Peter Schiff vs. Michael Saylor: Is Strategy’s Bitcoin Strategy Working?

[Lexandroove]

I recently read an article about Peter Schiff’s thoughts on Bitcoin’s rally, and he’s not especially thrilled.

He attributed the spike to Strategy’s purchase of 950 BTC for $75.7 million, which ended a nearly month-long buying pause.

Between yesterday and today, he renewed his criticism, pointing to a pattern where Strategy sells BTC at lower prices, then buys back higher, with the exchange landing right as Strategy disclosed a fresh purchase and as bitcoin ETF flows hit their strongest level in months.

It’s a major dig at Saylor, if you ask me, directly questioning his persona as an uncompromising Bitcoin bull and corporate Bitcoin strategist.
To counter this, recent performance comes to mind; for example, when BTC broke above $80K on the 18th of this month, MSTR reportedly gained about 12% while BTC gained 5.5%, meaning it outperformed BTC and proving that, to an extent, Strategy(and by extension, Saylor)’s plan is actually materialising.

So where do y’all stand on this? Would you call Saylor a misunderstood genius with an approach towards investment that might turn many into millionaires in the next decade, or just another individual with masked ulterior motives?

[eternalgloom]

Saylor is neither some bible thumper free money maker nor the fraudster Schiff claims him to be.

Saylor is extremely smart, bold financial engineer who is using Bitcoin to arbitrage weaknesses of fiat financial system!

So, no matter how much Schiff scream, number goes up, performance talks.

BTW, Schiff always used to say Bitcoin would go to zero. So it's better not to lose sleep over his prediction, LOL!

[Ambatman]

He attributed the spike to Strategy’s purchase of 950 BTC for $75.7 million, which ended a nearly month-long buying pause.

I don't really know about this but I find it hard to believe even if Peter has issue with Bitcoin
He isn't that stupid to think Saylor buying 950BTC is the reason we had this spike.
Strategy bought after Bitcoin started performing well and they did from their cash reserve.
Such unit isn't much in the grand scheme of things.

where Strategy sells BTC at lower prices, then buys back higher, with the exchange landing right as Strategy disclosed a fresh purchase

Well this is understandable in a way
Their plan is long term accumulation and most times they get money to buy Bitcoin when Bitcoin is doing well
Via ATM and find it hard to generate funds when Bitcoin is performing poorly.

MSTR reportedly gained about 12% while BTC gained 5.5%, meaning it outperformed BTC and proving that, to an extent, Strategy(and by extension, Saylor)’s plan is actually materialising

Well It's a leverage security
If it doesn't outperform Bitcoin then it has failed
It's the same reason it falls more than Bitcoin.

Would you call Saylor a misunderstood genius with an approach towards investment that might turn many into millionaires in the next decade, or just another individual with masked ulterior motives?

Lol who is he turning to millionaires?
His past history doesn't really speak genius
And his motive isn't really masked
He's riding the Bitcoin wave and has been successful in pushing his company.

Saylor is extremely smart, bold financial engineer who is using Bitcoin to arbitrage weaknesses of fiat financial system!

While introducing STRC
A security similar to the Fiat system, alright.

[X-ray]

I recently read an article about Peter Schiff’s thoughts on Bitcoin’s rally, and he’s not especially thrilled.

He attributed the spike to Strategy’s purchase of 950 BTC for $75.7 million, which ended a nearly month-long buying pause.

Between yesterday and today, he renewed his criticism, pointing to a pattern where Strategy sells BTC at lower prices, then buys back higher, with the exchange landing right as Strategy disclosed a fresh purchase and as bitcoin ETF flows hit their strongest level in months.

It’s a major dig at Saylor, if you ask me, directly questioning his persona as an uncompromising Bitcoin bull and corporate Bitcoin strategist.
To counter this, recent performance comes to mind; for example, when BTC broke above $80K on the 18th of this month, MSTR reportedly gained about 12% while BTC gained 5.5%, meaning it outperformed BTC and proving that, to an extent, Strategy(and by extension, Saylor)’s plan is actually materialising.

So where do y’all stand on this? Would you call Saylor a misunderstood genius with an approach towards investment that might turn many into millionaires in the next decade, or just another individual with masked ulterior motives?

Saylor is basically on leveraged long position on Bitcoin, at time of spike he'd be seen as genius because of massive profit and would be seen as dumb at dip. Depends on the market mood.

I however don't agree with the fact that Schiff attributed spike to Strategy's purchase of 950 BTC, it's not even that big of a purchase compared to his previous ones and everything is bought over the counter, if his august 31, 2026 4,6k Bitcoin purchase didn't move the market, saying the 950 Bitcoin purchase moved the market is lying.

The MSTR gaining 12% while Bitcoin only 5.5% fits the description that his company is on a leveraged long position as everybody have known for a long time.

[notocactus]

I recently read an article about Peter Schiff’s thoughts on Bitcoin’s rally, and he’s not especially thrilled.

Gold and Bitcoin are different asset classes and they have different existence forms together with different total supplies, circulating supplies and programmed /non programmed future supplies.

Comparing Bitcoin and gold is quite not necessarily.

If you want to compare them, see their price histories but view it widely because Bitcoin has 4-year cycle while gold has about 15-year cycle. If you view them in only one or two years, it can cause inaccurate views about two assets.

Bitcoin market is like other markets, has its cycle. Focus on its cycle!

So where do y’all stand on this? Would you call Saylor a misunderstood genius with an approach towards investment that might turn many into millionaires in the next decade, or just another individual with masked ulterior motives?

Peter Schiff and Michael Saylor have different businesses with different products, gold and Bitcoin respectively, so compare their business views is not too needed. In strategies, I see very high risk with Strategy and Michael Saylor and I hope that they will restructure their company treasury, leverages used and become a less risk-taker.

[pooya87]

They are just two rich oligarchs who care about filling their own pockets with more fiat. Generally speaking I don't care about what they say about anything since everything they say is meant to benefit them personally!

He attributed the spike to Strategy’s purchase of 950 BTC for $75.7 million, which ended a nearly month-long buying pause.

That's a moronic statement. For starters it's not like they sign up on some CEX and buy it that way that would have an effect on the market. Even if they did, it is a tiny drop in the ocean. For example according to CMC website, the bitcoin's trading volume in the past 24 hours has been $46 billion. That is equivalent of roughly 546000BTC. And that is every 24 hours. So how much is a single time purchase of 950BTC that's right 0.1% of the volume of only one day.

[Oshosondy]

It is better you do not believe what that man called Peter Schiff is saying about bitcoin and Strategy. He always like criticizing bitcoin and Strategy, but everything he said that will happen are not happening. The man have used his criticism to wrongfully misled some people that believed him.

So where do y’all stand on this? Would you call Saylor a misunderstood genius with an approach towards investment that might turn many into millionaires in the next decade, or just another individual with masked ulterior motives?

The critics expected Strategy to have fall or failed, but the company is wise in business and proving them wrong.

[Free Market Capitalist]

He attributed the spike to Strategy’s purchase of 950 BTC for $75.7 million, which ended a nearly month-long buying pause.

That's a moronic statement. For starters it's not like they sign up on some CEX and buy it that way that would have an effect on the market. Even if they did, it is a tiny drop in the ocean. For example according to CMC website, the bitcoin's trading volume in the past 24 hours has been $46 billion. That is equivalent of roughly 546000BTC. And that is every 24 hours. So how much is a single time purchase of 950BTC that's right 0.1% of the volume of only one day.

The OP made that up. If he wants to keep defending it, he’ll have to provide a link and a quote to back it up. But it’s a very common mistake on the forum; the other day I saw a similar claim in another thread. Thinking that the OTC purchases Saylor makes—spread out over the week in small transactions—have any effect on the price.

Then there’s the announcement—on Mondays, he usually announces the purchases from the previous week, in an attempt to motivate people, which hasn’t been very successful, by the way, given the price trend since he started buying in bulk.

[Die_empty]

I recently read an article about Peter Schiff’s thoughts on Bitcoin’s rally, and he’s not especially thrilled.

He attributed the spike to Strategy’s purchase of 950 BTC for $75.7 million, which ended a nearly month-long buying pause.

Between yesterday and today, he renewed his criticism, pointing to a pattern where Strategy sells BTC at lower prices, then buys back higher, with the exchange landing right as Strategy disclosed a fresh purchase and as bitcoin ETF flows hit their strongest level in months.

When Bitcoin drops in price, Peter Schiff will start mocking Michael Saylor's and predict that Stractegy might go bankrupt. When the market recovers, and the company makes a profit, the same critic will claim that the market is being manipulated. These critics will always find reasons to talk. Every business is controlled by demand and supply, and people take advantage of it to make a profit. Even Schiff got rich through the same pattern.

So where do y’all stand on this? Would you call Saylor a misunderstood genius with an approach towards investment that might turn many into millionaires in the next decade, or just another individual with masked ulterior motives?

Why do people see Michael Saylor as a Bitcoin messiah? He is a businessman, for God's sake, and will adopt any means to make a profit. 

[DoomGuy_]

But this isn't the first time that Schiff has been a critic of BTC, having been describing BTC as a bubble for more than a decade and during every single bull run.

However, the sell low buy high tactic is a valid point and it's not a strategy that could be used on BTC alone, but Strategy's approach was never to get the best buy and sell on BTC alone but to use BTC as a tool to manage their balance sheet and keep MSTR attractive to the market, and that day MSTR outperformed BTC just shows that Strategy was doing what they wanted.

He isn't a genius or someone with some hidden agenda, he's simply playing a leveraged corporate game with BTC and it's been going since the beginning with transparency in the mechanisms.

[bhadz]

So where do y’all stand on this? Would you call Saylor a misunderstood genius with an approach towards investment that might turn many into millionaires in the next decade, or just another individual with masked ulterior motives?

Wasn't it that the reason for their selling was already answered and given? And they have the intention to continue buying. I don't care whether they sell in a lower price and buys back in a higher price. They've have what they need to hold for the long term and I think their main goal again this time is accumulate what was sold. On paper, they're in profit and that's why it doesn't really matter if they sell last time a bunch of it because in average, they're still profit regardless of how many at if they'd sell under $60k. If there's a need to choose between the two sides, we'll be having Saylor on our side but still have to be careful with what he says because we shouldn't rely to any of their words even if they're co-bullish with us.

[Reid]

I don't think MicroStrategy will do that kind of stint without even thinking about it. They have a lot of employees and some of them are good in the financial industry. It's not a mistake or whatsoever and they have grand plan over what they are doing.
Yes, they are walking the high-risk type of attack, but I don't think they are losing. There must be some plans or whatever is happening behind the curtains that we don't know and it's best if we don't dig that. As long as they are buying Bitcoin, I am just happy that the value is increasing. But for me, it's still best if ordinary people are the ones buying and not the institutional investors. Scatter Bitcoin all over different investors and not focused on some big ones.

[coinrifft]

So where do y’all stand on this? Would you call Saylor a misunderstood genius with an approach towards investment that might turn many into millionaires in the next decade, or just another individual with masked ulterior motives?

His strategy is the same as the majority here, even if you are a average joe investor, you can do that. Buying at the dip or thru DCA. So there are no secret of what Michael Saylor is doing. The only difference is that he has deep pockets so he can buy a lot of Bitcoin.

So don't bothered by what you read or if you think that there are ulterior motives. Almost everyone has the same reasons, we want to invest on Bitcoin to make money, simply as that. Buy+accumulate+hold for a long time = ROI.

[Leon Zimmer]

He attributed the spike to Strategy’s purchase of 950 BTC for $75.7 million, which ended a nearly month-long buying pause.

That's a moronic statement. For starters it's not like they sign up on some CEX and buy it that way that would have an effect on the market. Even if they did, it is a tiny drop in the ocean. For example according to CMC website, the bitcoin's trading volume in the past 24 hours has been $46 billion. That is equivalent of roughly 546000BTC. And that is every 24 hours. So how much is a single time purchase of 950BTC that's right 0.1% of the volume of only one day.

The OP made that up. If he wants to keep defending it, he’ll have to provide a link and a quote to back it up. But it’s a very common mistake on the forum; the other day I saw a similar claim in another thread. Thinking that the OTC purchases Saylor makes—spread out over the week in small transactions—have any effect on the price.

Then there’s the announcement—on Mondays, he usually announces the purchases from the previous week, in an attempt to motivate people, which hasn’t been very successful, by the way, given the price trend since he started buying in bulk.

First, buying 950 BTC over the course of a week involved OTC desks and would have had no impact on the order book. Schiff treating the lack of BTC price movement as proof the announcement failed misses the point, as there are two audiences for this show of conviction: BTC, and the shareholders/bondholders backing Strategy, who provide the capital to buy BTC via equity/debt.

That said, Strategy’s efforts to influence the former have been falling flat of late. The main objective here is to convince the latter, but it’s worth remembering this next time Schiff complains Strategy’s announcement didn’t move BTC price.

[endut15]

One strong day for MSTR doesn’t prove much. I’d rather compare it with simply holding BTC over several years, including the bad stretches. That matters more than who wins the Schiff vs. Saylor argument

[AprilioMP]

So where do y’all stand on this? Would you call Saylor a misunderstood genius with an approach towards investment that might turn many into millionaires in the next decade, or just another individual with masked ulterior motives?

I don’t really know, because to me, whatever someone like Saylor does is undoubtedly the best decision in his view. Those who criticize Saylor’s decision to sell at a low price consider it a bad move, but it’s not necessarily as bad for Saylor as his critics think.
If Saylor were one of us—you or me—our decisions to buy or sell probably wouldn’t be influenced by others’ criticism either. If you consider Saylor a genius, it’s because he’s been able to stick to his convictions and actions regarding Bitcoin.

[notocactus]

I don’t really know, because to me, whatever someone like Saylor does is undoubtedly the best decision in his view. Those who criticize Saylor’s decision to sell at a low price consider it a bad move, but it’s not necessarily as bad for Saylor as his critics think.
If Saylor were one of us—you or me—our decisions to buy or sell probably wouldn’t be influenced by others’ criticism either. If you consider Saylor a genius, it’s because he’s been able to stick to his convictions and actions regarding Bitcoin.

His decisions to sell bitcoins at lower prices are good because their company must do that to deescalate their leverages used and risks. It's good but what he decided to do after that is bad. Saylor and Strategy did not learn anything about risk management at all, even only several months ago they had to take not comfortable decisions by their bad risk management recent months.

Now, they repeat that high-risk taking activities because they see the bull market is possibly back soon.

They could escape terrible ending months ago by restructure their treasury, by selling part of their bitcoins but if they continue with this high-risk taking approach, in the future something worse might come.

[Taskford]

I don’t really know, because to me, whatever someone like Saylor does is undoubtedly the best decision in his view. Those who criticize Saylor’s decision to sell at a low price consider it a bad move, but it’s not necessarily as bad for Saylor as his critics think.
If Saylor were one of us—you or me—our decisions to buy or sell probably wouldn’t be influenced by others’ criticism either. If you consider Saylor a genius, it’s because he’s been able to stick to his convictions and actions regarding Bitcoin.

His decisions to sell bitcoins at lower prices are good because their company must do that to deescalate their leverages used and risks. It's good but what he decided to do after that is bad. Saylor and Strategy did not learn anything about risk management at all, even only several months ago they had to take not comfortable decisions by their bad risk management recent months.

Now, they repeat that high-risk taking activities because they see the bull market is possibly back soon.

They could escape terrible ending months ago by restructure their treasury, by selling part of their bitcoins but if they continue with this high-risk taking approach, in the future something worse might come.

At that time selling few Bitcoins from their holding is actually a right move to reduce their leverages, since their intention is clear at that time and it help them a lot from possible more bigger issues.

But the issue here is, they didn't learn from that incidents happened to them.

Instead of making some changes to help their treasury to became more stable, they are now jumping back on their risky strategy, since maybe they think that Bitcoin bull run is near to come. That possible thinking maybe can give another bad result to them, since they might get same issue once bearish trend hit and they decide to sell their Bitcoins again.

[hmbdofficial]

At that time selling few Bitcoins from their holding is actually a right move to reduce their leverages, since their intention is clear at that time and it help them a lot from possible more bigger issues.

it still doesn't sound like it was the best thing to do at time, if you care about reducing leverage, it could also be done in a bearish market also. that should even bring about stronger position. it was a mistake if you ask me, and if he cant learn from that, then he probably enjoys losing opportunity of making more profits.  

[Kelward]

So where do y’all stand on this? Would you call Saylor a misunderstood genius with an approach towards investment that might turn many into millionaires in the next decade, or just another individual with masked ulterior motives?

I don’t really know, because to me, whatever someone like Saylor does is undoubtedly the best decision in his view. Those who criticize Saylor’s decision to sell at a low price consider it a bad move, but it’s not necessarily as bad for Saylor as his critics think.
If Saylor were one of us—you or me—our decisions to buy or sell probably wouldn’t be influenced by others’ criticism either. If you consider Saylor a genius, it’s because he’s been able to stick to his convictions and actions regarding Bitcoin.

I think that what Saylor and Strategy are doing shows how much they believe in Bitcoin as a store of value, it takes somebody with a firm believe to sell something at a low price and is prepared to buy same thing at a higher price, it shows the level of trust that they have in Bitcoin. Critics like Peter Schiff are there like an opposition party in a government, it doesn't matter if the ruling party is doing great they must find ways to rubbish every accomplishments, it doesn't matter if they know deep down that they are wrong, if you know the value of Bitcoin you should know better to ignore Schiff's sarcasm regarding Bitcoin because it doesn't change anything about it's reputation and adoption.