Bitcoin and Michael Saylor fud

[lionheart78]

The success of Michael Saylor will depend on where bitcoin's price might be on the next years. The question I ask for you is do you speculate that bitcoin will be more than $200k on 2035 or less than $50k on 2035?

If we are talking about 2035, assuming the BTC 4-year cycle is yet to be broken, I believe BTC would be sitting on $200k or a bit more.  Thus, the plan of Michael Saylor holding BTC will more likely be sitting on a huge profit.  Yes, they have paper losses right now, but we know how the Bitcoin market works.

Aside from that, although Bitcoin right now has plummeted from its ATH, there is no actual losses from Strategy since they have not sold their stash at a loss.  Besides, Strategy has different sources of income.  These sources can make the company stable despite the value of Bitcoin plummets.

[Smartprofit]

If I had 1,000,000 Bitcoins, I'd give most of them away to other people. 🙋 Not because I'm a noble altruist. I just know (at least in general terms) how Bitcoin works. Bitcoin's fundamental value is its decentralization (decentralization of storage, decentralization of mining, and decentralization of development). A centralized Bitcoin is of no use to anyone. Its value is zero.

I also don't approve of "paper" Bitcoins on cryptocurrency exchanges and spot Bitcoin ETFs. I'm a supporter of physical transactions and Bitcoin ownership by self-custody of private keys. Michael Saylor is precisely against this. 🤷

Investors who like to buy stocks and bonds need to be told that Bitcoin was actually created by Satoshi Nakamoto as an alternative to the modern financial system. Maybe they don't know this.  Maybe Michael Saylor forgot to tell them about this.🙆

[Dogedegen]

Michael Saylor says he will not sell any Bitcoin in his lifetime, meaning he will only buy, although this seems baseless to me, especially if he does not sell Bitcoin, then who will he hand over his Bitcoin to when he dies.

They have already sold some Bitcoin and will sell Bitcoin if they need to, I don't think you have read any posts in this thread before replying because this was mentioned several times by different users. Some were critical of it, some were understanding but it couldn't be missed. This thread is not that long.

In the last two weeks, Michael Saylor has bought over 35,000 Bitcoins and his target is to establish himself as the highest individual holder, leaving behind the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi.

None of those coins were bought by Michael Saylor personally, and he is far from the highest individual holder. I don't know how many he personally owns or whether that is public information.

If I had 1,000,000 Bitcoins, I'd give most of them away to other people. 🙋 Not because I'm a noble altruist. I just know (at least in general terms) how Bitcoin works. Bitcoin's fundamental value is its decentralization (decentralization of storage, decentralization of mining, and decentralization of development).

People who receive large amounts of free money are usually damaged by this because they do not deserve it and have not done anything to earn it. If you did it in this case, then you would land in prison for a very long time and everyone who received stolen money which is the property of a company would have to send it back or risk going to prison themselves. I don't think that most people who are unable to hide this money would risk going to prison over it. Anyway this seems off topic because Saylor does not personally own any Bitcoin that are owned by Strategy. Strategy is not a person, it is an legal company which owns these coins.

A centralized Bitcoin is of no use to anyone. Its value is zero.

This is false, the centralization of ownership has nothing to do with the decentralization of the network. You are just envious of rich people and advocate toxic socialist ideas.

Investors who like to buy stocks and bonds need to be told that Bitcoin was actually created by Satoshi Nakamoto as an alternative to the modern financial system. Maybe they don't know this.  Maybe Michael Saylor forgot to tell them about this.🙆

They don't care, that is why they are rich and you are not. They actually know what they are doing and are making boatloads of money, which is totally different from people on the internet pretending to know what they are doing and being poor. Very different.  

[bbc.reporter]

The success of Michael Saylor will depend on where bitcoin's price might be on the next years. The question I ask for you is do you speculate that bitcoin will be more than $200k on 2035 or less than $50k on 2035?

If everyone speculates that Michael Saylor's issuance of debt is a failure for certain, I reckon you should prepare for lower than $50k. If Saylor fails, he will be forced to dump much of his bitcoins hehehehe.

I don't speculate anything at all, Bitcoin will do what Bitcoin does. If you truly speculated that this will work out with 100% certainty, then you would invest all your money, ask banks for maximum loans and even borrow from friends and family. If you have not done that, you don't believe it will work out with 100% certainty so you doubt it too. Let's not pretend that reasonable stances in risk evaluation are incorrect, they are the most correct way of doing things. By the way, how old are you?

Heheheh, I can also tell you something similar. If you think that Michael Saylormoon's STRC will be a big 100% fail and this will cause a big dump then you would also use all of your money, also ask banks for maximum loans and also borrow from your relatives and friends to open short positions on bitcoin and Microstrategy hhehehe.

I have never declared that it will be 100% a success. However, it certainly has a lower chance of failure than what you are saying. How old are you, grandma?

[Free Market Capitalist]

If you think that Michael Saylormoon's STRC will be a big 100% fail...

I have never declared that it will be 100% a success. However, it certainly has a lower chance of failure than what you are saying. How old are you, grandma?

Setting aside personal quarrels, any probability we assign to the success or failure of STRC is bound to be subjective. What’s clear is that it’s an experiment many people are swallowing whole without pausing to examine it, simply because Saylor is a very skilled salesman—he’s a gifted speaker and finds it easy to convince people. I’m convinced it’s high-risk—the opposite of how he tries to sell it. Just seeing the interest he’s paying should raise red flags. Also, he markets it as a safe alternative to bank deposits, and if you read the fine print of the product, it says exactly the opposite.

It could still be a success, though for that to happen, the price of Bitcoin would have to rise much more than it has since he launched STRC. But by far.

[PrivacyG]

If I had 1,000,000 Bitcoins, I'd give most of them away to other people. 🙋 Not because I'm a noble altruist. I just know (at least in general terms) how Bitcoin works. Bitcoin's fundamental value is its decentralization (decentralization of storage, decentralization of mining, and decentralization of development). A centralized Bitcoin is of no use to anyone. Its value is zero.

If you kept giving away 1 Bitcoin to a different person until you had 1,000 Bitcoins left, by the time you are done most of them would have already sold theirs.  People have to pay mortgage, this was a trend I only heard about in The United States back in the 2010s but now it is a global trend where everyone is buried up in debt.  Even with no debt, most of them would not know what to do with the money and they would sell it to purchase luxury or to spend it on women.

The Rich get richer by exploiting particularly this.  People spend money on stupid things instead of quality and necessity.  The economy always circles right back up to the same fat wallets of Billionaires.  You would not stop that by giving money away.  The ones who would sell would 'give it away' to the next guy who has been accumulating for years.  Hell.  It may end up straight in the Michael Saylor vault, which gets you back to the same problem of most Bitcoin concentrated in a couple of hands.

This was always going to happen.  Billionaires finding the opportunity and jumping straight into it.  It was only a question of 'when'.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

If you kept giving away 1 Bitcoin to a different person until you had 1,000 Bitcoins left, by the time you are done most of them would have already sold theirs.  People have to pay mortgage, this was a trend I only heard about in The United States back in the 2010s but now it is a global trend where everyone is buried up in debt.  Even with no debt, most of them would not know what to do with the money and they would sell it to purchase luxury or to spend it on women.

It's true with any money giveaways in fiat currencies, cash, bitcoin or altcoins because people have many needs of using money, not only for paying their mortgage. In addition, people mostly don't have enough patience to hold their coins, either bitcoin or altcoins, for a long time so they will sell their coins especially more easily to do that with giveaway coins.

Lastly, perhaps it's hard to believe that Bitcoin or altcoins will grow up to which price targets as in this volatile market, people can change their thinking and price targets very easily and quickly. Even as investors, it's hard to control their emotion and actions while with giveaway receivers, they have less solid foundations in knowledge, and mentality for holding coins.

[moorestim]

he might be the richest person in the future
how do other companies not see btc is a growing asset and not take advantage now?
can't understand what people cannot see.

[Dogedegen]

Heheheh, I can also tell you something similar. If you think that Michael Saylormoon's STRC will be a big 100% fail and this will cause a big dump then you would also use all of your money, also ask banks for maximum loans and also borrow from your relatives and friends to open short positions on bitcoin and Microstrategy hhehehe.

No, it is not similar. It seems you do not fully understand the English written language otherwise I do not understand how you misinterpret my words several times in a row. I have never implied that I believe that it will succeed or it will fail, I have been giving a balanced take on it the whole time trying to show that all of these things have risks and timelines which they do. So if you have not been able to understand it still, I suggest that you ask ChatGPT for help in interpreting my posts.

I have never declared that it will be 100% a success. However, it certainly has a lower chance of failure than what you are saying. How old are you, grandma?

You don't know that, you just made it up. Nobody could really calculate the exact chances for success and failure here or whether one side is more probable than the other. It will be subjective at any point in time, we can only look at the riskiness of it. If Bitcoin goes to the moon in a short time it will work out even if something is extremely risky. That would not mean that someone was a brilliant strategist it means that they got lucky. The pun was intended. It does not matter if we are talking about Michael Saylor or anyone else, the same rules apply when it comes to risk. Even a conservative strategy can fail if you invest in something entirely terrible like some shitcoins that are down 99.9% from their ATHs, so the complete picture must be seen.

Setting aside personal quarrels, any probability we assign to the success or failure of STRC is bound to be subjective.

Yeah, even if you are a professional analyst it would be subjective. These are things that are not possible to measure, they are always subject to interpretation.

This was always going to happen.  Billionaires finding the opportunity and jumping straight into it.  It was only a question of 'when'.

I would say that Bitcoin has provided a very fair amount of time for normal people to jump in at affordable prices. The information was always out there, it was never hidden somewhere in some weird places of the internet. Normal people have had their chance, they don't get to complain now about that. Would you agree?

[Free Market Capitalist]

Yeah, even if you are a professional analyst it would be subjective. These are things that are not possible to measure, they are always subject to interpretation.

The thing is, any financial analyst—even one who is open to Bitcoin and has stated that he holds Bitcoin in his portfolio—knows that paying 11.50% carries a high risk, contrary to what ads like this one try to convey.
  
STRC Commercial Advertisement Ad Strategy MSTR

You need look no further than the interest rate being paid. Whether Saylor’s strategy ultimately pays off or not, we can’t know for sure, but the relationship between return and risk is a basic principle of finance. If T-bills yield 3.5% and this investment yields 11.5%, it’s because there’s a much higher risk involved.

[Dogedegen]

Yeah, even if you are a professional analyst it would be subjective. These are things that are not possible to measure, they are always subject to interpretation.

The thing is, any financial analyst—even one who is open to Bitcoin and has stated that he holds Bitcoin in his portfolio—knows that paying 11.50% carries a high risk, contrary to what ads like this one try to convey.
  
STRC Commercial Advertisement Ad Strategy MSTR

You need look no further than the interest rate being paid. Whether Saylor’s strategy ultimately pays off or not, we can’t know for sure, but the relationship between return and risk is a basic principle of finance. If T-bills yield 3.5% and this investment yields 11.5%, it’s because there’s a much higher risk involved.

You are absolutely right on that, I was trying to make two points here. First that we can't quantify to a specific number in an objective way, so if you used a scale of 1 to 10 you could interpret it as a 7 or 8 on the scale of risk but that would still be subjective because the difference between numbers on such a scale are hard to determine. That is why they use big groups, low risk, medium risk, high risk and then relative statement so in your example that would be that T-bills are less risky than these investment yields. But see even in that less risky statement we can't determine exactly how much, is it 50% less risky? 80%? It is hard, and so it remains subjective as we both have said.

The other thing is that I keep getting the impression that some users like the author of this topic do not understand what risk even means. If you say that Saylor's investment yield is a high risk thing which is true, they seem to associate that with you trying to say that it will surely fail but that is something else entirely. Sometimes low risk things fail, and other times high risk things succeed. The main idea is that higher risk things have a higher chance of failing and lower risk things have a lower chance of failing, but there are no guarantees. Anything is possible really.

The fact is that is it high risk and that it could fail, and I have said before in the past I would wish that they start reducing the risk of this operation because it could become a risk free investment in the sense of that they would keep most of the Bitcoin and have no debt and no dividend obligations. Debt and dividends add a lot of extra risk and time pressure!

[bbc.reporter]

Heheheh, I can also tell you something similar. If you think that Michael Saylormoon's STRC will be a big 100% fail and this will cause a big dump then you would also use all of your money, also ask banks for maximum loans and also borrow from your relatives and friends to open short positions on bitcoin and Microstrategy hhehehe.

No, it is not similar. It seems you do not fully understand the English written language otherwise I do not understand how you misinterpret my words several times in a row. I have never implied that I believe that it will succeed or it will fail, I have been giving a balanced take on it the whole time trying to show that all of these things have risks and timelines which they do. So if you have not been able to understand it still, I suggest that you ask ChatGPT for help in interpreting my posts.

I have never declared that it will be 100% a success. However, it certainly has a lower chance of failure than what you are saying. How old are you, grandma?

You don't know that, you just made it up. Nobody could really calculate the exact chances for success and failure here or whether one side is more probable than the other. It will be subjective at any point in time, we can only look at the riskiness of it. If Bitcoin goes to the moon in a short time it will work out even if something is extremely risky. That would not mean that someone was a brilliant strategist it means that they got lucky. The pun was intended. It does not matter if we are talking about Michael Saylor or anyone else, the same rules apply when it comes to risk. Even a conservative strategy can fail if you invest in something entirely terrible like some shitcoins that are down 99.9% from their ATHs, so the complete picture must be seen.

If you argue that no one can calculate the chances for success or failure, why were you so very much certain that the Saylormoon's STRC has a high chance to fail on your post before? You even jeered on me for being optimistic on STRC and bitcoin's pump from this. This is headshaking behavior from you because you imply that it will fail and when someone will argue against you, you will say that the people arguing against you cannot read english heheeheh!

[Dogedegen]

Heheheh, I can also tell you something similar. If you think that Michael Saylormoon's STRC will be a big 100% fail and this will cause a big dump then you would also use all of your money, also ask banks for maximum loans and also borrow from your relatives and friends to open short positions on bitcoin and Microstrategy hhehehe.

No, it is not similar. It seems you do not fully understand the English written language otherwise I do not understand how you misinterpret my words several times in a row. I have never implied that I believe that it will succeed or it will fail, I have been giving a balanced take on it the whole time trying to show that all of these things have risks and timelines which they do. So if you have not been able to understand it still, I suggest that you ask ChatGPT for help in interpreting my posts.

I have never declared that it will be 100% a success. However, it certainly has a lower chance of failure than what you are saying. How old are you, grandma?

You don't know that, you just made it up. Nobody could really calculate the exact chances for success and failure here or whether one side is more probable than the other. It will be subjective at any point in time, we can only look at the riskiness of it. If Bitcoin goes to the moon in a short time it will work out even if something is extremely risky. That would not mean that someone was a brilliant strategist it means that they got lucky. The pun was intended. It does not matter if we are talking about Michael Saylor or anyone else, the same rules apply when it comes to risk. Even a conservative strategy can fail if you invest in something entirely terrible like some shitcoins that are down 99.9% from their ATHs, so the complete picture must be seen.

If you argue that no one can calculate the chances for success or failure, why were you so very much certain that the Saylormoon's STRC has a high chance to fail on your post before? You even jeered on me for being optimistic on STRC and bitcoin's pump from this. This is headshaking behavior from you because you imply that it will fail and when someone will argue against you, you will say that the people arguing against you cannot read english heheeheh!

I am sorry but you need to go back to the definitions of words, certain, probable, speculative, opinion and things like that. You are quoting a post in which I have written that I have not implied that I believe or that I am certain that it has a high chance to fail, but you ask me again why I was very much certain. It just confirms what I have said, that you do not understand what I have written and instead of correcting course you continue to ask me weird question. Here is the basics of this situation in a few points.

• This operation is medium risk, it has risky aspects relating to debt and dividends. Maybe the payouts on the dividends can even be considered a high risk situation due to the high yield, maybe Free Market Capitalist can comment on that.
• This does not mean it will fail, it does not mean that it will succeed. It might fail or it might succeed.
• Any calculation of the exact chance of it failing or succeeding is subjective.
• Any beliefs or opinions about the chance of failing or succeeding being higher than the other case is also subjective.
• I do not believe with certainty that this will succeed or that it will fail but I do hope that it does succeed.
• Due to the medium risk and my personal risk aversion level, I would prefer the strategy moving forward to be on risk reduction.

I hope that it is now clear, it is basically a summary of the last few pages and posts. I am very conservative when it comes to risk and new markets like Bitcoin. For example I know people that took loans to buy some Bitcoin and it worked out good, but I refuse to do this under circumstance. That does not mean that I am right, it is just a personal risk assessment. When you try to invest in some things through financial companies or banks they will run a test on you to determine your risk preferences and based on that they will suggest you a product. We can subjectively give our interpretation here, but the part that is objective is that this operation has a timeline. It can not run indefinitely like this if Bitcoin does not grow or worse if it goes down for a very long time.

To say anything else is a lie. It is like saying that after taking a loan you can wait forever to pay it back? That is not how it works. Dividends, loans, they all come with timelines. Only buying with your own cash without any obligations can create a risk-free position, aside from the riskiness of the investment itself but that is a separate topic.

[bbc.reporter]

News update.

There will be many headshaking fud that will be caused by this news where these people will declare you see, you see, we are correct hehehehe! However, these people are not speculating on the bullishness of this because this would also imply that there is sustainability on STRC's dividends, which would also imply more demand for STRC, which would also imply the Saylormoon will buy more bitcoin!



Michael Saylor's Strategy signals potential bitcoin sale to fund dividends obligations

Michael Saylor proposes using bitcoin sales to support dividends, as Strategy reported a $12.54 billion Q1 loss.

Strategy (MSTR), the world’s largest publicly traded corporate holder of bitcoin, floated the idea of selling bitcoin in order to cover its dividend obligations.
Executive Chairman Michael Saylor suggested, during its Q1 2026 earnings call, the company may sell a portion of its bitcoin holdings to fund dividend payments, stating: “We will probably sell some bitcoin to pay a dividend just to inoculate the market and send the message that we did it.”

The company disclosed a $12.54 billion net loss for Q4, while maintaining a total bitcoin position of 818,334 BTC at an average acquisition cost of $75,537 per coin.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/05/05/michael-saylor-s-strategy-signals-potential-bitcoin-sale-to-fund-dividends-obligations

[Alex077]

Michael Saylor's Strategy signals potential bitcoin sale to fund dividends obligations

Michael Saylor proposes using bitcoin sales to support dividends, as Strategy reported a $12.54 billion Q1 loss...

I’ll add a little more to this story...
Michael Saylor said yesterday that his company might sell some Bitcoin to “protect” the market from sudden panic or strengthen confidence in the company - a noticeable shift from his long-standing “never sell your Bitcoin” narrative.
“We’ll probably sell some Bitcoin to fund dividends, just to inoculate the market and show people that we’ve done it,” Saylor said during Tuesday’s Q1 earnings call.
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1dKrPEoPlpvJX
According to Saylor, the idea is that market participants would realize that “the company is fine, Bitcoin is fine, the industry is fine, the world didn’t end.” This came after Strategy reported a $12.5 billion net loss, mostly tied to unrealized losses on its Bitcoin holdings as BTC dropped 23.8% during Q1…
And honestly, the only thing you can really add here is that Saylor used to say he would never sell Bitcoin.

[Dogedegen]

And honestly, the only thing you can really add here is that Saylor used to say he would never sell Bitcoin.

Yeah and this doesn't really mean anything. If you say something or do something in the past that is a bad strategy for whatever reason, should you not adapt yourself in the future? If the adaptation is smarter than the original plan, then it should be praised instead of criticized. I've read in some other threads how they could attempt to harvest losses by selling some coin and try doing some other capital finances things like that. But it would be good if they do sell a fair portion once and then nothing happens. That would signal maturity and lower the level of the FUD caused. Basically what internet people have done to this situation is turn it into some cult which does not allow Strategy to sell any coin, and if they do sell they want to make it into a symbol of the end of times. We've not come far from the times of cave men.. 

“We’ll probably sell some Bitcoin to fund dividends, just to inoculate the market and show people that we’ve done it,” Saylor said during Tuesday’s Q1 earnings call.

The first significant sale being behind us would be a good thing.

[bbc.reporter]

@Dogedegen. If Microstrategy will do their first significant sale of bitcoin from their treasury, I reckon I have a new name for Michael Saylor heheeh. Instead of calling him Michael the Saylormoon, we should begin calling him Michael Sellor heheheeheh!

[Free Market Capitalist]

Michael Saylor's Strategy signals potential bitcoin sale to fund dividends obligations

Michael Saylor proposes using bitcoin sales to support dividends, as Strategy reported a $12.54 billion Q1 loss...

I’ll add a little more to this story...
Michael Saylor said...
And honestly, the only thing you can really add here is that Saylor used to say he would never sell Bitcoin.

Basically, the snake oil salesman said blah, blah, blah again. You guys aren't paying attention to this, but this isn't the first or even the second time he's contradicted one of the principles he established as set in stone. The possibility of selling Bitcoin isn't new—Phong Lee already mentioned it late last year—but the difference now is that the reason would be to pay dividends, not because of some supposed mathematical rationale.

At this point, we’ve reached a stage where if you buy any MSTR product, it’s because you have faith that Saylor will do well despite the contradictions—not because you can trust that what he says today will hold true tomorrow.

[UchihaSarada]

At this point, we’ve reached a stage where if you buy any MSTR product, it’s because you have faith that Saylor will do well despite the contradictions—not because you can trust that what he says today will hold true tomorrow.

Strategy has reached to a very high risk level so that there will be many scenarios they have to sell bitcoins.

It was less risky in the past to believe in Saylor, Strategy and buy their MSTR product because you trust them, and believe that their leverage and bet on Bitcoin will result in sweet and profitable results. From now it will no longer be such kind of safe situation like in past years, and it's safer if people don't buy MSTR product, just buy bitcoin. MSTR can rise if Bitcoin market performs well but if Bitcoin market goes bad, very bad, it's terrible for them. While if they buy bitcoin and store bitcoin by themselves, they will not have too severe problems if Bitcoin market turns very bad in short term.

[Free Market Capitalist]

It was less risky in the past to believe in Saylor, Strategy and buy their MSTR product because you trust them, and believe that their leverage and bet on Bitcoin will result in sweet and profitable results.

At first, the idea of MSTR being a leveraged play on Bitcoin convinced us—at least the vast majority of us. But the problem is that Saylor has self-sabotaged the possibility of people paying high multiples of mNAV as he acquires more Bitcoin. That’s why he’s now marketing STRC the most, which faces the problem of trying to pay cash flow from a business that doesn’t generate cash. Initially, the idea was that an indefinite supply of buyers would provide the cash to pay the dividends, but that has now changed, as he intends to sell Bitcoin to pay them.