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

[d5000]

I don't think that you have understood his post, unless I am also mistaken. When he mentioned that it was smart, he was talking about that the sale was only noted after it happened.

(sorry for the delay) Yes, indeed, that was what I meant - but in addition, I think there was another quite smart element: to wait for a small pump and sell the coins OTC during that little uptrend. Thus, the Bitcoin followers saw that there was no impact on the price.

It's however one of the few smart moments Strategy had in the last years. In general I think there were more bad than good decisions. STRC and the excessive Bitcoin buys in the middle of the bull market being two of them.

Michael Sellor was pumping bitcoin, the whales were dumping bitcoin. Who will Sellor dump his bitcoin on?

Some early adopters were indeed "dumping" Bitcoin. But that is a natural occurrence in a bull market. If you made 200x with your investment, and you see there are clear signs of an overheating market, wouldn't you sell at least a part? What if you can make your life dreams come true?

And as I think I already wrote Sellor was by far not the only actor "pumping" Bitcoin. Yes, he bought A LOT. He basically bought the whole newly mined supply since mid 2023 (when he started a new buying spree). However, there are many more Bitcoins traded at exchanges. On a good single day Bitcoin bulls buy dozens of thousands BTC more than the BTCs that are sold, thinning out the sell orders. The sentiment is much stronger than even a very strong buyer like Saylor.

In addition, the early adopters don't come back. Every early adopter that sells is a bullish sign, because early adopters sit on such high holdings that they can create a dent when they sell. Selling the coins to Sellor is neutral, because Sellor also sells but his sales are relatively predictable. But most coins of early adopters are distributed to smaller holders with a better strategy than 10 years ago when these BTCs were purchased.

[OcTradism]

Some early adopters were indeed "dumping" Bitcoin. But that is a natural occurrence in a bull market. If you made 200x with your investment, and you see there are clear signs of an overheating market, wouldn't you sell at least a part? What if you can make your life dreams come true?

Profit is good to take, especially if it is very great profit, if anyone taking profit, it's very reasonable and not surprising.

And as I think I already wrote Sellor was by far not the only actor "pumping" Bitcoin. Yes, he bought A LOT. He basically bought the whole newly mined supply since mid 2023 (when he started a new buying spree). However, there are many more Bitcoins traded at exchanges. On a good single day Bitcoin bulls buy dozens of thousands BTC more than the BTCs that are sold, thinning out the sell orders. The sentiment is much stronger than even a very strong buyer like Saylor.

The market reacts most strongly when it is very first times of a new type, of purchases from an investors like Strategy, Elon Musk and so on. Later, with same companies, same investors buying bitcoin, the market will less reacting with such news. It's same with Bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, the market reacted very strongly but I believe that in the future, if any nation makes similar Bitcoin legal tender, there will be less effects on the market.

In addition, the early adopters don't come back.

They can come back after losing their bitcoins by trading or selling cheap and when they felt regret, they came back like forum VIP members or donator members who possibly wanted to have bitcoins like they used to have. Unfortunately, they lost control themselves and changed to scammers.

The Bitcointalk 50 BTC VIP club. Where are they now ? Complete list.
The Bitcointalk 10 BTC Donators - where are they now ?

[Dogedegen]

I don't think that you have understood his post, unless I am also mistaken. When he mentioned that it was smart, he was talking about that the sale was only noted after it happened.

(sorry for the delay) Yes, indeed, that was what I meant - but in addition, I think there was another quite smart element: to wait for a small pump and sell the coins OTC during that little uptrend. Thus, the Bitcoin followers saw that there was no impact on the price.

Yes, that is an excellent way and much better than the first sale that they did. I was not sure that it was allowed or not under disclosing rules in the US, because of the first sale I was not so sure. The unfortunate part is that many Bitcoin people have to be convinced that this does not really have an impact on the price, they should know by now..

It's however one of the few smart moments Strategy had in the last years. In general I think there were more bad than good decisions. STRC and the excessive Bitcoin buys in the middle of the bull market being two of them.

Always buying the peak or any price was really not a good strategy, it was more a marketing move to display strong belief in Bitcoin maybe? I mean it could technically work out in some extremely bullish market like an announced US reserve where the country would acquire a big amount of Bitcoin per year for the next few years like that one proposal. But in all other versions of the market, it is a really bad strategy so I think that it was more of a marketing stunt.

Michael Sellor was pumping bitcoin, the whales were dumping bitcoin. Who will Sellor dump his bitcoin on?

Some early adopters were indeed "dumping" Bitcoin. But that is a natural occurrence in a bull market. If you made 200x with your investment, and you see there are clear signs of an overheating market, wouldn't you sell at least a part? What if you can make your life dreams come true?

I said it here, he is overestimating and trying to write something strange about normal market behavior. Even your 200x is an underestatement here, some people have been waiting for over 1000x and only sold after the liquidity was huge in the last market and it had no real impact on the price. People come and go in each market, it has nothing to do with whales. Probably retail people sold more coins than whales in the recent years.

In addition, the early adopters don't come back. Every early adopter that sells is a bullish sign, because early adopters sit on such high holdings that they can create a dent when they sell. Selling the coins to Sellor is neutral, because Sellor also sells but his sales are relatively predictable. But most coins of early adopters are distributed to smaller holders with a better strategy than 10 years ago when these BTCs were purchased.

It is really a strange and false belief to think that early adopters selling with no market impact is a bad thing. What are they supposed to do, keep their coins until they die? 

[bbc.reporter]

I don't think that you have understood his post, unless I am also mistaken. When he mentioned that it was smart, he was talking about that the sale was only noted after it happened.

(sorry for the delay) Yes, indeed, that was what I meant - but in addition, I think there was another quite smart element: to wait for a small pump and sell the coins OTC during that little uptrend. Thus, the Bitcoin followers saw that there was no impact on the price.

It's however one of the few smart moments Strategy had in the last years. In general I think there were more bad than good decisions. STRC and the excessive Bitcoin buys in the middle of the bull market being two of them.

Michael Sellor was pumping bitcoin, the whales were dumping bitcoin. Who will Sellor dump his bitcoin on?

Some early adopters were indeed "dumping" Bitcoin. But that is a natural occurrence in a bull market. If you made 200x with your investment, and you see there are clear signs of an overheating market, wouldn't you sell at least a part? What if you can make your life dreams come true?

And as I think I already wrote Sellor was by far not the only actor "pumping" Bitcoin. Yes, he bought A LOT. He basically bought the whole newly mined supply since mid 2023 (when he started a new buying spree). However, there are many more Bitcoins traded at exchanges. On a good single day Bitcoin bulls buy dozens of thousands BTC more than the BTCs that are sold, thinning out the sell orders. The sentiment is much stronger than even a very strong buyer like Saylor.

In addition, the early adopters don't come back. Every early adopter that sells is a bullish sign, because early adopters sit on such high holdings that they can create a dent when they sell. Selling the coins to Sellor is neutral, because Sellor also sells but his sales are relatively predictable. But most coins of early adopters are distributed to smaller holders with a better strategy than 10 years ago when these BTCs were purchased.

I have never mentioned anything that has implied that there is something wrong with this similar to what @Dogedegen implying that I am saying this hehehehe. I am only speaking of what has occurred and what this might imply if Michael Sellor is the one who wants to dump bitcoin.

This is headshaking that I get arguments from people only by mentioning what has occurred on 2024 and 2025 heheheh.

@Dogedegen. If for you there is nothing wrong with this, why are you triggered? I am also holding bitcoin and talking about this does not trigger me.

[d5000]

Always buying the peak or any price was really not a good strategy, it was more a marketing move to display strong belief in Bitcoin maybe?

I think yes, but why did it need to be so much? There were times when they bought tens of thousands of BTC at once.

They were in some way "obliged" to do so due to legal terms of the shares they emitted (which forced management to buy BTC for the shares), but they weren't obliged to issue that many shares.

I've read last year that their "real" idea was to boost volatility and profit from it. And then the "marketing stunt" would make sense. However, exaggerating this brought them in the slightly problematic situation they're experiencing now. I haven't done the math however, if someone did, it would be interesting how all that fits into the puzzle.

It is really a strange and false belief to think that early adopters selling with no market impact is a bad thing. What are they supposed to do, keep their coins until they die?  

Well some hardcore Bitcoin believers think they should later simply make the coins circulate (and buy goods/services directly). But first, that is unrealistic at that point. And second, for the on-chain metrics it would look like a sale - old coins that are moved (as long as you don't know exactly to which exchanges they went etc.).

I have never mentioned anything that has implied that there is something wrong with this similar to what @Dogedegen implying that I am saying this hehehehe. I am only speaking of what has occurred and what this might imply if Michael Sellor is the one who wants to dump bitcoin.

What I understood, at least, is that you attributed most of the 2025 pump to Saylor, and then complaining about the weakness of the pump. But 2017 won't come back probably. Why? One reasons, as I wrote, is the early adopters that are "satisfied" now with the ROI they got. A massive amount of BTC were mined until the second halving of 2016, and the part of these coins that still belong to their original owners will always add to sell pressure in further bull markets. Thus the volatility decline is just natural.

I think the only chance we get another 2017 is a gold flippening event (i.e. big investors and central banks massively investing in BTC, replacing gold), and even then I think more of a x4 or x5 and not a x20.

[Catenaccio]

What I understood, at least, is that you attributed most of the 2025 pump to Saylor, and then complaining about the weakness of the pump.

Saylor fans and Strategy fans who consider Saylor, Strategy like Bitcoin God will attribute market bull run, pump to Saylor and Strategy while Bitcoin market is not only for Strategy. If a market only has Strategy, it's a dead market as later Strategy won't be able to sell bitcoins to anyone, any entity.

They're only a big investor, and likely a first big institutional investor that wants to define themselves as a Bitcoin maximalist, and want to teach others that "Bitcoin is the end game". They had their roles in 2020 and 2021 when their purchases had biggest effects on the market. However, the market is naturally saturated with news about Strategy that consequently results in less effects from Strategy's purchases in 2024 and 2025.

But 2017 won't come back probably. Why? One reasons, as I wrote, is the early adopters that are "satisfied" now with the ROI they got. A massive amount of BTC were mined until the second halving of 2016, and the part of these coins that still belong to their original owners will always add to sell pressure in further bull markets. Thus the volatility decline is just natural.

I think the only chance we get another 2017 is a gold flippening event (i.e. big investors and central banks massively investing in BTC, replacing gold), and even then I think more of a x4 or x5 and not a x20.

Past high ROIs won't return because Bitcoin market cap now and in the future is and will be bigger considerable, and it's harder to pump the market with similar ROIs in first, second and third market cycles.

Bitcoin cycles.

|

Cycle

|

Bull market top

|

Price at top

|

Bear market bottom

|

Price at bottom

|

Peak-to-Trough Drawdown

|

|

1

|

Nov 2013

|

~$1,150

|

Jan 2015

|

~ $152

|

~ 87%

|

|

2

|

Dec 2017

|

~ $19,800

|

Dec 2018

|

~ $3,200

|

~ 84%

|

|

3

|

Nov 2021

|

~ $69,000

|

Nov 2022

|

~ $15,500

|

~ 77%

|

|

4

|

Oct 2025

|

~ $126,296

|

TBD

|

TBD

|

47.85% (ongoing)

|

[Dogedegen]

Always buying the peak or any price was really not a good strategy, it was more a marketing move to display strong belief in Bitcoin maybe?

I think yes, but why did it need to be so much? There were times when they bought tens of thousands of BTC at once.

They were in some way "obliged" to do so due to legal terms of the shares they emitted (which forced management to buy BTC for the shares), but they weren't obliged to issue that many shares.

I've read last year that their "real" idea was to boost volatility and profit from it. And then the "marketing stunt" would make sense. However, exaggerating this brought them in the slightly problematic situation they're experiencing now. I haven't done the math however, if someone did, it would be interesting how all that fits into the puzzle.

Do the shares oblige them to purchase the Bitcoin shortly after acquiring the capital? And if they do, what kind of time do they have and who determines that? I thought that they could define that in the raising of the capital, and if they can then it does not make sense from two perspectives. The one I am writing now and the one that you wrote, which is that they are not obliged to issue that many shares they could have issues fewer ones. Maybe we are overthinking it a bit and this was just a failure in strategy, it would not be their first one. What matters more is if they will correct these issues moving forward or they will stick with the mistakes that they make.

Well some hardcore Bitcoin believers think they should later simply make the coins circulate (and buy goods/services directly). But first, that is unrealistic at that point. And second, for the on-chain metrics it would look like a sale - old coins that are moved (as long as you don't know exactly to which exchanges they went etc.).

I would agree with a reasonable version of that, spend how much and where you can and the rest you sell normally if you need it. It is quite unrealistic to do it depending on where the person is and what they need, and in some other cases it does not do anything at all. Like with real estate you may find a company that would accept the coins, but they would just convert them to fiat at an increased fee so this hardcore approach would not solve anything. Even in the case of a P2P real estate purchase, it is quite possible that the seller will convert it to fiat anyway. It only makes a real difference to be that hardcore circular economy concepts, but we don't have that many going on.

I think the only chance we get another 2017 is a gold flippening event (i.e. big investors and central banks massively investing in BTC, replacing gold), and even then I think more of a x4 or x5 and not a x20.

From which number though? Last ATH? Bitcoin is too huge for any kind of big single cycle event causing a x20, from the current price or even more from the ATH.

Past high ROIs won't return because Bitcoin market cap now and in the future is and will be bigger considerable, and it's harder to pump the market with similar ROIs in first, second and third market cycles.

Since you talk about ROIs, it would be nice if your table included a multiplier return bottom to peak.

[bbc.reporter]

I have never mentioned anything that has implied that there is something wrong with this similar to what @Dogedegen implying that I am saying this hehehehe. I am only speaking of what has occurred and what this might imply if Michael Sellor is the one who wants to dump bitcoin.

What I understood, at least, is that you attributed most of the 2025 pump to Saylor, and then complaining about the weakness of the pump. But 2017 won't come back probably. Why? One reasons, as I wrote, is the early adopters that are "satisfied" now with the ROI they got. A massive amount of BTC were mined until the second halving of 2016, and the part of these coins that still belong to their original owners will always add to sell pressure in further bull markets. Thus the volatility decline is just natural.

I think the only chance we get another 2017 is a gold flippening event (i.e. big investors and central banks massively investing in BTC, replacing gold), and even then I think more of a x4 or x5 and not a x20.

It was not complaining. It was only an observation and began as a speculation that Michael Sellor was being used as an exit liquidity because every time he pumped bitcoin, there was always a dump after this. It was months after this repeated occurrence where it was confirmed that there were whales who bought bitcoin before 2015 have used Michael Sellor as their exit liquidity heheheeh.

[bbc.reporter]

News update.

If you will listen to the response of the chinaman CEO of Microstrategy Phong Le and also you have watched the movie Big Short, you will be reminded of the face of this scammer in the movie hehehehehe.



A frustrated MSTR holder just confronted Michael Saylor.

He put $219,000 into the stock for his kids' future and watched it crash by over 70% to $60,000. He asked what answers management had for him.

This was their full response.

Source https://x.com/MSTR_simulator/status/2089414140003590291?s=46

[Don Pedro Dinero]

A frustrated MSTR holder just confronted Michael Saylor.

He put $219,000 into the stock for his kids' future and watched it crash by over 70% to $60,000. He asked what answers management had for him.

Well, for starters, you'd have to be pretty financially clueless to put your children's future, first of all, into a single stock—and even more so into one like MSTR, which is high-risk. Anyway, I remember the opposite happening: a couple of years ago, Saylor was boasting that people were coming up to him and thanking him because the stock had gone up so much.

But we have to keep in mind that he is largely to blame for MSTR's low price, since he keeps diluting the stock. It's not just that the price of Bitcoin has fallen; he plays an active role in this.

[Dogedegen]

It was not complaining. It was only an observation and began as a speculation that Michael Sellor was being used as an exit liquidity because every time he pumped bitcoin, there was always a dump after this. It was months after this repeated occurrence where it was confirmed that there were whales who bought bitcoin before 2015 have used Michael Sellor as their exit liquidity heheheeh.

In each cycle someone is being used as exit liquidity for someone else, that is how a healthy market works like. Thinking who will be the future exit liquidity does not make sense, it is empty speculation. Nobody could have foreseen 10 years ago that Sellor would be the exit liquidity of this cycle. You should only be worried or think about it if the market starts displaying some behaviors or attributes that are not normal, then something is happening that could have negative consequences. For now everything that we have seen looks pretty normal with some small deviations and questions.

A frustrated MSTR holder just confronted Michael Saylor.

He put $219,000 into the stock for his kids' future and watched it crash by over 70% to $60,000. He asked what answers management had for him.

Well, for starters, you'd have to be pretty financially clueless to put your children's future, first of all, into a single stock—and even more so into one like MSTR, which is high-risk. Anyway, I remember the opposite happening: a couple of years ago, Saylor was boasting that people were coming up to him and thanking him because the stock had gone up so much.

But we have to keep in mind that he is largely to blame for MSTR's low price, since he keeps diluting the stock. It's not just that the price of Bitcoin has fallen; he plays an active role in this.

Both parts of this behavior are wrong. First it is the risky investment that is claimed to be done here as you have mentioned, but the second is throwing responsibility away and blaming someone else. This could have happened with many other companies too it is not really related to Strategy but more to the general behaviors around investing. Nobody forced anyone to place the investment, the largest part of all the responsibility lies with the investor. Some could even say that all the responsibility is with the investor. Some investments and businesses won't work out, but if I choose to invest in them then the financial losses of my investment are my fault.

[nikola22]

News update.
If you will listen to the response of the chinaman CEO of Microstrategy Phong Le and also you have watched the movie Big Short, you will be reminded of the face of this scammer in the movie hehehehehe.
A frustrated MSTR holder just confronted Michael Saylor.

He put $219,000 into the stock for his kids' future and watched it crash by over 70% to $60,000. He asked what answers management had for him.
This was their full response.

it turns out that investor is trying to shift all the blame onto Phong Le, Saylor and Strategy. what prevented this investor from simply buying Bitcoin instead of MSTR shares? there are no problems with purchasing and storing Bitcoin now. MSTR shares also don't pay dividends so buying them looks like a simple desire to earn more rather than investing directly in Bitcoin. so, if you want to earn more the risks will be greater.

[osasshem]

I reckon that because there are news that some of these smaller digital asset treasuries are beginning to fail causing them to dump their coins and to buyback their stock, there are people who are beginning to speculate that Microstrategy might do something similar.

You see, the problem is not in dumping to buy the dip later again, but sometimes after you dump, you missed out, because the market may rises thereafter instead of falling the more, instead, i will suggest on buying the dip the more in accumulation, so that when the time comes for the market to rise, we can't imagine how much we could have made as profits, I said this because the market sometimes is unpredictable.

The market is unpredictable and that is true.

Selling off to buy the deep is not a bad thing to do, but having in mind that the market may go against your expectations and possibly leaving you behind after selling off, and then, more losses are being incurred.

Instead of selling to buy the deep, just remain holding, if there is no other funds to assist during the lower market conditions, maintain your holding instead of selling at loss.

[bbc.reporter]

A frustrated MSTR holder just confronted Michael Saylor.

He put $219,000 into the stock for his kids' future and watched it crash by over 70% to $60,000. He asked what answers management had for him.

Well, for starters, you'd have to be pretty financially clueless to put your children's future, first of all, into a single stock—and even more so into one like MSTR, which is high-risk. Anyway, I remember the opposite happening: a couple of years ago, Saylor was boasting that people were coming up to him and thanking him because the stock had gone up so much.

But we have to keep in mind that he is largely to blame for MSTR's low price, since he keeps diluting the stock. It's not just that the price of Bitcoin has fallen; he plays an active role in this.

What you say is correct, however, this is not the argument being made. Also, what is being questioned is Michael Sellor's dilution of MSTR by issuing more stock to dump on the market to save STRC and try to return this to par price of $100.

This causes MSTR holders to have less bitcoin per share. The chinaman in the video explaining their financial experiment tactics very much sounds something similar to a scammer!

It was not complaining. It was only an observation and began as a speculation that Michael Sellor was being used as an exit liquidity because every time he pumped bitcoin, there was always a dump after this. It was months after this repeated occurrence where it was confirmed that there were whales who bought bitcoin before 2015 have used Michael Sellor as their exit liquidity heheheeh.

In each cycle someone is being used as exit liquidity for someone else, that is how a healthy market works like. Thinking who will be the future exit liquidity does not make sense, it is empty speculation.

Empty speculation or not, who will be Michael Sellor's exit liquidity? Heheheheheee.

In any case, it appears that there is a defenders of Sellor group in the forum hehe.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

A frustrated MSTR holder just confronted Michael Saylor.

He put $219,000 into the stock for his kids' future and watched it crash by over 70% to $60,000. He asked what answers management had for him.

Well, for starters, you'd have to be pretty financially clueless to put your children's future, first of all, into a single stock—and even more so into one like MSTR, which is high-risk. Anyway, I remember the opposite happening: a couple of years ago, Saylor was boasting that people were coming up to him and thanking him because the stock had gone up so much.

But we have to keep in mind that he is largely to blame for MSTR's low price, since he keeps diluting the stock. It's not just that the price of Bitcoin has fallen; he plays an active role in this.

What you say is correct, however, this is not the argument being made. Also, what is being questioned is Michael Sellor's dilution of MSTR by issuing more stock to dump on the market to save STRC and try to return this to par price of $100.

This causes MSTR holders to have less bitcoin per share. The chinaman in the video explaining their financial experiment tactics very much sounds something similar to a scammer!

I don't get you, man. So are you arguing with me about something I said? Anyone who follows this issue knows that Michael Saylor is largely to blame for MSTR's poor performance because he keeps diluting his shareholders. I've put in bold what you say, which is basically the same thing I'm saying.

[avp2306]

What you say is correct, however, this is not the argument being made. Also, what is being questioned is Michael Sellor's dilution of MSTR by issuing more stock to dump on the market to save STRC and try to return this to par price of $100.

This causes MSTR holders to have less bitcoin per share. The chinaman in the video explaining their financial experiment tactics very much sounds something similar to a scammer!

I don't get you, man. So are you arguing with me about something I said? Anyone who follows this issue knows that Michael Saylor is largely to blame for MSTR's poor performance because he keeps diluting his shareholders. I've put in bold what you say, which is basically the same thing I'm saying.

Those are provably just a two angles which points out the same issue. Also its not surprising at all seeing people got frustrated on how MSTR performs.

When company like them issues a new share, the value of those existing shares will get affected

Whether someone blames Saylor’s strategy or the investors’ risk management, the result is the same. The more they dilute and issue more share, it became more harder for the other stock they have to gain traction. Then those people who hold for long term will carry the bad effect of their actions.

[bbc.reporter]

A frustrated MSTR holder just confronted Michael Saylor.

He put $219,000 into the stock for his kids' future and watched it crash by over 70% to $60,000. He asked what answers management had for him.

Well, for starters, you'd have to be pretty financially clueless to put your children's future, first of all, into a single stock—and even more so into one like MSTR, which is high-risk. Anyway, I remember the opposite happening: a couple of years ago, Saylor was boasting that people were coming up to him and thanking him because the stock had gone up so much.

But we have to keep in mind that he is largely to blame for MSTR's low price, since he keeps diluting the stock. It's not just that the price of Bitcoin has fallen; he plays an active role in this.

What you say is correct, however, this is not the argument being made. Also, what is being questioned is Michael Sellor's dilution of MSTR by issuing more stock to dump on the market to save STRC and try to return this to par price of $100.

This causes MSTR holders to have less bitcoin per share. The chinaman in the video explaining their financial experiment tactics very much sounds something similar to a scammer!

I don't get you, man. So are you arguing with me about something I said? Anyone who follows this issue knows that Michael Saylor is largely to blame for MSTR's poor performance because he keeps diluting his shareholders. I've put in bold what you say, which is basically the same thing I'm saying.

Yes we both agree that Michael Sellor is the cause of the dump on MSTR and the dilution of this, however, my argument is that in this occurrence the man is correct to blame Sellor and you are arguing that it is incorrect to blame Sellor.

You should read what I have wrote and understand what the is the real argument.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Yes we both agree that Michael Sellor is the cause of the dump on MSTR and the dilution of this, however, my argument is that in this occurrence the man is correct to blame Sellor and you are arguing that it is incorrect to blame Sellor.

You should read what I have wrote and understand what the is the real argument.

Don’t go acting all smug and telling me whether or not I should read, because I’m not exactly the one with reading comprehension problems. What I’ve put in bold – which you claim I’ve said is false.

Given that your merit-to-activity ratio isn’t even a third, it’s clear that the one with the biggest problems with comprehension and, above all, expression, is you.

[bbc.reporter]

Yes we both agree that Michael Sellor is the cause of the dump on MSTR and the dilution of this, however, my argument is that in this occurrence the man is correct to blame Sellor and you are arguing that it is incorrect to blame Sellor.

You should read what I have wrote and understand what the is the real argument.

Don’t go acting all smug and telling me whether or not I should read, because I’m not exactly the one with reading comprehension problems. What I’ve put in bold – which you claim I’ve said is false.

Given that your merit-to-activity ratio isn’t even a third, it’s clear that the one with the biggest problems with comprehension and, above all, expression, is you.

Hehehehe it appears that you are refusing to understand. You are telling me that the man who has invested in MSTR should be blamed. I am arguing against this because it is Michael Sellor's fault why MSTR holders are being diluted. If Sellor has stayed with the original strategy, Sellor only needs to wait for an improvement in mNAV, issue and sell MSTR stock and buy bitcoin to increase bitcoin per MSTR.

Also, you are saying that because I have low merit to activity ratio you are implying that I am a spammer who is posting without reading? Let me make a challenge similar to I did with another person in the forum. Let us remove our signatures and agree not to join signature campaigns forever to prove that we are not spammers because if you imply I am a spammer, I also imply that you are a spammer.