. As predicted by Hal Finney years ago, Bitcoin banks may be a thing in the future and Saylor may be the JP Morgan of Bitcoin.

As far as dumping below 50k. The thing is, for MSTR to be insolvent, the price would need to go much, much lower. MSTR would be at a loss only under $15k if you actually run the numbers, so Saylor is doing a good job at keeping leverage at rational levels.

Regardless of Saylor's goal of buying a lot of bitcoins and continuing to accumulate them, it is clearly not something that some people want. Ownership is a concern among people, of course because in the end Saylor also aims to make a profit from his investment. He can sell bitcoin at any time at any price, that is his right and we should be aware the market will crash because of it.

Some people consider Saylor and his bitcoin holdings a red flag in the long term, but others don't. At least I still think Saylor will not sell his bitcoins on the market like in general, but he can sell them to various other companies when he wants to sell them. This way, the market will not be too volatile and the sale will not have as bad an impact as the sales some governments have made with confiscated bitcoin.

The fact that some big entity would end up buying a ton of Bitcoin was only a matter of time. The market will need to learn this simply economic fact. Due pareto principle distributions there is always going to be huge players and many smaller players. Unless you code the money to be impossible to store past a certain number by a single entity, but that of course wouldn't be viable to implement and most likely would tank the price. And so what you have is the same as you could see with gold, oil or any other commodity. Big players exists. Just because the US and the middle east arab monopoly on oil hold most of the oil, people don't dump their oil stocks, it is just what it is. Same as gold. Just because central banks own most of the hold, people don't dump their gold. Well same thing with BTC. There will be huge players holding BTC, they may or not sell some BTC at some point, the market will need to deal with that.

[serjent05]

As long as Bitcoin won't fall to the critical price, they're fine. I see nothing special in this case, yet many people used it to FUD.

The scenario of one of the biggest supporters/investors of Bitcoin collapsing is the best theme to FUD the Bitcoin market.  So those who are plotting against Bitcoin or scheming to get Bitcoin price to plummet and then accumulate can use this strategy to inflict fear in the market making weak hands, uninformed, new investors to sell their stash to have a head start in retrieving their capital at minimal loss.

That said, companies always have a backup plan, an emergency protocol when their financial funding is reaching a red line.  It is also a common practice for companies to liquidate assets to fill the need for financial support so it won't be surprising if MicroStrategy indeed sells their Bitcoin in their financial struggle (if that scenario happens).

Although Microstrategy focuses in converting its funding to Bitcoin, Microstrategy still generates profit from its core business of providing intelligence and analytic software and have strategies to further safeguard or increase its revenue by planning to provide further services seen on their roadmap.  With these plans, it is less likely that MicroStrategy has the need to liquidate their Bitcoin soon or even better that we can see Microstrategy strengthening their position in the Bitcoin market by securing more Bitcoin through more aggressive accumulation.

[tabas]

That will create a wave if ever they have decided to sell some Bitcoins from their holdings due to the obligation that they have for their investors. But I think at some point, this company and Saylor himself has been saved by Bitcoin when he's in the verge of losing more money and he's able to get in earlier than the other financial institutions that are now following his path. We might also be influenced if they did some selling but I believe that they'd do more buybacks than selling because we've seen them do that at different prices.