Bitcoin and Michael Saylor fud, it is almost Michael Sellor

[d5000]

An adaptation is not a contradiction, everything else is correct. When it comes to contradictions usually we talk about things that are current or don't make sense, you can't just pick any point in time like find something I said 20 years ago and say look you are contradicting yourself now. If you do that, then you are rejecting any learning process in a biased way.

The thing is that I don't think that there is any adaptation nor learning process. I think Saylor knew from the very start that eventually Strategy would have begun to sell Bitcoin.

Simply, the "I will not sell any Bitcoin" was a slogan that was useful for Saylor in the phase his company needed every new investor to grow. Now his company is one of the biggest Bitcoin players, growth isn't that important anymore. And perhaps there is also some "maturing" of a part of the audience. The "brute" Bitcoin Maxi from 2018 looks a bit outdated in 2026. But all this was predictable.

The little uptrend we're seeing since 60k was thus probably the perfect occasion to change the communication strategy and admit that selling is on the table.

So I can fully understand people who feel betrayed now. The thing is ... that's simply a very typical move of a "growth company". "Fake it until you make it" often works (and don't do it like Elizabeth Taylor ...). And, as I wrote, if Saylor sells or not, is not important for Bitcoin at all.

[Free Market Capitalist]

First finish something more than high school then we can talk about the definitions of things.

Finish high school you fucking retard? You have amply demonstrated that you lack even a basic understanding of logic. You don't understand such basic concepts as “all,” “some,” and “never.”

You have been proven wrong,

In you retard mind I have been proven wrong for sure.

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to that other idiot: show me where I said Saylor is going to sell ALL of his Bitcoin.

Let's set the record straight. There has been a thread here for a long time—a high-quality thread on Strategy:

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

But the retard OP had to come along and start this thread, which is perfect for him to hit his post quota by writing generic posts—the kind of thread where retards, people who don't understand basic logic, and those whose horizons don't extend beyond “Sailor Moon” abound.

[bbc.reporter]

You might be correct. We can begin calling Michael the Saylormoon with his new nickname Michael Sellor after he gives the command to sell some bitcoin from the treasury of Microstrategy hehehe.

However, to declare that he will dump all of the bitcoin from the treasury and cause a big short occurrence is certainly fud.

Are you fucking stupid or what? I never said that. You said that I said that.

Quote me where I said that he will dump all the Bitcoin or you are just another stupid fuck.

Heheheh are you on your menstruation cycle? Why are you very much triggered on this? I have agreed with you already that the promise of Michael the Saylormoon will be broken if he will sell any amount of bitcoin so we can also begin calling him Michael Sellor heheheheheeee.

In any case, news update. Michael the Saylormoon has bought more bitcoin.



Strategy has acquired 24,869 BTC for ~$2.01 billion at ~$80,985 per bitcoin and has achieved BTC Yield of 12.6% YTD 2026. As of 5/17/2026, we hodl 843,738 $BTC acquired for ~$63.87 billion at ~$75,700 per bitcoin.

Source https://x.com/saylor/status/2056349245913849969?s=46

[Dogedegen]

An adaptation is not a contradiction, everything else is correct. When it comes to contradictions usually we talk about things that are current or don't make sense, you can't just pick any point in time like find something I said 20 years ago and say look you are contradicting yourself now. If you do that, then you are rejecting any learning process in a biased way.

The thing is that I don't think that there is any adaptation nor learning process. I think Saylor knew from the very start that eventually Strategy would have begun to sell Bitcoin.

Simply, the "I will not sell any Bitcoin" was a slogan that was useful for Saylor in the phase his company needed every new investor to grow. Now his company is one of the biggest Bitcoin players, growth isn't that important anymore. And perhaps there is also some "maturing" of a part of the audience. The "brute" Bitcoin Maxi from 2018 looks a bit outdated in 2026. But all this was predictable.

The little uptrend we're seeing since 60k was thus probably the perfect occasion to change the communication strategy and admit that selling is on the table.

So I can fully understand people who feel betrayed now. The thing is ... that's simply a very typical move of a "growth company". "Fake it until you make it" often works (and don't do it like Elizabeth Taylor ...). And, as I wrote, if Saylor sells or not, is not important for Bitcoin at all.

But isn't that just a biased take that is entirely based on speculation? It would be equally valid to speculate if you were a person that is positively biased to Saylor that he tried until the very end to pursue this strategy for the benefit of Bitcoin but failed, and that this is an adaptation to the changing environment. How you frame it, it sounds like you mean to tell me that the whole plan here everything that happened from the beginning to now including all the bad and good changes has been a master plan by Saylor. With that he would be a person with one of the best foresight abilities in human history? That does not align with Occam's razor well at all. The most likely explanation is that he believed it was possible at least to some way to go with that route, but it turned out that he was wrong. People make mistakes about things all the time, why would he be different? Every other explanation adds more assumptions and if there is no evidence for them, then it is just bias from any side of the equation.

But the retard OP had to come along and start this thread, which is perfect for him to hit his post quota by writing generic posts—the kind of thread where retards, people who don't understand basic logic, and those whose horizons don't extend beyond “Sailor Moon” abound.

For sure most of your posts are great.  

Heheheh are you on your menstruation cycle? Why are you very much triggered on this? I have agreed with you already that the promise of Michael the Saylormoon will be broken if he will sell any amount of bitcoin so we can also begin calling him Michael Sellor heheheheheeee.

He is so upset that others are doing so much for Bitcoin because he isn't. In your words, heheheheheeee.

[d5000]

But isn't that just a biased take that is entirely based on speculation? It would be equally valid to speculate if you were a person that is positively biased to Saylor that he tried until the very end to pursue this strategy for the benefit of Bitcoin but failed, and that this is an adaptation to the changing environment. How you frame it, it sounds like you mean to tell me that the whole plan here everything that happened from the beginning to now including all the bad and good changes has been a master plan by Saylor.

The big question is: how should that business model really work if Bitcoins are never sold (or spent for goods, which is essentially the same thing)? Even if Bitcoin eventually stabilizes and the "ride on volatility" does not work anymore? Yes, they talked about something like a Bitcoin bank with loans sustaining the business, but that would imply that Bitcoins would sometimes also flow out of the system.

At least I had doubts about the long term viability from the start, and I am actually quite fine that they didn't sustain that "lie" for more time.

It's the same like these social networks who said they won't rely on advertising on their platforms. Twitter did this in 2009 when they were massively growing, and one year later they added ads. These are typical claims of growth companies that are simply unsustainable.

There doesn't need to be a "master plan". In many cases it's more like "let's try that way with a bold promise, even if we already doubt it will work". They even may investigate some alternative business models or pretend to do so, like Twitter did in the late 00s (for example they talked about licensing content to search engines which is ... at least extremely bold).

The "honest way" for Saylor would have been to say: "For now we don't plan to sell Bitcoin. We are investigating possibilities to make that sustainable." instead of "We never will sell Bitcoin.". But which company does such a thing? That's also Ockham's Razor in action - it should be empirically verifiable that companies often lie or at least exaggerate in their growth phase. Why should Strategy be the outlier then?

[Free Market Capitalist]

Heheheh are you on your menstruation cycle?

Well, no—actually, my testosterone levels are very high, at the upper end of the natural range.

Why are you very much triggered on this? I have agreed with you already that the promise of Michael the Saylormoon will be broken if he will sell any amount of bitcoin so we can also begin calling him Michael Sellor heheheheheeee.

Basically because I analyze things rationally and I don't put up with low value BS. Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but I know quite a bit more about this topic—specifically, how Bitcoin treasury companies and Strategy work—than most of the people who usually post in this thread.

The "honest way" for Saylor would have been to say: "For now we don't plan to sell Bitcoin. We are investigating possibilities to make that sustainable." instead of "We never will sell Bitcoin.". But which company does such a thing? That's also Ockham's Razor in action - it should be empirically verifiable that companies often lie or at least exaggerate in their growth phase. Why should Strategy be the outlier then?

Well, it would be understandable if it were just about one specific point, like whether or not to sell. The problem is that Saylor has contradicted himself on several key points in a very short period of time. I think I've already listed these in this thread and in fillippone's, but I'll repeat them again.

1. When he created STRC, he said he would stop selling common stock via ATM to create shareholder value. Immediately afterward and throughout the rest of 2025, he continued selling MSTR via ATM as if there were no tomorrow, causing a 50% drop in the stock price.
2. He became known for the phrase “people who save in fiat, we call them poor,” which spawned memes and songs. At the end of 2025, he diluted shareholders to create a cash reserve.
3. If what you say is true—that he knew from the start he was going to sell at some point—then he’s a compulsive liar. Just look at how angry he gets in the video: “It’s going up forever, Laura.”
4. He created STRC based on a 30% CAGR for Bitcoin, and relatively recently changed that projection to say that Bitcoin only needs to grow by a small percentage for STRC to be sustainable.

I think I’m forgetting a few more, but he’s basically a walking contradiction. The thing is, since he’s such a great salesman, Saylormooners believe anything he says.

[Dogedegen]

The big question is: how should that business model really work if Bitcoins are never sold (or spent for goods, which is essentially the same thing)? Even if Bitcoin eventually stabilizes and the "ride on volatility" does not work anymore? Yes, they talked about something like a Bitcoin bank with loans sustaining the business, but that would imply that Bitcoins would sometimes also flow out of the system.

But that depends on what the goal of the business is. From what I remember reading some ideas is that you would borrow against the Bitcoin capital and do what one wants to do with it, and this is not the same as selling if you pay back the money or most of it. If you focus on selling as the goal then it is not really a business model that adopts Bitcoin, it is just someone from fiat using Bitcoin to make more fiat and later exists Bitcoin. That is not interesting at all and there's nothing unique about it? Correct me if I am mistaken.

At least I had doubts about the long term viability from the start, and I am actually quite fine that they didn't sustain that "lie" for more time.

It's the same like these social networks who said they won't rely on advertising on their platforms. Twitter did this in 2009 when they were massively growing, and one year later they added ads. These are typical claims of growth companies that are simply unsustainable.

There doesn't need to be a "master plan". In many cases it's more like "let's try that way with a bold promise, even if we already doubt it will work". They even may investigate some alternative business models or pretend to do so, like Twitter did in the late 00s (for example they talked about licensing content to search engines which is ... at least extremely bold).

The "honest way" for Saylor would have been to say: "For now we don't plan to sell Bitcoin. We are investigating possibilities to make that sustainable." instead of "We never will sell Bitcoin.". But which company does such a thing? That's also Ockham's Razor in action - it should be empirically verifiable that companies often lie or at least exaggerate in their growth phase. Why should Strategy be the outlier then?

I don't think that this Occam's Razor application is correct because then every case where any company did something wrong would be derived to a they lied situation. Companies are just collections of people, and what do people do the most? Yes they lie a lot but what do they do even more than lie? They make mistakes, all the time every day! The more complex the problem the more mistakes are done. If we go with your application of Occam's razor there is not gonna be any kind of situation where people in a company honestly believed something but they were wrong, which is definitely not the right description of what happens in the real world. But okay let's keep with the dispute, what way could you prove that they were wrong instead of lying or that they were lying instead of being honestly wrong?

I do not see any way to do that, so it is going to come down to bias. If you are more in favor of this person or his operation you are more likely to believe that he was honestly wrong, and if you are more against him then you will say that he knowingly lied. Both positions are equally valid from this view, but what is not valid is to take one biased view and then use it as the absolute truth and attack the opposite view. After all there is no proof that Saylor intentionally lied or that he was honestly wrong. The other approach is then to dismiss bias completely and try to use reasoning such as with our example of Occam's Razor, but as you see we may have valid conflicts with that too depending on how it is applied.

I am more inclined to believe that this was his genuine belief and that it did not materialize and they started to adapt the business operations. This goes in line with what many users have experienced during this cycle, its under performance and its uniqueness and also the failures of shitcoins this time around. If so many other people were surprised by the unexpected, the more likely it is that he too was surprised by something that he did not expect.

Heheheh are you on your menstruation cycle?

Well, no—actually, my testosterone levels are very high, at the upper end of the natural range.

Is this not exactly what someone who was bullied in school would write on the internet? Impossible to tell the difference between those and real people.

[bbc.reporter]

Heheheh are you on your menstruation cycle?

Well, no—actually, my testosterone levels are very high, at the upper end of the natural range.

Why are you very much triggered on this? I have agreed with you already that the promise of Michael the Saylormoon will be broken if he will sell any amount of bitcoin so we can also begin calling him Michael Sellor heheheheheeee.

Basically because I analyze things rationally and I don't put up with low value BS. Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but I know quite a bit more about this topic—specifically, how Bitcoin treasury companies and Strategy work—than most of the people who usually post in this thread.

If we rationally look at Michael Saylormoon buy more bitcoin than he sells bitcoin and this increases the bitcoin in Microstrategy's treasury, can we rationally say that he is a Michael Sellor?

The roadmap can change because it will be more better to be more sustainable to increase the bitcoin the treasury. However, I will still call him Michael Sellor if he will sell because it is very funny heheheh.

[d5000]

The problem is that Saylor has contradicted himself on several key points in a very short period of time.

Interesting. I don't see anything really surprising for a growth company. He makes bold assertions to hype his company and then weakens them. But yes, you're correct he does exaggerate that strategy a bit.

TBH I wouldn't be sad if Strategy goes bankrupt due to Saylor exaggerating his contradictions a bit. And I think the "Saylormooners" probably hold his stock (or are afraid of a bankruptcy because they hold BTC and think it depends on Saylor's activities), so they have to hype him too and downplay his exaggerations.

From what I remember reading some ideas is that you would borrow against the Bitcoin capital and do what one wants to do with it, and this is not the same as selling if you pay back the money or most of it. If you focus on selling as the goal then it is not really a business model that adopts Bitcoin, it is just someone from fiat using Bitcoin to make more fiat and later exists Bitcoin.

When I wrote "he knew that eventually he would sell" I didn't mean that he would sell everything. Instead, what I meant was that every business model which involves Bitcoin and other assets would lead into some actions where Bitcoins would flow "out" of the Strategy ecosystem (and then it could re-enter it). Selling a few BTC to pay back some bonds without giving up the goal to accumulate more Bitcoins later is one of these options.

My guess is that the "end result", if Strategy's plan works, would be rather stable Bitcoin holdings which would appreciate while a part of them is used for loans.

If we go with your application of Occam's razor there is not gonna be any kind of situation where people in a company honestly believed something but they were wrong, which is definitely not the right description of what happens in the real world.

Companies normally work with scenarios. So most companies which are well managed will have several strategic options to follow. Dismissing one of these options completely is in my opinion always an indicator for a dishonest claim.

what way could you prove that they were wrong instead of lying or that they were lying instead of being honestly wrong?

Of course there's no way to find that out completely, but I'll show you what my way of reasoning here is.

As you may know (see this thread for example) I am interested in the evolution of Bitcoin's volatility. Saylor's famous "projections" (BTC up to millions of dollars) are basically starting from the assumption that the volatility would not decline significantly. But a decline has definitely happened, since 2011 actually, quite in a gradual but steady way (with the exception of 2016 when we had already low volatility like later in the early 2020s). Those that are surprised by the "underperformance" of the 2023-25 bull simply didn't do their homework, they could have known what to expect.

Now if I have a multi-billion company I can pay an expert who would analyze this volatility decline (if some random guy on a forum can do this kind of analysis, an expert can see it much better ). Thus if his company is managed with any reasonable criteria, they would have taken into account these scenarios with a much lower BItcoin growth than in 2011-2017 or so. And they would have based their business decisions on these scenarios.

In short: Either the ultra-bullish statements were mostly lies or at least based on very unlikely assumptions (and they knew they were unlikely), or at Strategy they didn't their homework when analyzing the Bitcoin market evolution.

[Dogedegen]

TBH I wouldn't be sad if Strategy goes bankrupt due to Saylor exaggerating his contradictions a bit. And I think the "Saylormooners" probably hold his stock (or are afraid of a bankruptcy because they hold BTC and think it depends on Saylor's activities), so they have to hype him too and downplay his exaggerations.

It does not depend on his activities, but it would suffer a big setback if Strategy goes bankrupt or there are other exits of similar size but nobody has the risk level that Strategy has. All other individual holders are much smaller.

When I wrote "he knew that eventually he would sell" I didn't mean that he would sell everything. Instead, what I meant was that every business model which involves Bitcoin and other assets would lead into some actions where Bitcoins would flow "out" of the Strategy ecosystem (and then it could re-enter it). Selling a few BTC to pay back some bonds without giving up the goal to accumulate more Bitcoins later is one of these options.

My guess is that the "end result", if Strategy's plan works, would be rather stable Bitcoin holdings which would appreciate while a part of them is used for loans.

Well that is different and definitely these companies would have to have cases where some BTC will flow out. The only real case where it may be avoided if the world goes into some sort of Bitcoin standard which is unlikely for now, but even in that case a company that is centered around Bitcoin like Strategy is would eventually have Bitcoin flowing out. The only real difference there may be that instead of selling they would use it for some payments or stuff like that, but they would still flow out. That got me thinking are there companies whose main business model is just holding gold?

Companies normally work with scenarios. So most companies which are well managed will have several strategic options to follow. Dismissing one of these options completely is in my opinion always an indicator for a dishonest claim.

I disagree with this on several points.   Some companies have scenarios, many do not or they play pretend scenario making instead of doing actual stuff so that some other people that are not that productive can have more jobs. Second, just because he is running a company he is personally not allowed to be extremely bullish and that implies dishonesty? How is this different from people who were like this with Bitcoin all the time? They were dishonest or they get to be that way, maybe even a bit wrongfully bullish, because they don't run a company? My issue is that this focusing on him in a negative way is biased because many other people have been like this in one shape or form, some less prominent than others but so it is. If I am more publicly famous, you don't allow me to be crazy bullish and would instead say I am dishonest?

what way could you prove that they were wrong instead of lying or that they were lying instead of being honestly wrong?

Of course there's no way to find that out completely, but I'll show you what my way of reasoning here is.

As you may know (see this thread for example) I am interested in the evolution of Bitcoin's volatility. Saylor's famous "projections" (BTC up to millions of dollars) are basically starting from the assumption that the volatility would not decline significantly. But a decline has definitely happened, since 2011 actually, quite in a gradual but steady way (with the exception of 2016 when we had already low volatility like later in the early 2020s). Those that are surprised by the "underperformance" of the 2023-25 bull simply didn't do their homework, they could have known what to expect.

Now if I have a multi-billion company I can pay an expert who would analyze this volatility decline (if some random guy on a forum can do this kind of analysis, an expert can see it much better ). Thus if his company is managed with any reasonable criteria, they would have taken into account these scenarios with a much lower BItcoin growth than in 2011-2017 or so. And they would have based their business decisions on these scenarios.

In short: Either the ultra-bullish statements were mostly lies or at least based on very unlikely assumptions (and they knew they were unlikely), or at Strategy they didn't their homework when analyzing the Bitcoin market evolution.

But many people and even companies have made mistakes regarding different forecasts of Bitcoin. Some with a focus on the current cycle and others in general, making bets that did not turn out, quickly entering and exiting the market and all sorts of things. So why would this particular case be specially dishonest?

Let's say that he got various scenarios calculated for him, bullish and pessimistic one regarding different Bitcoin growth potentials. Is he not allowed to pick one and go with that or what? I just don't see a reason to assign malice to human behavior when the person in question has not really acted maliciously yet. People on this forum also do it all the time, they are often too bullish and at other times too bearish. They were wrong to have those views, but they are not dishonest assuming they are sharing what they truly believe?

Also if you consider the business model here, what is he supposed to say now anyway regardless of what he believes? That the situation is much worse than originally expected so that the price can take some hit from such statements? That would be a very bad business move. Don't buy Bitcoin, buy USD?  

[d5000]

It does not depend on his activities, but it would suffer a big setback if Strategy goes bankrupt or there are other exits of similar size but nobody has the risk level that Strategy has. All other individual holders are much smaller.

Strategy has much less incidence in the market than MtGox had in 2013/14. So it could trigger a quite strong bearish jump but nothing we didn't already have. I would compare it with FTX or Terra/Luna (both crashed BTC for about 20%). It would be a psychological bummer for those who believed Saylor's ultra-bullish "predictions", but I believe these people are less every year and this is good for Bitcoin.

That got me thinking are there companies whose main business model is just holding gold?

Of course many financial companies hold gold and other assets, but if the business model should be exclusively based on gold I'd say gold RWA token companies. But they also have to react to the market: if there is less demand for their token, they have to sell gold. So these companies also have in- and outflows. There is also the gold trust business but they work more like derivative companies, so they also have continuous in- and outflows.

Some companies have scenarios, many do not or they play pretend scenario making instead of doing actual stuff so that some other people that are not that productive can have more jobs.

Sorry, from a multibillion public company I expect quite mature market analysis. Scenarios are part of this task. If they don't do this, they're not doing their homework.

Second, just because he is running a company he is personally not allowed to be extremely bullish and that implies dishonesty?

Being CEO of a company which is highly dependant on the Bitcoin price for me indeed changes everything. There is nothing "personal" in these predictions. For regulated markets there are laws about that - you can't be the CEO of a company and say your stock "will go up forever". But with Bitcoin it may be legally possible, and he exploits that.

Everything depends on the question: Did they detect falling volatility? If yes, then they were dishonest with the ultrabullish predictions. If not, then they didn't do their homework. This is basic market analysis.

The promise "we won't sell a single Bitcoin" is however worse than a single ultrabullish prediction. This implies again two possibilities:

1) They never considered the falling volatility, but depended on the upside volatility to stay similar to 2017 to be able to fulfill their promise. Again - bad business practice.
2) They were dishonest from the start both about the predctions and the promise to not sell Bitcoin.

I honestly prefer option 2.

I don't say that Strategy/Saylor is "specially" dishonest. I think the same about all other "experts" with similar predictions if they are running companies which depend on the Bitcoin price. And generally I distrust everything tech companies say in their growth phase

[bbc.reporter]

News update.

It appears that Michael Saylormoon has decided not yet to become Michael Sellor heheheh. He announced that Microstrategy has used their cash reserves to buy back the debt instead of selling bitcoin to raise the cash to pay for the debt.

In any case, I am very much excited for his next decision hehehe.



Strategy (MSTR), the world’s largest corporate holder of bitcoin repurchased $1.5 billion of its 0% convertible senior notes due 2029 last week for $1.38 billion, opting to reduce debt rather than add to its bitcoin treasury, according to a filing released Tuesday.

The company funded the repurchase using cash reserves, bringing those reserves down to about $871 million following the debt repurchase and related capital transactions.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2026/05/26/strategy-taps-cash-reserve-to-retire-usd1-5-billion-in-convertible-debt