Attack on Michael saylor, really unfortunate.

[suzanne5223]

With a recent move by Michael Saylor and his company strategy trying to sell part of their Bitcoin holding, many has read some meaning into it . Many has even viewed Michael saylor as an opportunist who used strategy his company just to cash out , after making people to invest in his company.

Any Bitcoiners who don't see Michael Saylor and other organisation who are in charge of BTC ETF as opportunists before now are not Bitcoiners because most of the CEO or people who introduced the ETF are people who once said negative things that could impact the BTC market negatively before taking something they said back.
Another reason is that the ETF they practised was against the decentralisation of BTC, because they implemented something that will put them on the edge to manipulate the market in the future when BTC becomes a more powerful asset.

Out of the blue Michael saylor announced that strategy will be selling part of their holdings, so that they can use it and settle dividends of investors.

That's a sign of purposeful manipulation because there's no point in him making the announcement when he knows it will create FUD in the market, although dumps in the price of BTC should be expected in this current market since we're in the correction phase.

But before we throw stones at him we should know that, Michael saylor is widely regarded as the father of Bitcoin institutionalization because he transformed Bitcoin, an  asset which was held by only individuals into a strategic treasury reserve which is now embraced by plenty of corporations today.

If this is your impression of him, then you're wrong because he never transforms anything. What he did is introduce BTC to something that my end decentralization if a lot of Bitcoiners dont move their BTC into a non-custodial wallet.

we should know that Michael saylor inspired many companies and institutions to critically consider Bitcoin as a long term store of value.

I believe it's Tesla that inspired many companies and institution into investing BTC when they purchased $1.5 billion worth of Bitcoin in January/February 2021

[BTCJourney2026]

Any Bitcoiners who don't see Michael Saylor and other organisation who are in charge of BTC ETF as opportunists before now are not Bitcoiners because most of the CEO or people who introduced the ETF are people who once said negative things that could impact the BTC market negatively before taking something they said back.
Another reason is that the ETF they practised was against the decentralisation of BTC, because they implemented something that will put them on the edge to manipulate the market in the future when BTC becomes a more powerful asset.

So while the fundamentals of Bitcoin are the same, the investing environment is changing and there are a lot more players willing to manipulate its price in their best interest now than before?

Then what is the point of this asset?

[Free Market Capitalist]

As regards Micro Strategy, does he have the sole authority to make a sale? does it go
before a board?

It does go before the board, which he controls.

Michael Saylor has lost voting control of MicroStrategy

I haven't found any more up-to-date information, but from what I've heard lately, he controls about 45% of the voting rights. The headline is exaggerated, like many of those published when he lost 50%, because although it is technically possible for each and every shareholder to band together to vote against him, companies are often controlled with a much smaller percentage—for example, Bezos controls Amazon with just 9%.

Saylor has done more for corporate Bitcoin adoption than almost anyone else, and Strategy's play is a long-term treasury strategy. I highly doubt they had not planned for a bear market scenario like this.

I think they assigned a very low probability to this bear market scenario, and if you had asked me at the end of 2024, I would have assigned the same probability to it as well. Apart from that, I think he is delusional as for his room to maneuver in really bad bear market scenarios. This clip went viral:

Refinance where Michael?

[MusaMohamed]

I think they assigned a very low probability to this bear market scenario, and if you had asked me at the end of 2024, I would have assigned the same probability to it as well. Apart from that, I think he is delusional as for his room to maneuver in really bad bear market scenarios. This clip went viral:

Refinance where Michael?

A nightmare of a business starts at a time they (owners and board members) assess that risk is very low, and probability of collapse from possible risk factors is very slow, almost not worth to consider. It's exactly what Saylor and Strategy thought about Bitcoin market and their strategy used recent years but the worse thing is they don't stick with their initial strategy but escalating it, making it more risky with time.

Refinance is not new in financial market but when a company like Strategy has to consider doing this (assuming this is true), while just one or two years ago they never thought about this scenario, it's like very near to a nightmare and collapse already.

[suzanne5223]

Any Bitcoiners who don't see Michael Saylor and other organisation who are in charge of BTC ETF as opportunists before now are not Bitcoiners because most of the CEO or people who introduced the ETF are people who once said negative things that could impact the BTC market negatively before taking something they said back.
Another reason is that the ETF they practised was against the decentralisation of BTC, because they implemented something that will put them on the edge to manipulate the market in the future when BTC becomes a more powerful asset.

So while the fundamentals of Bitcoin are the same, the investing environment is changing and there are a lot more players willing to manipulate its price in their best interest now than before?

Yes, players are willing to manipulate Bitcoin's price for their selfish interests due to the capacity, technology, and future benefits they see BTC offers, which is something that cant be achieved by any of the previous assets we have known.
They dont want to miss the movement and also want to be a key player when the time comes.

Then what is the point of this asset?

The core point of BTC is to serve as sound, global neutral money in a digital age, while also serving as an asset with a scarce/inflation hedge, a decentralized asset that operates independently of governments and banks. But the decentralized aspect of it is what the institutions/EFT practice is trying to spoil, which is why they operate in the model that will treat BTC like JPEG through tokenie.
Please go and understand the concept of ETFs because they plan to put every asset under their control. They started with BTC, and they will do the same thing with every asset or crypto they believe has a promising future.

[NeuroticFish]

I think they assigned a very low probability to this bear market scenario, and if you had asked me at the end of 2024, I would have assigned the same probability to it as well.

I think that Saylor was expecting that his strategy of buying a lot of bitcoin will make the market get into a big deficit of sellers and the bear part of the cycle will no longer happen.
However, the bear market is nearing its end for this cycle. I am incredibly surprised that Strategy has sold so few coins, actually. And if they manage to avoid bankruptcy for a couple more months, maybe to the end of the year, I think that they'll be on profit forever.

And about the attacks? He's a businessman. I'd guess it's not the first time he faced unhappy customers, competition or just shilling against him. It's part of being well known too.
Let's see how this goes until the end of this year.

[PrivacyG]

What Saylor tries to do is like trying an utopian regime for the first time.  He tested his luck to the extreme hoping that the Bitcoin Cycle will grab him and take him through the clouds.  It may, it may not.  The Cycle has repeated three times already and he is betting on that like playing Russian Roulette but the bullet is the chance of the Cycle not happening this time.  Which probably means a disaster for him, his company and all the people who bought into the Saylor hype.

Selling was obviously always part of the plan.

[X-ray]

Can anyone explain why they are in loss even after accumulating bitcoin in stages and bitcoin price going up each time ?

They apparently bought a big chunk of Bitcoin at the top which increase their NAV. I think their average cost basis increased drastically after their preferred stock and the At-The-Market strategy.

The biggest flaw of At-The-Market strategy is simply put it forces the company to buy Bitcoin at higher cost basis because only when Bitcoin is bullish the preferred stock will trade above par price and allows them to buy more Bitcoin but at bullish market the cost basis will be high for long term.

Which is exactly why their cost basis has been going up significantly.

[Free Market Capitalist]

However, the bear market is nearing its end for this cycle.

Why do you say this? If Bitcoin follows the classic cycle pattern, we won’t enter a bull market until after the 2028 halving—probably not until at least 2029. It’s another matter entirely if the price recovers a bit and approaches $100K, for example, but I don’t see the price skyrocketing this year.

It’s another matter entirely if you believe the cycles have changed, but we don’t have data on that, and they could have changed for better or for worse. You might think the price will recover and reach $300K by 2027, but that’s just as likely as the price spending a couple of cycles in “zombie mode” without breaking the previous high of $126K.

[Kelward]

Michael Saylor is widely regarded as Bitcoin's biggest failure, losing over $10 billion of borrowed money. That's more than FTX and Mtgox combined.

Holy cow.

Is that really where it all stands now? -$10B? <smh> Yeesh.

The biggest lesson for me in this Michael Saylor and Strategy situation is that it is better to buy Bitcoin with your own personal money and going further I can say that it is better that the money is what you can afford to lose. Clearly Saylor, didn't apply this simple rule, if he had used his own discretionary funds to buy Bitcoin I don't think that he would have been under pressure to sell to pay dividends to anybody because he bought with amounts that he couldn't afford to lose.

I wasn't surprised when Saylor announced that they wanted to sell some of their Bitcoin because Bitcoin is volatile and if you're using other people's money that you will give them dividends it means that at some point you must sell. It is just unfortunate for Strategy that they are selling at a lose because of the dip. As for the bragging that he wouldn't sell his Bitcoin I never took it seriously because he was also buying with other people's funds

[Ryu_Ar1]

I personally feel it doesn't matter if Saylor sells the ownership that is done but the criticism of Saylor is to try to create a new system in the name of bitcoin just for his own sake with the large number of shares he makes.

It doesn't matter to anyone including Saylor who wants to sell their bitcoin because it depends on their beliefs but when he just says that he is very confident in bitcoin only for the billions of shares he has made it is actually out of context and I think we can criticize that.
Losses are risks that can be caused by extreme actions that are wrapped with maximalists and Saylor should already know things like this.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Saylor is the head of a public company and as such he's fair game to criticism--whether said criticism is or has been fair is another matter, but I don't think there's any reason why threads like this should pop up criticizing the criticism.

In other words, he's a big boy and made some big decisions and I'm pretty sure he doesn't need members of a discussion forum standing up for him.  If this was a forum dedicated to Strategy, I might think otherwise, but it isn't.  Plus he's gotten his fair share of positive nob-slobbery over the years, hailed as a revolutionary for creating the crypto treasury model that lately has gone so awry.

Still got my bag of popcorn out, waiting for all of this to unfold.  Attack, criticism, call it what you may, the history of Saylor and those who want to be like him has yet to be written.

[m2017]

With a recent move by Michael Saylor and his company strategy trying to sell part of their Bitcoin holding, many has read some meaning into it .

This market is not homogeneous and therefore, no matter what you do, there will always be dissatisfied people.

Many has even viewed Michael saylor as an opportunist who used strategy his company just to cash out , after making people to invest in his company.

Isn't that why bitcoin exists (is used by most people) - to make a profit?

Out of the blue Michael saylor announced that strategy will be selling part of their holdings, so that they can use it and settle dividends of investors.

Because the company has clear obligations to its investors.

But before we throw stones at him we should know that, Michael saylor is widely regarded as the father of Bitcoin institutionalization because he transformed Bitcoin, an  asset which was held by only individuals into a strategic treasury reserve which is now embraced by plenty of corporations today.we should know that Michael saylor inspired many companies and institutions to critically consider Bitcoin as a long term store of value.

Don't over-idealize (another icon to worship?). Saylor isn't David Copperfield, who transformed bitcoin into something different and special, but simply an investor and businessman who uses bitcoin for his own benefit.

I want to say that, when Michael Saylor sells a small portion of his Bitcoin holdings, it should  never be seen as abandoning Bitcoin or just using Bitcoin to cash out on peoples investments.

Nobody talks about it. I mean, Saylor didn't even mention it.

It's the duty of responsible investors to occasionally sell assets for legitimate business that will balance up the financial records of a company or even business such as tax obligations, personal financial planning, portfolio management and payments of dividends to investors.

Otherwise, no one will invest in their business.

It is pitiable to see people criticize Saylor for his recent moves concerning his Bitcoin holding, Michael saylor has consistently maintained his long term conviction in which he still has in Bitcoin, plus we should not forget that the vast majority of his holdings still remains intact.

We can't know anything about other people's internal motives and "faith".

Michael saylor has always  talked about long term accumulation to be always preferred showing that institutions can both acquire and manage Bitcoin which paved the way for broader corporate adoption.

They always say only what is profitable to say.

Rather than criticize the sale made by Michael saylor, People should know that Michael Saylor's contribution to the Bitcoin ecosystem is proving that Bitcoin can also be something that corporations can invest in.

No matter how much criticism there is, the sale has already been made.

His vision has helped accelerate institutional acceptance and has changed how the financial world views Bitcoin today plus Michael saylor has consistently bought Bitcoin making his company strategy the highest holder of Bitcoin.

You praise him as if he "saved" bitcoin from oblivion and became a guide for institutional investors into the world of cryptocurrencies.