Saylor has created a fiat system on top of Bitcoin

[Zoomic]

This is the problem (in my opinion): Michael Saylor is destroying Bitcoin's fundamental value. 🙋

What is Michael Saylor doing? He's removing Bitcoin from circulation. He doesn't even hide the fact that this is his primary goal. But then another question arises: if Michael Saylor and other institutional players remove Bitcoin completely from circulation, won't that mean a complete halt to transactions on the network? And how will miners make money in this situation? Considering that the network experiences a halving every four years, the cost of Bitcoin mining effectively doubles every four years.

Before now, we had thought that one the government or an institution tries to buy to many bitcoin in order to halt circulation, that bitcoin will jump so high that it will affect their buying power. So, what is happening now that the price is not shooting and we are complaining like Saylor is buying all the BTC in circulation?

[Dogedegen]

What is Michael Saylor doing? He's removing Bitcoin from circulation. He doesn't even hide the fact that this is his primary goal. But then another question arises: if Michael Saylor and other institutional players remove Bitcoin completely from circulation, won't that mean a complete halt to transactions on the network? And how will miners make money in this situation? Considering that the network experiences a halving every four years, the cost of Bitcoin mining effectively doubles every four years.

This is not a real argument as there is no real scenario under which a significant amount of supply would be removed from the circulating supply for it to have a big effect on transactions. People tend to mix these things up. Just because it is supply, it does not mean that it comes from people who were actively transacting on Bitcoin or who would actively transact on Bitcoin. Before this could become a problem the price of Bitcoin would end up becoming so high that there would be no issues with dividing even a small number of Bitcoin for the circulating transactions. We are so far off from a point where the removal of the supply from circulation could be a problem that I do not understand why we should discuss such a scenario. It is highly unlikely.

Michael Saylor also uses centralized Bitcoin storage (in Coinbase cold storage). This directly violates the principle of Bitcoin's decentralized storage. It creates a single point of failure in the system.

It does not violate anything, Bitcoin gives you the ability to choose. If you want to choose a centralized way of storing it, that is your decision to make and you get the consequences of that choice. Choosing differently from others or making choices that are not the best is not a violation of any Bitcoin principle. The Bitcoin principle is about freedom and it is made possible by the decentralization of the network and the protocol, it is not about forcing people to do anything.

Before now, we had thought that one the government or an institution tries to buy to many bitcoin in order to halt circulation, that bitcoin will jump so high that it will affect their buying power. So, what is happening now that the price is not shooting and we are complaining like Saylor is buying all the BTC in circulation?

He has not bought anything close to the number that would be needed to have an impact on other things because of a significant reduction in circulating BTC. What the other person wrote is not true right now. It seems that I often find a big misunderstanding what Bitcoin is about when some people here complain that others have a lot of money, it seems to be sneaky form of envy. Bitcoin is about choice and freedom. If someone with a lot of money wants to buy all the Bitcoin possible, he should be able to do that. Any ideas about restricting them or vilifying them just shows meanness and a false understanding of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is for everyone, for those that you like and for those that you don't like that is what it means to have a system that is permissionless.

Continued buying from Strategy or some other big player like that is not a good thing, but you can't prevent them from doing it. They are exercising their choice to get Bitcoin the same as everyone else. They have enough to be quite a big risk if there were to be a compromised or big selling, but they do not have nearly enough to cause issues that relate from a lack of circulating Bitcoin if that is even possible. As the number of circulating Bitcoin contracts, the price will go up and as it goes up the number that is circulating will increase again. That is how the market works.

[goldkingcoiner]

Although I am grateful to Saylor for exposing Bitcoin to more people, I cannot say I am a fan of his business practices either. People need to be aware of the consequences of buying something which is not Bitcoin but "shares" of Bitcoin. Which is like buying a piece of paper that says you own x amount of Gold. The paper itself is not gold is it? In the end it's just an IOU. And in this case not an IOU for Bitcoin but rather for the monetary value in fiat. If the goal is censorship-resistant, self-sovereign money, then a corporate share can never fully substitute for holding your own keys.

Some of the looming dangers are that the shares price can become disconnected from the underlying Bitcoin value. While this is not bad news for Bitcoiners, it definitely is bad news for his stockholders. And since he is not selling real Bitcoin but "IOU" Bitcoin, there is always the danger that he can just issue new securities, thereby diluting existing shareholders.

His entire model depends on his timely access to capital and financial competence as well as moral stability. Hopefully his fame and wealth will not corrupt him as it did many billionaires before him.

[Catenaccio]

Are we surprised?
All these billionaire oligarchs care about their own wealth and how they can increase it. They may sometimes say stuff that we like (eg. praising the only decentralized money in existence) but the only thing they like is fiat and making more of that.

They never cared about bitcoin either, regardless of what they say. Whether the oligarch is the billionaire Saylor praising bitcoin calling it "hope" and "freedom", or billionaire Buffett attacking it and calling bitcoin "rat poison". They both are the same and want to fill their pockets with more fiat increasing their own wealth. If they can do it with bitcoin as a tool, they'll not hesitate. They have both done that too!

They only consider bitcoin as a tool for enriching their wealth while they will cash out all or most of their bitcoins when they see a right time for doing this. Billionaires mostly are not ready to migrate and move away from traditional financial system and their business will be around bank system which can provide them feeling of safety and better legality.

For some oligarchs, they even don't see Bitcoin as a good investment asset, just see it as a very risky asset, so they will ignore bitcoins but it's their knowledge and approach, we don't have to change them.

With us as people who have small capital, and already see good things in Bitcoin, we can patiently investing our money in bitcoin, hold coins for some cycles to have good profit. If having time, reading about Bitcoin FUDs to debunk such FUDs for building up our better knowledge about Bitcoin and stronger belief in Bitcoin is our good prepartion.
https://endthefud.org/

[legiteum]

As a side note, I hope you all understand that, if it weren't for Saylor, Musk, Donald Trump, and a few other whales, BTC would be trading for about $1000 right now.

Keep that in mind before you say, "billionaires go home"  .

[ContentWriter]

What OP wrote there makes a lot of sense but the fact remains that many people have not been looking at Saylor's action from OP's point of view for obvious reasons - Saylor's hoard are seen as a boost for Bitcoin's price and to many people in the crypto community, that's all that matter. Nevertheless, we should give it to Saylor that he saw what many other investors and businesses did not see, even at a time that crypto was mostly unregulated and there was widespread discontent towards the industry, especially from governments. So we mustn't begrudge him even though we know that Bitcoin in the hands of a few stands against the purpose it was created.

[avp2306]

Are we surprised?
All these billionaire oligarchs care about their own wealth and how they can increase it. They may sometimes say stuff that we like (eg. praising the only decentralized money in existence) but the only thing they like is fiat and making more of that.

They never cared about bitcoin either, regardless of what they say. Whether the oligarch is the billionaire Saylor praising bitcoin calling it "hope" and "freedom", or billionaire Buffett attacking it and calling bitcoin "rat poison". They both are the same and want to fill their pockets with more fiat increasing their own wealth. If they can do it with bitcoin as a tool, they'll not hesitate. They have both done that too!

Those billionaires like them always love to play the games of wealth, whether its stocks,fiat or even on Bitcoin. The main goal is always to get benefit on their investment then make their capital grows more.

Well there's only difference with this, since Bitcoin cannot be controlled by them, this is also one of the reason why Warren Buffet didn't like it. But despite of those situation still Saylor loves Bitcoin because he know there's lots of benefits to take advantage on.

The only thing they could do is to create hype on Bitcoin then try to change the sentiments of Bitcoin. There are times that they succeed doing it, but also there are times they failed even if they used lots of money for purchasing Bitcoin. Also Bitcoin always shows that it will not serve the pleasure of those oligarchs.

[pooya87]

As a side note, I hope you all understand that, if it weren't for Saylor, Musk, Donald Trump, and a few other whales, BTC would be trading for about $1000 right now.

Keep that in mind before you say, "billionaires go home"  .

Or maybe if it weren't for Musk's FUD attacking bitcoin (the bullshit about the environment and energy consumption, calling it useless and whatnot), Saylor's market manipulations or pedophile POTUS's bans and restrictions on the crypto market and his tariff wars and disruption of the global economy, ... the price would have been over a million dollars by now.

Keep the historical price rise of over a decade in mind (from $0.001 to $10000) and its trajectory (the extrapolated data) next time you want to say billionaires are the reason for the rise.

[SilverCryptoBullet]

Or maybe if it weren't for Musk's FUD attacking bitcoin (the bullshit about the environment and energy consumption, calling it useless and whatnot), Saylor's market manipulations or pedophile POTUS's bans and restrictions on the crypto market and his tariff wars and disruption of the global economy, ... the price would have been over a million dollars by now.

Elon Musk did that attack to shill Dogecoin, what a "legend"!

People have to do their own exercises, searching, reading and learning for having knowledge in order to debunk Bitcoin environmental disaster fuds.

Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument.
Bitcoin is already using clean energy.
https://endthefud.org/energy
https://casebitcoin.com/critiques/bitcoin-wastes-energy

[d5000]

I don't like the MSTR business model either. I fully agree that this is not what Bitcoin is meant to be.

However, I still think @bitmover has a point, in contrast to a Central Bank (which has nearly absolute power to increase the supply) there are strong incentives in place that the share emission stays moderate to not impact the "bitcoins by share" number. Before seeing the table I actually expected much worse numbers.

The debt system built on top on Bitcoin by Strategy is more worrying though. The problem is in my eyes that the connection between debt and the held Bitcoins isn't straightfoward and everything also hangs on the BTC/USD exchange rate which determines the attractiveness of Strategy's shares. If MSTR ever had problems to repay its debt *and* BTC/USD exchange rate at that very moment was low and the market was bearish, then there fastly could be strong forces leading to major Bitcoin sales, which again would impact the "Bitcoin by share" number, and create a nice panic.

This could eventually rebalance when people remember the high returns MSTR gave them in 2024/25 and the market considers the share "undervalued" after an extreme panic event (pseudoscientific hopium stories like the "4 year cycle" and "stock to flow" may help while they somehow work ), but it could also lead to a collapse.

I'm not too worried though. A Saylor exit or near-exit (Microstrategy could also return to the software business and hold only a few BTC) may lead to some price turbulences then we have one Damocles' sword less. It would however impact a smooth transition of BTC to a stable asset. Some would like that volatility spike though.

[Dogedegen]

As a side note, I hope you all understand that, if it weren't for Saylor, Musk, Donald Trump, and a few other whales, BTC would be trading for about $1000 right now.

Keep that in mind before you say, "billionaires go home"  .

Or maybe if it weren't for Musk's FUD attacking bitcoin (the bullshit about the environment and energy consumption, calling it useless and whatnot), Saylor's market manipulations or pedophile POTUS's bans and restrictions on the crypto market and his tariff wars and disruption of the global economy, ... the price would have been over a million dollars by now.

Keep the historical price rise of over a decade in mind (from $0.001 to $10000) and its trajectory (the extrapolated data) next time you want to say billionaires are the reason for the rise.

Yeah actually many of these big actors have caused quite some damage at very important times of Bitcoin. If you think about that it is actually hard to objectively contrast just how much good they have done compared to the bad, it is quite likely that in many cases they did more damage than good. Musk is a clear example, by his narcicism and mental issues he promoted a very insecure shitcoin called Dogecoin instead of embracing Bitcoin. Many have actually only bought Dogecoin because of him and have suffered a lot of financial losses because a random shitcoin like that has no future, and then we know what happens after. Bitcoin is put into the same group as that shitcoin for that person and they stay away, many hundreds of thousands of people have suffered this fate from different parties.

The debt system built on top on Bitcoin by Strategy is more worrying though. The problem is in my eyes that the connection between debt and the held Bitcoins isn't straightfoward and everything also hangs on the BTC/USD exchange rate which determines the attractiveness of Strategy's shares. If MSTR ever had problems to repay its debt *and* BTC/USD exchange rate at that very moment was low and the market was bearish, then there fastly could be strong forces leading to major Bitcoin sales, which again would impact the "Bitcoin by share" number, and create a nice panic.

Are you talking about debt as the total obligations or solely about the debt? Because based on the financials right now the much bigger issue are the dividend obligations, the debt has good terms and has even been reduced recently. You can refinance debt and if you get close to 0% interest rates you can carry it for a long time without a large risk.

[d5000]

Are you talking about debt as the total obligations or solely about the debt? Because based on the financials right now the much bigger issue are the dividend obligations, the debt has good terms and has even been reduced recently. You can refinance debt and if you get close to 0% interest rates you can carry it for a long time without a large risk.

I was talking mainly about the debt. You are probably correct about the dividends being a bigger issue.

The thing is that the 0% interest rates were achieved in a very bullish period. While Bitcoin is bullish in most years, MSTR can't depend on that, because they will not always be able to re-finance the same volume of debt than in the market situation close to the 2025 Bitcoin top.

However I still guess that MSTR can "carry it on" for a long time due to their low operational costs. If either the bonds or shares fall too low, they can try to buy them back. They'll probablty have to sell Bitcoin for that though, so these actions would push the BTC price and the company value further down and thus the company would shrink.

I could see a new equilibrium when the BTC price is already either so low that nobody wants to sell anymore even when MSTR sells  - or if the Bitcoin traders degrade MSTR to a low priority, because other news are more important, for example "real" adoption. That is, for me, the bullish case for Bitcoin even if MSTR fails almost completely.

But for now, traders are still taking MSTR into account. That will continue for a while. I think the bearish movement today and yesterday were however not "only" caused by MSTR, but also the quite uncertain situation in the Middle East.

[avp2306]

Are you talking about debt as the total obligations or solely about the debt? Because based on the financials right now the much bigger issue are the dividend obligations, the debt has good terms and has even been reduced recently. You can refinance debt and if you get close to 0% interest rates you can carry it for a long time without a large risk.

I was talking mainly about the debt. You are probably correct about the dividends being a bigger issue.

The thing is that the 0% interest rates were achieved in a very bullish period. While Bitcoin is bullish in most years, MSTR can't depend on that, because they will not always be able to re-finance the same volume of debt than in the market situation close to the 2025 Bitcoin top.

However I still guess that MSTR can "carry it on" for a long time due to their low operational costs. If either the bonds or shares fall too low, they can try to buy them back. They'll probablty have to sell Bitcoin for that though, so these actions would push the BTC price and the company value further down and thus the company would shrink.

I could see a new equilibrium when the BTC price is already either so low that nobody wants to sell anymore even when MSTR sells  - or if the Bitcoin traders degrade MSTR to a low priority, because other news are more important, for example "real" adoption. That is, for me, the bullish case for Bitcoin even if MSTR fails almost completely.

But for now, traders are still taking MSTR into account. That will continue for a while. I think the bearish movement today and yesterday were however not "only" caused by MSTR, but also the quite uncertain situation in the Middle East.

Correct and that 0% bonds is really possible only on bullish market situation and close to the past 2025 ATH. But since they are operating on much lower overhead this help them to last much longer. But if incident on where the  bonds drops so bad, their buy backs might be the main reason on why they might decide to sell more Bitcoins and this is what currently happening now.

The long term growth of Bitcoin always depends on real time usage, not the actual balance sheet of MSTR. Actually its bullish for BTC if MSTR or Microstrategy's influence will fade since that means people don't have anything to fear on those possible manipulation act they do in future. Also yeah the recent price dump is not about the situation happening to them, but rather the main cost is the ongoing conflict happening on Middle East since Bitcoin price is so reactive on any developments happening there.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Since when is issuing and selling shares contrary to the purpose of Bitcoin?

Saylor doesn't just issue shares. What he does first is to buy Bitcoin in a centralized manner, store it with a third party—without P2P or privacy—and take it out of circulation, at least for a long period of time. Then, he is using that finite, decentralized Bitcoin as a basis to create a series of centralized and potentially infinite products. Exactly like the fiat system that never stops expanding.

Saylor is just taking advantage of the fiat system to build a bank that offers better returns than other banks.

What better returns? MSTR was the worst performing company of the Nasdaq 100 in 2025, let's see 2026. STRC dividends aren't "returns" as such, the are legally return on capital, which means he is paying you back the money you put in not something extra.

This has nothing to do with central banks. Central banks create money out of thin air

Not exactly. Central banks are backed by a nation’s GDP and other assets, such as gold reserves, which cannot be redeemed for banknotes—just as the Bitcoins held by Strategy cannot be redeemed for shares and the products of the company are not just backed by the Bitcoin but also by the GDP-like activity of the company, namely its ability to issue products.

and force you to treat it as legal tender through the threat of violence. Everyone purchasing shares from Strategy does it voluntarily.

That is the only difference; otherwise, the system Saylor has set up is just like fiat currency: potentially infinite expansion, non-redeemable assets, and centralization.

I don't like the MSTR business model either. I fully agree that this is not what Bitcoin is meant to be.

However, I still think @bitmover has a point, in contrast to a Central Bank (which has nearly absolute power to increase the supply) there are strong incentives in place that the share emission stays moderate to not impact the "bitcoins by share" number.

Bitcoin per share is just another bullshit concept, I'll have to start a new thread to explain it, because it applies to shares that rank just at the bottom of creditors. Can you or bitmover tell me how many bitcoins per share correspond to one STRC share?

If anyone wants to see the best critical analysis of the company that has been done recently, they can watch these two videos.

How MSTR Can Go To Zero

More Thoughts On Michael Saylor and Strategy

The guy who makes the videos isn't just anyone—he's a hardcore Bitcoin enthusiast with extensive technical knowledge who was once praised by Saylor and who conducts a thorough mathematical analysis of the company, while also highlighting Saylor's many contradictions.

If anyone wants a summary of the videos, just enter the URL into Gemini, and it'll summarize them for you in a flash.

[bitmover]

I don't like the MSTR business model either. I fully agree that this is not what Bitcoin is meant to be.

However, I still think @bitmover has a point, in contrast to a Central Bank (which has nearly absolute power to increase the supply) there are strong incentives in place that the share emission stays moderate to not impact the "bitcoins by share" number.

Bitcoin per share is just another bullshit concept, I'll have to start a new thread to explain it, because it applies to shares that rank just at the bottom of creditors. Can you or bitmover tell me how many bitcoins per share correspond to one STRC share?

It was 220 shares per bitcoin last time I posted. You can check in strategy website.

Ofc bitcoin per share is relevant. Why cant a company buy bitcoin and say that each share owns X satoshi? When you buy a share you own a fraction of the company.

Create that threat where you share your idea why bitcoin per share is "bullshit"

[ThemePen]

I don't like the MSTR business model either. I fully agree that this is not what Bitcoin is meant to be.

However, I still think @bitmover has a point, in contrast to a Central Bank (which has nearly absolute power to increase the supply) there are strong incentives in place that the share emission stays moderate to not impact the "bitcoins by share" number.

Bitcoin per share is just another bullshit concept, I'll have to start a new thread to explain it, because it applies to shares that rank just at the bottom of creditors. Can you or bitmover tell me how many bitcoins per share correspond to one STRC share?

It was 220 shares per bitcoin last time I posted. You can check in strategy website.

Ofc bitcoin per share is relevant. Why cant a company buy bitcoin and say that each share owns X satoshi? When you buy a share you own a fraction of the company.

Create that threat where you share your idea why bitcoin per share is "bullshit"

Fact of the matter is that by purchasing an ordinary stock in business, you are purchasing literally tiny portion of a whole business entity. When one of the largest corporations chooses to place thousands of digital coins on its balance sheet, then mathematical concept of pegging a particular amount of satoshis to a particular share makes pen sense on paper. I think that coins per share concept is correct since when you own a portion of a company, it automatically means that you own a portion of all other things owned by the company. When a company purchases a wealth of digital assets, then those assets will be included in the overall wealth of the company, and it will boost the worth of your stock directly. Although this true as in an unfavorable banking downturn, the stockholders come in last after top bank lenders, this is a prime drawback to any corporate investment you purchase in a marketplace. Until you decide to part with tight control of printing your share, then the easiest and fair method of sharing in the growth of your investment is to observe your investment in terms of this share math.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Saylor doesn't just issue shares. What he does first is to buy Bitcoin in a centralized manner, store it with a third party—without P2P or privacy—and take it out of circulation, at least for a long period of time. Then, he is using that finite, decentralized Bitcoin as a basis to create a series of centralized and potentially infinite products. Exactly like the fiat system that never stops expanding.

With the exception that the fiat system uses an army to enforce everyone to treat it as money, whereas everyone buying Strategy products does it voluntarily? I don't see how using Bitcoin however you wish is contrary to the purpose of Bitcoin.

What better returns? MSTR was the worst performing company of the Nasdaq 100 in 2025, let's see 2026. STRC dividends aren't "returns" as such, the are legally return on capital, which means he is paying you back the money you put in not something extra.

I was talking about STRC dividends. You don't have a guarantee from Strategy to get your initial capital back, if that's what you're saying, but you do get more lucrative rates than buying government bonds, if you believe the STRC share will remain $100.

Not exactly. Central banks are backed by a nation’s GDP and other assets, such as gold reserves, which cannot be redeemed for banknotes—just as the Bitcoins held by Strategy cannot be redeemed for shares and the products of the company are not just backed by the Bitcoin but also by the GDP-like activity of the company, namely its ability to issue products.

Both central banks and Strategy issue "banknotes" that are not redeemable for gold/bitcoin. There is just a significant difference in how they convince people to pay them for their products.


And yes, I don't consider MSTR or STRC to be worth the risk. I would rather save in bitcoin instead.

[dzonikg28]

Saylor doesn't just issue shares. What he does first is to buy Bitcoin in a centralized manner, store it with a third party—without P2P or privacy—and take it out of circulation, at least for a long period of time. Then, he is using that finite, decentralized Bitcoin as a basis to create a series of centralized and potentially infinite products. Exactly like the fiat system that never stops expanding.

With the exception that the fiat system uses an army to enforce everyone to treat it as money, whereas everyone buying Strategy products does it voluntarily? I don't see how using Bitcoin however you wish is contrary to the purpose of Bitcoin.

As Free Market Capitalist says, it is contrary to the purpose of Bitcoin. If we break down what the original Bitcoin vision was intended to address, which is remove trusted intermediaries, avoid central bank money creation, reduce leverage-based monetary expansion, create hard money with fixed supply, allow direct ownership without custodians, weaken dependence on debt-driven finance and more. The quintessence was supposed to be "individuals hold bearer assets directly" and not "financial institutions issue layered claims on top of the base asset, here Bitcoin".

Saylor doesn't just issue shares. What he does first is to buy Bitcoin in a centralized manner, store it with a third party—without P2P or privacy—and take it out of circulation, at least for a long period of time. Then, he is using that finite, decentralized Bitcoin as a basis to create a series of centralized and potentially infinite products. Exactly like the fiat system that never stops expanding.

It is once again turning into a credit money printing machine and that is very contrary to the original vision of Bitcoin. What's worse is that Strategy can reach a point when they are systemically important and indispensable. At that point the real question is whether the once supposed supra-systemic or system-agnostic Bitcoin network is still a non-institutional layer. And the answer must be "no, it is not anymore what it was supposed to be". Nobody changed the code and the parameters, but the whole network is essentially taken hostage.

Once Strategy obtained systemic relevance up to a point where it becomes dangerous for the network to let Strategy fail, the original purpose of Bitcoin is undermined and it is no more exosystemic.

One of the biggest problems in the legacy system is the horrifically extreme financialization of anything and everything. Ironically, blockchain could contribute to that trend if it is used to tokenize real estate and art and whatever else, I read that personal income could be tokenized. But this trend to over-financialization, which allows for complexity and chaos to reach unmanageable levels, was supposed to be countered by fixed supply hard money like Bitcoin, which, on the base layer, doesn't allow for credit money creation and expansion and unhealthy leverage operations. But if successive layers of financial claims are built on top of the base asset or Bitcoin becomes the foundation for layered financial claims, you once again have the detachment of the bearer asset and exposure to actual leverage and opacity (systemic risk, which Bitcoin was supposed to counter). It all ends up again in a chaos of certificates wandering around and nobody really knows what it is worth, not even the people holding real Bitcoin can rely on market information efficiency, because complex financial layer structures make markets inefficient under certain circumstances. Usually more products increase liquidity and improve price discovery, but in extreme cases the layering itself becomes the signal, not the underlying asset anymore.

The extent that Bitcoin is being more and more collateralized, its function as a bearer asset is getting continuously undermined. Instead it facilitates the expansion of credit money and that was one of the implicit critiques expressed in the message of the genesis block.

[d5000]

Bitcoin per share is just another bullshit concept, I'll have to start a new thread to explain it, because it applies to shares that rank just at the bottom of creditors.

Mathematically it is indeed much more complex than that due to the liquidation cascade if the system goes out of balance (bonds -> STRF -> STRC -> STRD -> STRK -> common share). I just looked into that for an answer in another related thread (and the videos you linked confirms that, just looked into it), and yes, technically you're correct that it's "bullshit" because there's no direct backing and there's no easy fixed BTC/share relation for each type of share.

However, the central difference to a Central Bank is that in Strategy's model such "bullshit numbers" do determine the attractiveness of the shares and thus their price much more than fiat exchange rates are dependant on the reserves. Strategy shares (of any type) are purely speculative instruments, not used for payments; people only invest in it because they expect a financial benefit. While fiat is primarily a payment vehicle, people "invest" in it only in some cases (e.g. Argentines investing in US dollars to escape inflation).

Central Bank money is tied to a value to a different set of incentives, mainly the extremely high liquidity (fiat is "traded" every time you buy a coffee) leads to high inertia of the exchange rate to goods and services, with some exceptions like Venezuela in the 2010s or Argentina in 1989 but these happen only if the system totally collapses. The "reserves to money supply" number (which would be the same "bullshit indicator" in the fiat world) rarely has a major incidence on the exchange rate, again only in these extreme cases where the market knows that the reserves are too low.

This is just because how you wrote in your answer to BlackHatCoiner - fiat is anchored to GDP, not to reserves. But Strategy has practically no equivalent to a "GDP" because their only business model is managing "reserves". If they had still a substantial software business things would be different. And maybe if they really build up a major lending business they would again have some substantial "GDP".

So I consider these "bullshit numbers" much more important for Strategy, and be it as a "marketing vehicle", than for fiat.

[BlackHatCoiner]

As Free Market Capitalist says, it is contrary to the purpose of Bitcoin. If we break down what the original Bitcoin vision was intended to address, which is remove trusted intermediaries, avoid central bank money creation, reduce leverage-based monetary expansion, create hard money with fixed supply, allow direct ownership without custodians, weaken dependence on debt-driven finance and more.

The purpose of Bitcoin was never to weaken the dependence on "debt-driven finance", I don't know where this comes from. If you're an adult and understand how this world functions, you understand that there is capital that is impossible to reach the Bitcoin liquidity, and only through third party companies can it reach it. If you're an individual, obviously buy the asset yourself, but for the trillions of dollars that have no accessibility to the bearer asset, a liability on bitcoin than no bitcoin at all is far better, and far closer to the original purpose, which is to protect yourself from the central banking artificially created inflation.

The quintessence was supposed to be "individuals hold bearer assets directly" and not "financial institutions issue layered claims on top of the base asset, here Bitcoin".

Strategy's clients are not libertarians-anarchists with guns. They are compliance-bound institutions; pension funds, hedge funds, mutual funds. Those entities often cannot buy bitcoin directly.

This is just because how you wrote in your answer to BlackHatCoiner - fiat is anchored to GDP, not to reserves.

It's not even this. The GDP is anchored to fiat. GDP is a meaningless metric that can go up in terms of war and down in terms of growth. It is completely tied to the money supply.