Genius move!Saylor plans to sell Bitcoins to fund operations on buying Bitcoins!

[Ambatman]

I don't think Michael Saylor needs Bitcoin at all for his financial scheme. It's too much trouble... 🙋He could simply raise money by issuing bonds and then issue shares of his company.

And what would be the compelling reasons why people would want to invest
Not forgetting Strategy was a little stagnant before Bitcoin was introduced.
Let's not talk about dilution and how much demand is required for this.

What people don't see is that many coins where purchased under the average price tag the public uses to play in news.
If you buy at 12000  and sell at 60, 70, 80 or 90 you make a healthy profit.

How are you sure it wasn't the coins that were bought above $100K that was bought.
One thing you need to understand about the supposed scenario you saying is that
Average price would adjust by increasing if Saylor had isolated coins they bought at $12K and then sold.
If not Bitcoin is non fungible.

[WillyAp]

What people don't see is that many coins where purchased under the average price tag the public uses to play in news.
If you buy at 12000  and sell at 60, 70, 80 or 90 you make a healthy profit.

How are you sure it wasn't the coins that were bought above $100K that was bought.
One thing you need to understand about the supposed scenario you saying is that
Average price would adjust by increasing if Saylor had isolated coins they bought at $12K and then sold.
If not Bitcoin is non fungible.

Well that is how I do that.
I buy a few coins (ltc) at 54 and wait till the coins go over that price and purchase something eventually.

[stompix]

What people don't see is that many coins where purchased under the average price tag the public uses to play in news.
If you buy at 12000  and sell at 60, 70, 80 or 90 you make a healthy profit.

Those people don't see that because, unlike others with their third eye that try to see master strategies everywhere, our braincase is full of...well brain!

So, Saylor didn't buy at 12k, he bought at an average price of 66k.
So what happens when you take the profit from the coin you bought at 12k, and you're left with another coin? Well, obviously and simply, the coin now has a purchase price of 120k, and ...being a master strategist, you now need to pay 10% interest on the 120k you loaned to buy this coin that is now worth 60k.
How does 48k profit sound when you add 120k debt and 10% interst on that debt?
It stops being that brilliant, doesn't it?

I buy a few coins (ltc) at 54 and wait till the coins go over that price and purchase something eventually.

Oh, you must be one of those guys that hold Enron stock as well, right? That might go up over the purchase price also!

[WatChe]

I remember Saylor bought many Bitcoins when price was above 100k and he was of the view that he will never sell them because its an asset "that is going up forever, Laura". Now its a big shocking that such a big fan of Bitcoin is selling his Bitcoin and that too is loss. Saylor was getting good profit when Bitcoin peaked at 120k but he didn't sold at that price. Bitcoin no doubt is valuable asset but we must sell them whenever Bitcoin is giving us adequate profit. There is no point in holding Bitcoin forever.

[Smartprofit]

I don't think Michael Saylor needs Bitcoin at all for his financial scheme. It's too much trouble... 🙋He could simply raise money by issuing bonds and then issue shares of his company.

And what would be the compelling reasons why people would want to invest
Not forgetting Strategy was a little stagnant before Bitcoin was introduced.
Let's not talk about dilution and how much demand is required for this.

What people don't see is that many coins where purchased under the average price tag the public uses to play in news.
If you buy at 12000  and sell at 60, 70, 80 or 90 you make a healthy profit.

How are you sure it wasn't the coins that were bought above $100K that was bought.
One thing you need to understand about the supposed scenario you saying is that
Average price would adjust by increasing if Saylor had isolated coins they bought at $12K and then sold.
If not Bitcoin is non fungible.

What was the reason for investing in Michael Saylor's company shares before? In my opinion, there was only one reason – a lack of common sense. 🙋

Considering that Michael Saylor's company isn't engaged in any useful entrepreneurial activity (he hasn't even bothered to create his own Bitcoin storage system and stores his 850,000 coins in Coinbase's cold storage), the value of Michael Saylor's shares should be less than the value of his Bitcoin. That's exactly what they are worth now. The market has finally determined a fair price for his shares (although, unfortunately, this price is not yet final, and there is potential for further decline).

And if the people who bought Michael Saylor's shares lack common sense, then why don't they just buy them (without Michael Saylor's company having any actual Bitcoin)? 💁 By the way, when he announces the upcoming Bitcoin sales, this is probably exactly what he's thinking: "Bitcoin is not needed!"

[Free Market Capitalist]

By the way, when he announces the upcoming Bitcoin sales, this is probably exactly what he's thinking: "Bitcoin is not needed!"

That’s not the point; the point is that he’s shifted from a model based on the idea that Bitcoin would keep skyrocketing—as WatChe puts it—to becoming an actively managed trust fund. In other words, he’s going to be trading—something on which, once again, he’s contradicted himself.

On top of that, everything indicates that he isn’t a good trader, since his system consists—or at least consisted until now—of what I called a “reverse DCA”: buying a lot when the price skyrocketed, and little or nothing during a bear market. If you add to that the fact that he’s going to start selling at a loss—which is the topic of this thread—it makes you wonder whether, even though he’s an MIT engineer, he’s really the smartest person in the room when it comes to trading.

Very intelligent people often make the mistake of thinking they’re very intelligent at everything, and nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the people who are most successful in life are those who know how to surround themselves with people who are much smarter than they are in specific fields—something Saylor doesn’t seem to be doing.

[bangjoe]

Selling At A Loss will certainly be very bad which will have an impact on the reputation and also the expectations of others to him in the future, not long ago I heard that he bought bitcoin from time to time and now he sells from time to time at a loss, this is certainly not good for the company especially the debt that must be paid and also the interest they must pay as well, the possibility of MSTR will become a bubble when faced with demands for payment obligations to their customers.
Is it like a game if they can create a new money machine they can pay their obligations or is it when Saylor can't get new money and the below-average bitcoins he buys will continue to be sold?

[Lucius]

~snip~
On top of that, everything indicates that he isn’t a good trader, since his system consists—or at least consisted until now—of what I called a “reverse DCA”: buying a lot when the price skyrocketed, and little or nothing during a bear market. If you add to that the fact that he’s going to start selling at a loss—which is the topic of this thread—it makes you wonder whether, even though he’s an MIT engineer, he’s really the smartest person in the room when it comes to trading.

I never thought he was as intelligent as many people made him out to be, but that he just had a lot more money than others to turn some of his ideas into action.

His statement from 2013 has already become very well known, and I think it shows quite clearly how wrong he was - and it is not excluded that he went from one extreme to the other, which could ultimately result in an attempt to save what can be saved at all costs.

In the end, it could be described as "Bitcoin is dead - I love Bitcoin - Bitcoin is dead, again".

[adultcrypto]

What I noticed is that Michael Saylor have finally realised that he has the power to manipulate the market and that is exactly what he is doing. He tasted the waters and realized that the world followed him to sell and that lead to the drop in price of bitcoin. This is the reason he deduced to go for sell high and buy low, which is what he is planning. I want to see how the whole drama will unfold but I know for sure that bitcoin will rise at the end of all these.

[WillyAp]

Oh, you must be one of those guys that hold Enron stock as well, right? That might go up over the purchase price also!

I wish I could, I need to open an LLC in the US, some 500 to 800 $ that costs.
So I don't buy shares outside of the country I happen to live in.  

I never thought he was as intelligent as many people made him out to be, but that he just had a lot more money than others to turn some of his ideas into action.

He's not aware?



Source: https://altenar.com/en-us/blog/online-gambling-market-size/

[Ambatman]

What was the reason for investing in Michael Saylor's company shares before? In my opinion, there was only one reason – a lack of common sense. 🙋

Leverage. Many believed it was an exposure that would make them gain more from Bitcoin price increment
Rather than outrightly using leverage via exchange.
Mind you there are lots of pension fund managing firms that bought MSTR.

This is the reason he deduced to go for sell high and buy low, which is what he is planning. I want to see how the whole drama will unfold but I know for sure that bitcoin will rise at the end of all these.

He doesn't sell high on the contrary he bought and buys high
And anything sold below average price is low and at a loss which he's doing.
Currently he's just finding a way to patch the damages he has cost.

not long ago I heard that he bought bitcoin from time to time and now he sells from time to time at a loss, this is certainly not good for the company especially the debt that must be paid and also the interest they must pay as well

The only I can recall of recent years that he has sold was a month or two ago
They have plan to doesn't mean they have started.
Let's liken it to what the US did with their Gold reserve In the 70's.
They sold some to help the weakening Dollar.

Like I usually ask what alternative would you had proposed with the situation they currently in?

[stompix]

This is the reason he deduced to go for sell high and buy low, which is what he is planning.

He bought at 100k+, and he plans to dump at 60k.
Maybe you're living in the southern hemisphere, but I still think that even if the toilets go counterclockwise 60k is still lower than 100k. 

I wish I could, I need to open an LLC in the US, some 500 to 800 $ that costs.
So I don't buy shares outside of the country I happen to live in.

Good for you, but I think you can get them for free. I heard they come with 500 units of sarcasm per share per year for life!

And with ease he can be bailed out soaring the price back over 100k.
Look did not Musk just create 160x8 billion for spcx on a company that lost 5 billion last year.
what is the point of this 1.248 trillion in wealth all based on the future of spcx.
and musk owns 60% of that or .6x1.248=0.749 trillion or 749 billion
what is the point of that. Musk can acquire 500k btc x 80k = 40 billion and still have 709 billion in stock.

See, here is the difference between Spacex and Micro.
SpaceX has a product, it needs to sell it, which it does pretty good right now, Micro...well, Micro has no product, so it needs other people's money for it!
And while Elon has the money, Saylor has....debt!

[bangjoe]

not long ago I heard that he bought bitcoin from time to time and now he sells from time to time at a loss, this is certainly not good for the company especially the debt that must be paid and also the interest they must pay as well

The only I can recall of recent years that he has sold was a month or two ago
They have plan to doesn't mean they have started.
Let's liken it to what the US did with their Gold reserve In the 70's.
They sold some to help the weakening Dollar.

Like I usually ask what alternative would you had proposed with the situation they currently in?

If they do not have enough money, Saylor will sell the bitcoins they have collected to cover operations and other payments.

Alternative way?  most likely he issued a new type of shares to sell, the problem is Will anyone believe in this kind of situation? of course not in my opinion and it only proves that they do not make money from their business activities they are just looking for money from customers, the most realistic is to sell bitcoin.

I actually don't like the way he shows his bitcoin purchase as if it is a motivation in bitcoin fans and being the Messiah, which is basically he only uses other people's money to do it instead of his own money, a bad impact when people believe bitcoin optimism is broken by Saylor because he sells bitcoin a lot it will be a bad sentiment to holders and market participants.

[M47AK16]

If they do not have enough money, Saylor will sell the bitcoins they have collected to cover operations and other payments.

Alternative way?  most likely he issued a new type of shares to sell, the problem is Will anyone believe in this kind of situation? of course not in my opinion and it only proves that they do not make money from their business activities they are just looking for money from customers, the most realistic is to sell bitcoin.

I actually don't like the way he shows his bitcoin purchase as if it is a motivation in bitcoin fans and being the Messiah, which is basically he only uses other people's money to do it instead of his own money, a bad impact when people believe bitcoin optimism is broken by Saylor because he sells bitcoin a lot it will be a bad sentiment to holders and market participants.

He is doing fine, do not look at all the people who are making a big deal out of this, they are back to looking to buy some more bitcoin, microstrategy isn't as small as people think, it is fine and while they had bad periods like any company in the world, they are doing fine.

Even Tesla and Spacex had bad periods, why are people overreacting? This is a simple company, and yes they had a moment where they had to sell to pay off the dividends and whatever interest payments they needed, but they sold very little. This company has fifty billions in bitcoin, they are not in danger anytime soon.

[Free Market Capitalist]

The brilliant plan is still in full swing.



Source.

So, borrow to buy expensive, sell cheap, and pass it off as a genius move.

[BlackHatCoiner]

At this point, I'm just curious, is there anyone left in the asslicking camp that still defends this as a genius strategy from the inventor of the perpetuum money printing machine that magically only prints liabilities?

How many billions have you made, by the way?

I'm not a Saylor ass-licker, but I am capable of understanding that taking a company that was barely worth $1 billion and sending it to $30 billion (after you've taken it to $120 billion) by converting locked capital into bitcoin is a pretty genius strategy.

No, I'm not advocating for MSTR, no I don't think buying STRC or MSTR is better than stacking sats. I think that doing a 30x when you're worth $1 billion takes some balls, and I also understand that the world is not some libertarian utopia, and there are trillions in capital that simply cannot buy bitcoin, and therefore proxies like Strategy solve a real problem.

[stompix]

How many billions have you made, by the way?

Madoff made billions! Ponzi did millions! A ton of scammers did billions!

Should I check your history and see how you criticized people who owned billions for being stupid?
How many times have you done so about Warren Buffett? Did you have his billions to show off?
Did you score as many girls as Epstein did? If not, you're a failure of a man, and you shouldn't even dare to accuse the man of something!

Remember what I told you last time? Yup, again, confirmation! Do something about it!

Fucking shit if Messi scores 6 goals in his own net in a game I don't have the right to criticize him cause I don't play football!
Bitcointalk, land of the free speech, but only when it's good for our pockets speech!

[Free Market Capitalist]

How many billions have you made, by the way?

For someone at your level, I was expecting something more complex than a personal interpellation of that sort. If you want me to lower myself to your level, let me remind you that Buffett wouldn't buy all the Bitcoin in the world for $25. Has Saylor, or have you, made more billions than Buffet?

I'm not a Saylor ass-licker,

Excusatio non petita..., you know.

but I am capable of understanding that taking a company that was barely worth $1 billion and sending it to $30 billion (after you've taken it to $120 billion) by converting locked capital into bitcoin is a pretty genius strategy.

No, I'm not advocating for MSTR, no I don't think buying STRC or MSTR is better than stacking sats. I think that doing a 30x when you're worth $1 billion takes some balls, and I also understand that the world is not some libertarian utopia, and there are trillions in capital that simply cannot buy bitcoin, and therefore proxies like Strategy solve a real problem.

The idea that the world isn't some kind of libertarian utopia pretty much contradicts the series of threads you've started over the last few months—which are pretty good, by the way.

But let's get down to specifics. For whatever reason, you seem to think what Saylor is doing is okay. I don't, for the following reasons.

1) He has contradicted himself on practically all of his core tenets, even going so far as to lie brazenly: “Never sell your Bitcoin,” “Those who save in fiat, we call them poor,” “I am creating preferred shares so as not to dilute shareholders any further”,“I'm going to sell bitcoin at a profit if it makes sense to do so in order to obtain liquidity.” On that last point, since I know him, when he said that, I immediately pointed out that as soon as the window opened, he could sell at a loss—which is exactly what he's done.

2) What I’ve put in bold. MSTR made sense back when Bitcoin spot ETFs didn’t exist yet. At that time, Saylor hadn’t gone crazy yet, supporting shitcoin protocols so they’d buy his STRC. The moment Bitcoin ETFs appeared and his stash became too large—not to mention that he pushed many companies to copy his strategy—he sabotaged his own chances of institutions paying a multiple of mNAV for his MSTR shares.

So, what he came up with to solve that problem was to create the preferreds, none of which worked until STRC. STRC is 80% held by retail investors (the latest I've heard is that it's now 90%).

In other words, Strategy isn't attracting any institutional capital right now, mainly because institutions know how to crunch the numbers, and investing in a company whose CEO constantly contradicts himself and follows strategies like borrowing heavily when prices are at their peak to buy, only to be forced to sell when prices drop, isn't usually a winning strategy.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Fucking shit if Messi scores 6 goals in his own net in a game I don't have the right to criticize him cause I don't play football!
Bitcointalk, land of the free speech, but only when it's good for our pockets speech!

Everyone pisses you off for some reason. There are billionaires who I respect, and billionaires who I do not. Being a billionaire does not require you to be evil.

Criticize whoever you want. Criticize Saylor, if you feel Strategy is based on a fraud. I just notice that criticizing is common, while acknowledging the monumental success into someone is very rare. It's easy to sit in your couch and laugh at Saylor buying high and selling low, but it's very hard to reproduce what he's pulled off and be a billionaire.

For someone at your level, I was expecting something more complex than a personal interpellation of that sort. If you want me to lower myself to your level, let me remind you that Buffett wouldn't buy all the Bitcoin in the world for $25. Has Saylor, or have you, made more billions than Buffet?

Warren Buffett is undeniably a genius. He might call Bitcoin "rat poison" or claim he wouldn't pay $25 for all of it, but his track record speaks for itself. His monumental success proves a brilliance that no controversial phrase can diminish.

The idea that the world isn't some kind of libertarian utopia pretty much contradicts the series of threads you've started over the last few months—which are pretty good, by the way.

This series of threads perfectly encapsulates my understanding of the world exactly as it is, rather than how the libertarian mind tries to force it into neat little boxes. I'm a libertarian myself, and I felt like waking up from the Matrix when I started reading Austrian economics, but more than a libertarian, I'm a realist and I would rather treat the world for what it is, and not for what I would ideally like it to be. I challenge you to find me one such thread in which I support the notion that the world is / should be libertarian.

As for the rest of your text on Saylor and Strategy, I understand that you know this better than me, but please tell me what you think is going to happen with STRC from now on. In my opinion, it serves a real need (stripping away volatility for yield) and Saylor has enough Bitcoin to serve the dividend payments for a very long time. Bankruptcy plays out only if we stay in a prolonged, multi-year crypto winter where Bitcoin's price collapses so deeply that liquidating the treasury cannot cover the company's debt maturities, and traditional credit markets completely refuse to refinance their notes.

[Free Market Capitalist]

As for the rest of your text on Saylor and Strategy, I understand that you know this better than me, but please tell me what you think is going to happen with STRC from now on. In my opinion, it serves a real need (stripping away volatility for yield) and Saylor has enough Bitcoin to serve the dividend payments for a very long time.

I don't know what will happen in the future, but what I'm seeing is that every day more and more people are losing faith in Saylor, and that's a problem because, until recently, most investors weren't betting on the horse (Strategy) but on the jockey (Saylor).

I think it’s most likely that we haven’t seen the lows in Bitcoin’s price this year yet, and that’s going to affect STRC’s principal. That “stripping away volatility for yield” thing only works when prices go up or remain sideways at least. Increasing the dividend payment when the asset on which it's based has more unrealized losses isn't going to fly with people who know basic math.

In the longer term, I don’t think it’s going to be very successful. All these high-interest hybrid products always end the same way—with a massive loss in principal value—and I don’t think this one will be an exception. It could work if the price of Bitcoin skyrockets, but given what happened in 2025 and so far in 2026, it looks like the era of big returns on Bitcoin is already over—which is why Saylor changed his initial assumption of a 30% CAGR.

Bankruptcy plays out only if we stay in a prolonged, multi-year crypto winter where Bitcoin's price collapses so deeply that liquidating the treasury cannot cover the company's debt maturities, and traditional credit markets completely refuse to refinance their notes.

I think bankruptcy is unlikely, especially in the short term, but I do think it's quite likely that the company will remain in “zombie” mode, just as it did from the bursting of the dot-com bubble until 2020.