Bitcoin and Michael Sellor fud, Michael Sellor is the new Do Kwon?

[bbc.reporter]

@Dogedegen. I am not arguing about stock dilution. I am asking about issuing stock and selling this for dollars and use this to pay for the dividends of STRC holders. If new money is needed to pay STRC holders, can this not be defined as something similar to a ponzi scheme? This is the question that everyone is asking.

I very much wish no one similar to uncle Gary will begin questioning this because it would certainly cause another big dump on our faces with our mouths open!

[Free Market Capitalist]

What Strategy has accomplished is just insane and praiseworthy, it is only that in the recent years it became a bit more risky but before that it was basically a perfect instrument.

What Strategy has achieved, and more specifically Saylor, is to be the biggest bullshitter in the Bitcoin space. He's on his way to be the next John McAfee.

[ultrloa]

What Strategy has accomplished is just insane and praiseworthy, it is only that in the recent years it became a bit more risky but before that it was basically a perfect instrument.

What Strategy has achieved, and more specifically Saylor, is to be the biggest bullshitter in the Bitcoin space. He's on his way to be the next John McAfee.

Before I'm amazed with the actions and statements release by Saylor, but now it seems that their playbook is more about trying to build hype than creating consistent or sustainable strategy.

It seems they already master on spinning the their narratives, also the mind of people. But it didn't change the real situation on which their company now is dealing with heavy pressure. Currently it seems that he became a hype artist than becoming a good strategist, comparing him to McAfee seems getting more closer and can't blame people to think that way.

[Dogedegen]

@Dogedegen. I am not arguing about stock dilution. I am asking about issuing stock and selling this for dollars and use this to pay for the dividends of STRC holders. If new money is needed to pay STRC holders, can this not be defined as something similar to a ponzi scheme? This is the question that everyone is asking.

I very much wish no one similar to uncle Gary will begin questioning this because it would certainly cause another big dump on our faces with our mouths open!

It is not a ponzi scheme by definition! Let me explain. The issuance of stock and raising cash and using that cash to pay the dividends does not make something a Ponzi scheme. This resembles a ponzi scheme if you don't actually look at the definition of a ponzi scheme, but instead you ignore the most important parts. So the definition would be something like this let me quote it:

Returns paid to existing investors come primarily from money contributed by new investors, while being falsely represented as coming from legitimate profits or investment gains.

And from this you can derive some important questions that we can answer about what Strategy is doing.

• Is the funding of dividends clearly disclosed? Yes, this makes it already very different from a Ponzi scheme instantly.
• Does the company have real assets and a real business? Yes. So even if the company is primarily holding assets, it is not a ponzi scheme because it has a real assets. Strategy also has a much smaller but real business side, and both parts have transparent financial statements.
• Are investors being tricked about where the money is coming from? No they are not.

So if dividends have to be paid through new fund raises that is new investors, it does display a dynamic similar to a Ponzi but that does not make it one! The wrong criticism is to ask is this a ponzi scheme because it is not as I just showed with some breakdown, but you could go deeper into the analysis and you will confirm that at every point of the way what Strategy is doing has nothing to do with a ponzi. The correct criticism would be to ask is this a sustainable strategy and focus on that, because it does not seem like it is.

What Strategy has accomplished is just insane and praiseworthy, it is only that in the recent years it became a bit more risky but before that it was basically a perfect instrument.

What Strategy has achieved, and more specifically Saylor, is to be the biggest bullshitter in the Bitcoin space. He's on his way to be the next John McAfee.

Envy is not a good character trait, and this take on the situation is very misleading. As I have said already, the idea and the vehicle were great until the recent period. There is nothing to be criticized about its shape and form when it was a very low risk vehicle, which has turned into a medium risk operation in recent times. If you can do better, go ahead and show us.

[bbc.reporter]

What Strategy has accomplished is just insane and praiseworthy, it is only that in the recent years it became a bit more risky but before that it was basically a perfect instrument.

What Strategy has achieved, and more specifically Saylor, is to be the biggest bullshitter in the Bitcoin space. He's on his way to be the next John McAfee.

I will only agree to that argument of yours if this financial experiment of Michael Sellor will collapse and cause another big short on the cryptospace similar to Do Kwon and Luna.

We should give Sellor more time go achieve his success!

@Dogedegen. I will accept the argument that it might be something similar to a ponzi scheme but this is not a scheme created to scam investors. However, does this imply that Sellor's financial experiment might also have the weaknesses of a ponzi scheme where everything will collapse if there is no more new money inflows?

I reckon the argument for this is he will sell more bitcoin?

[Dogedegen]

I will only agree to that argument of yours if this financial experiment of Michael Sellor will collapse and cause another big short on the cryptospace similar to Do Kwon and Luna.

We should give Sellor more time go achieve his success!

Even at the current market conditions Saylor has a lot of space to navigate because they have so many assets. They can sell some Bitcoin to fund dividends or pay some of the debt, there is nothing wrong with that. The only issue is actually those that have expected them to hold Bitcoin forever, but Strategy is to blame for that to a big proportion. Still in recent months they have communicated clearly that never selling is not going to be a thing anymore, so by now it should be clear to everyone that they will sell when needed or for strategic reason so the market should be pricing this in. If someone still ends up surprised by this then the issue is on the person for not informing himself. The main criticism is this increased risk that they took in the recent years, because they did need to do that or buy the top all the time even if their whole business is about buying Bitcoin. There is no specific expectation when and how much they have to buy.

@Dogedegen. I will accept the argument that it might be something similar to a ponzi scheme but this is not a scheme created to scam investors. However, does this imply that Sellor's financial experiment might also have the weaknesses of a ponzi scheme where everything will collapse if there is no more new money inflows?

I reckon the argument for this is he will sell more bitcoin?

When a business stops generating cash flow or enough cash flow to sustain its operations and goes bankrupt do we call that a weakness similar to a ponzi scheme? I don't think that we do, and neither in this case would we call it that if it can't get more funding in any way. There are scenarios under which this may happen, because as I said several times in this thread in recent years that they took on a lot of risk. Still if we look at the current price level of Bitcoin, their total assets and their total obligations they are doing very good. I will throw some numbers to give a direction, these are not fully accurate and I have not checked them in detail but to give you an idea. At this moment Saylor could sell probably half the Bitcoin to buy back all the obligations and pay back all the debt, which would turn back Strategy into a zero risk operation. Would that be so bad? I don't think so at all, because who would not want to have 400k BTC with zero risk, no debt, no dividends?

This tells us that they are still doing good, but imagine a scenario where Bitcoin slides even more down and goes into a very long bear market for whatever reason so much longer than we usually experience. In this extreme scenario Strategy would have to keep selling BTC at bad prices, meaning they would be selling a lot more in terms of quantity to be able to meet their obligations. So sure there is a possibility of a collapse, but it is never going to be instant like in a real ponzi scheme because it is a scam. If it does happen it is going to be much more gradual and it will not surprise anyone, but remember even if the chance is still low for this is it possible.

That is also a reason why I want them to lower the risk when prices are good again, so we can completely avoid this scenario. If they focus on buying back shares when we reach new ATHs instead of buying even more BTC this problem can go away.

[boyptc]

he will sell more bitcoin?

Just to answer that, he probably will.

Don't take confidence on people's word when they want to assure the community that they're not going to sell. All are in profit while holding bitcoin.

No institutions is going to hold forever when they've got bunch of investors and leaders that needs to be paid from their money.

But they can continue to buy forever as long as they can when they have projected value and profit for the next years.

[bbc.reporter]

@boyptc. It appears that you might be correct. This declaration by Michael Sellor appears to be a warning sign that the company might dump bitcoin again.



SAYLOR: “I said to you to never sell your Bitcoin. I never said that the company would never sell its Bitcoin.”

Source https://x.com/bitcoinnewscom/status/2065137091474829568?s=61



In any case, the Jack Maller has also begun to ask questions on how the issuance and selling of Microstrategy stock is not dilutive.



Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor and Twenty One Capital CEO Jack Mallers debated Strategy's capital structure at BTC Prague. Mallers challenged Saylor on dilution and how out-of-the-money convertible debt factors into mNAV calculations.

Source https://finance.yahoo.com/video/saylor-mallers-clash-over-strategys-162059234.html

[Dogedegen]

Just to answer that, he probably will.

Don't take confidence on people's word when they want to assure the community that they're not going to sell. All are in profit while holding bitcoin.

This is not true for people, so please stop generalizing your ideas and the ideas of people who love fiat. Many people are not interested in their profit on Bitcoin when it comes to fiat. They are interested in the opportunities that Bitcoin provides them and they have no plans of ever selling. Any spending or selling is replaced by buying, so that the stack keeps growing.

No institutions is going to hold forever when they've got bunch of investors and leaders that needs to be paid from their money.

Unless the whole point of the institution or business is to hold forever, in that case this would not be true.

@boyptc. It appears that you might be correct. This declaration by Michael Sellor appears to be a warning sign that the company might dump bitcoin again.



SAYLOR: “I said to you to never sell your Bitcoin. I never said that the company would never sell its Bitcoin.”

Source https://x.com/bitcoinnewscom/status/2065137091474829568?s=61

I wonder if this is true, and someone who follows closely what he has said could know better. But in any case at this point they can't make claims otherwise because that could be misleading investors and that could be illegal.

In any case, the Jack Maller has also begun to ask questions on how the issuance and selling of Microstrategy stock is not dilutive.

It is best to stop this increasing the risk of this operation for everyone involved.

[boyptc]

@boyptc. It appears that you might be correct. This declaration by Michael Sellor appears to be a warning sign that the company might dump bitcoin again.

SAYLOR: “I said to you to never sell your Bitcoin. I never said that the company would never sell its Bitcoin.”

Source https://x.com/bitcoinnewscom/status/2065137091474829568?s=61

Man, his name has changed to what he actually did hehehe, Sellor is a real man.

So that warning is for us to not sell, and not to his company.

Just to answer that, he probably will.

Don't take confidence on people's word when they want to assure the community that they're not going to sell. All are in profit while holding bitcoin.

This is not true for people, so please stop generalizing your ideas and the ideas of people who love fiat. Many people are not interested in their profit on Bitcoin when it comes to fiat. They are interested in the opportunities that Bitcoin provides them and they have no plans of ever selling. Any spending or selling is replaced by buying, so that the stack keeps growing.

I think you'll see the stories soon of people who's sold their bitcoins and never came back buying. They also advocate to never sell and continue in buying.

But when they are in an actual situation that allows them to sell and they have no other option, they'll sell.

No institutions is going to hold forever when they've got bunch of investors and leaders that needs to be paid from their money.

Unless the whole point of the institution or business is to hold forever, in that case this would not be true.

They're driven by profit and they have investors to pay for dividends or loans so, they're likely to sell if they're in profit.

But it won't be surprising if they have to sell to cut loss.

[bbc.reporter]

@boyptc. It appears that you might be correct. This declaration by Michael Sellor appears to be a warning sign that the company might dump bitcoin again.



SAYLOR: “I said to you to never sell your Bitcoin. I never said that the company would never sell its Bitcoin.”

Source https://x.com/bitcoinnewscom/status/2065137091474829568?s=61

I wonder if this is true, and someone who follows closely what he has said could know better. But in any case at this point they can't make claims otherwise because that could be misleading investors and that could be illegal.

In any case, the Jack Maller has also begun to ask questions on how the issuance and selling of Microstrategy stock is not dilutive.

It is best to stop this increasing the risk of this operation for everyone involved.

It was only a speculation from me. However, if you read what Michael Sellor has said, I am not inventing any arguments. He has clearly said that the people should not sell bitcoin and he also has said that he did not say that Microstrategy will not sell bitcoin. I speculate that he is admitting that Microstrategy might sell more on Michael Sellor's commands.

On the Jack Maller's challenge against Michael Sellor, to stop increasing the risk, Sellor must sell more bitcoin.

[Dogedegen]

I think you'll see the stories soon of people who's sold their bitcoins and never came back buying. They also advocate to never sell and continue in buying.

But when they are in an actual situation that allows them to sell and they have no other option, they'll sell.

Why should I care about random people who have never understood Bitcoin or adopted Bitcoin for what it is? People who are slaves to fiat and have come here primarily to make more fiat do not interest me, so stop bringing them into topics about Bitcoin. Those people do not matter, they are passing travelers who are missing the whole point of Bitcoin. The people who have been red pilled do not care about fiat profits and have been holding since they have initially adopted Bitcoin. While that may vary from person to person a lot because some have adopted it early and others later, they have a common view and similar behaviors. They only cash out some to finance a significant buy such as a house, and often even after that they continue to buy at high prices even if they may have Bitcoin from very low prices. Anyway this has nothing to do with the thread, so less off topic please.

SAYLOR: “I said to you to never sell your Bitcoin. I never said that the company would never sell its Bitcoin.”

I wonder if this is true, and someone who follows closely what he has said could know better. But in any case at this point they can't make claims otherwise because that could be misleading investors and that could be illegal.

It was only a speculation from me. However, if you read what Michael Sellor has said, I am not inventing any arguments. He has clearly said that the people should not sell bitcoin and he also has said that he did not say that Microstrategy will not sell bitcoin. I speculate that he is admitting that Microstrategy might sell more on Michael Sellor's commands.

On the Jack Maller's challenge against Michael Sellor, to stop increasing the risk, Sellor must sell more bitcoin.

I remember him saying that people should not sell Bitcoin that is true, but I wonder if he has never said that the company would never sell its Bitcoin. To be sure of that we would have to analyze each time he talked somewhere and mentioned selling or not selling, that is why I am wondering if it is true. If he did actually never say that, then I am more leaning that this was a planned plot the whole time because that is too consistent in a behavior that is contradictory to what Strategy was supposed to be about.

As you have seen Sellor has been getting worse since they took on the risk, if they have not done that he would have stayed most consistently pro Bitcoin.

[boyptc]

I think you'll see the stories soon of people who's sold their bitcoins and never came back buying. They also advocate to never sell and continue in buying.

But when they are in an actual situation that allows them to sell and they have no other option, they'll sell.

Why should I care about random people who have never understood Bitcoin or adopted Bitcoin for what it is? People who are slaves to fiat and have come here primarily to make more fiat do not interest me, so stop bringing them into topics about Bitcoin. Those people do not matter, they are passing travelers who are missing the whole point of Bitcoin. The people who have been red pilled do not care about fiat profits and have been holding since they have initially adopted Bitcoin. While that may vary from person to person a lot because some have adopted it early and others later, they have a common view and similar behaviors.

Because you said that people don't take profit in fiat.

I won't argue with you with what you believe because I understand it. But, not all are all in to bitcoin and 100% living with bitcoin.

They only cash out some to finance a significant buy such as a house, and often even after that they continue to buy at high prices even if they may have Bitcoin from very low prices. Anyway this has nothing to do with the thread, so less off topic please.

And this contradicts what you said, that they're not interested in taking profit in fiat. Everyone still need fiat, I'm not an enemy though but anyone who takes profit, they're putting it in fiat and buy things they want. Just like what Sellor did, sold some BTC because their dividends are paid in fiat.

Anyway, I agree that we should stick to Sellor then.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Envy is not a good character trait, and this take on the situation is very misleading.

Envy? Is that all you got? Acusing me of envy? That's a great BS right there.

If you can do better, go ahead and show us.

I am already doing much better, because I am not selling a junk stock to the masses telling them that it is a safe alternative to bank deposits and saving accounts.

I remember him saying that people should not sell Bitcoin that is true, but I wonder if he has never said that the company would never sell its Bitcoin.

I am not surprised about that. You just swallow all his BS.

Michael Saylor never seller?

[bbc.reporter]

SAYLOR: “I said to you to never sell your Bitcoin. I never said that the company would never sell its Bitcoin.”

I wonder if this is true, and someone who follows closely what he has said could know better. But in any case at this point they can't make claims otherwise because that could be misleading investors and that could be illegal.

It was only a speculation from me. However, if you read what Michael Sellor has said, I am not inventing any arguments. He has clearly said that the people should not sell bitcoin and he also has said that he did not say that Microstrategy will not sell bitcoin. I speculate that he is admitting that Microstrategy might sell more on Michael Sellor's commands.

On the Jack Maller's challenge against Michael Sellor, to stop increasing the risk, Sellor must sell more bitcoin.

I remember him saying that people should not sell Bitcoin that is true, but I wonder if he has never said that the company would never sell its Bitcoin. To be sure of that we would have to analyze each time he talked somewhere and mentioned selling or not selling, that is why I am wondering if it is true. If he did actually never say that, then I am more leaning that this was a planned plot the whole time because that is too consistent in a behavior that is contradictory to what Strategy was supposed to be about.

As you have seen Sellor has been getting worse since they took on the risk, if they have not done that he would have stayed most consistently pro Bitcoin.

You can argue that Michael Sellor has never declared that the company will never sell bitcoin, however, what he has implied to the community from his words is that they will never sell their bitcoin. But he is presently claiming a different occurrence heheheh.

We were tricked! I wish success for him and his investment on bitcoin, however. This will be good for us hehe. But I will certainly not be shocked if he will become Do Kwon 2.0.

[Free Market Capitalist]

You can argue that Michael Sellor has never declared that the company will never sell bitcoin, however, what he has implied to the community from his words is that they will never sell their bitcoin. But he is presently claiming a different occurrence heheheh.

He can argue something evidently false, you mean? Have you bothered reading my former post? Yeah, just one above yours. I am not surprised you haven't because you keep this thread as an easy way to fill your quota with generic posts.

He didn't imply anything, he clearly stated several times that the company would not sell Bitcoin ever. He based his business model on it. Just watch the video I put before.

Michael Saylor never seller?

[Dogedegen]

Because you said that people don't take profit in fiat.

I won't argue with you with what you believe because I understand it. But, not all are all in to bitcoin and 100% living with bitcoin.

It is a distinction that is not worth anything and you are not making any kind of point. People who want to and can spend Bitcoin will spend it without taking anything in fiat. There exists places where many things can be accomplished without any use of fiat. Don't confuse lack of opportunity with the wishes of the people and it is time to stop this off-topic about people that don't care about Bitcoin.

I am already doing much better, because I am not selling a junk stock to the masses telling them that it is a safe alternative to bank deposits and saving accounts.

False beliefs are the same regardless of who we are talking about.

I remember him saying that people should not sell Bitcoin that is true, but I wonder if he has never said that the company would never sell its Bitcoin.

I am not surprised about that. You just swallow all his BS.

Michael Saylor never seller?

In this case you are being very biased to the point that you don't even recognize a questioning post that does not side with the agenda. This confirms my claims that you are being extremely biased against Saylor and because of that most of your ideas here are not valid. I made a reasonable questioning remark which doubts the validity of the statement, and the rational thing to do is to leave it open since I do not know all the cases of what Saylor has said or has not said. It seems suspicious that he never has said something that specific over so many years, but without actual proof it would be biased and wrong to conclude either in favor or against it. The video does confirm that my doubts were on point and reasonable.

You can argue that Michael Sellor has never declared that the company will never sell bitcoin, however, what he has implied to the community from his words is that they will never sell their bitcoin. But he is presently claiming a different occurrence heheheh.

Watch the video, he lied about this.

[bbc.reporter]

You can argue that Michael Sellor has never declared that the company will never sell bitcoin, however, what he has implied to the community from his words is that they will never sell their bitcoin. But he is presently claiming a different occurrence heheheh.

He can argue something evidently false, you mean? Have you bothered reading my former post? Yeah, just one above yours. I am not surprised you haven't because you keep this thread as an easy way to fill your quota with generic posts.

He didn't imply anything, he clearly stated several times that the company would not sell Bitcoin ever. He based his business model on it. Just watch the video I put before.

Michael Saylor never seller?

Heheheheh I stopped reading your posts because you insult much of the people in this forum and your behavior is of an angry woman who is going through her menstruation.

In any case, you insult my personhood and tell me I am a spammer and you imply that you are not? Let us prove this. Let us agree to remove our signatures now and agree to never join any signature campaign in this forum forever.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I am already doing much better, because I am not selling a junk stock to the masses telling them that it is a safe alternative to bank deposits and saving accounts.

False beliefs are the same regardless of who we are talking about.

The false belief is to think that STRC is a safe alternative to bank deposits, which is how Saylor has been selling that junk.

In any case, you insult my personhood and tell me I am a spammer and you imply that you are not? Let us prove this. Let us agree to remove our signatures now and agree to never join any signature campaign in this forum forever.

Couldn't you have come up with a bigger load of crap to say?

[YOSHIE]

Bitcoin and Michael Sellor fud, Michael Sellor is the new Do Kwon?

I personally don't think so, even though Michael and Do Kwon are publicly known to have both bought massive amounts of Bitcoin, but in my view the risks and economic/financial strategies of the two of them can be said to be quite different. where one sticks to the company and another the TerraUSD project.

Well, the scheme for the two is different, Michael can purely influence the liquidity of the crypto market while Do Kwon purely influences the Terra (Luna) token that he created himself. This means that the collapse of the Terra project has an impact on their investors and on Do Kwon, not on Bitcoin in general, but for Michael yes it can affect the market price if all Bitcoin assets are owned by Michael.