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

[Lexandroove]

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.

Yes, but I think it’s still worth separating conviction from execution.

Strategy continuing to accumulate BTC certainly demonstrates strong conviction, but buying higher after selling lower doesn’t automatically prove the strategy was successful or had such high conviction, tbh. Schiff’s criticism can be useful if it forces people to examine the numbers rather than dismissing every opposing view.

That’s why I personally feel that this topic is worth discussing.

[Lexandroove]

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.

In my opinion, the more useful discussions are about Strategy’s leverage, treasury structure, and exposure to BTC volatility, but we just aren’t seeing enough of that.
Strong conviction in Bitcoin doesn’t eliminate the risks created by how that conviction is financed.

[sunsilk]

Peter Schiff is a no guy for bitcoin, no matter how the world tells him that it's worth it to buy he will decline and will continue to say that it's worthless.

While for Michael Saylor, I think people hated him lately due to the sell off and apart from that there's no other issue that people calls him out for.

AFAIK, the history of Strategy before they invest in Bitcoin is that they're about to collapse but after investing in it, it had saved the company.

[PrivacyG]

I like some things about Saylor, I do not like many others, but the thing is.  Micro Strategy is one thing, Bitcoin is another.  If the plan is to particularly become a Millionaire out of it, Bitcoin can help with that but it is not the main reason I am part of it.  And whether Micro Strategy or Schiff either succeed or completely fail their plans have no effect on me and my type of Bitcoiner who cares for the most part about what it allows us to do rather than the Market chart.

[AprilioMP]

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.

Reports explaining why they sold their assets—which are considered unwise and show they learned nothing about risk management—cannot be fully trusted, because the only ones who truly know all of this are Saylor and his company, Strategy.
If MicroStrategy sells again with the intention of covering its cash needs without using other available assets, it’s the same as individual holders who are forced to sell their Bitcoin assets because they have no other collateral to use without touching their Bitcoin.

[mindrust]

I don't really like Peter Schiff since he is a bitcoin hater but I gotta give it to him, he has some solid points, not on btc itself but Saylor's company; Strategy. Saylor on the other hand, looks like a scammer trying to hide his true self behind the btc-maximalist title. In this equation, even though I really don't want it, I got no choice but to support Schiff. Strategy is playing a dangerous game and he is not the first one tried to do the same thing. Lots of people tried the exact same scheme before and they all went bankrupt eventually. Something similar happened recently in Turkish financial markets. I am not going to explain the details, if you want you can search the web and find out about it. I'll tell you this though. Everything has blown up. Total loss of funds is around 20 fucking billion dollars, US. Strategy... It is much, much bigger than this, and when they go down, and they will, they will leave a black hole behind them.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I don't really like Peter Schiff since he is a bitcoin hater but I gotta give it to him, he has some solid points, not on btc itself but Saylor's company; Strategy. Saylor on the other hand, looks like a scammer trying to hide his true self behind the btc-maximalist title. In this equation, even though I really don't want it, I got no choice but to support Schiff. Strategy is playing a dangerous game and he is not the first one tried to do the same thing. Lots of people tried the exact same scheme before and they all went bankrupt eventually. Something similar happened recently in Turkish financial markets. I am not going to explain the details, if you want you can search the web and find out about it. I'll tell you this though. Everything has blown up. Total loss of funds is around 20 fucking billion dollars, US. Strategy... It is much, much bigger than this, and when they go down, and they will, they will leave a black hole behind them.

I think that's true especially for STRC. It made more sense to invest in the company, in the common stock MSTR when the strategy was that it could achieve high multiples of mNAV because it was a leveraged play on Bitcoin. That’s no longer on the table today. First, because Saylor has ruined it by ATMing MSTR as if there were no tomorrow, and second, because as he accumulates more Bitcoins, it becomes harder to mathematically justify that anyone would pay a high mNAV.

So, the product he came up with to solve the problem—STRC—which he promotes so heavily, is the typical product that pays a lot of interest but, over time, loses more capital; it loses more of the principal on the investment than the interest it pays. I suppose something like that is what happened in your country.

[Nathrixxx]

Michael Saylor or MicroStrategy does not have any meaningful impact on determining Bitcoin market price performance. We are just fortunate to follow up on their Media expression and approach towards the Bitcoin price, as they are more free to the use of social media than many other investors. Don't just take them at their word and believe everything they say is accurate, microstrategy have been profitable, and that can't be disputed. Instead of following up with their investment strategy, develop something meaningful for ourselves within our capacity, and not compare our own kind of investment strategy with theirs, being whales.

[aoluain]

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

Peter Schiff is one of the biggest haters of Bitcoin and he doesnt hite it at all! His priority
and business model is Gold so at any opportunity he likes to attack a sizeable rival to Gold
- Bitcoin.


I recently came upon an interview he did and it decented into slamming Bitcoin and made a
post about it

Fear Bitcoin, Buy Gold from me

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.

TBH I wouldnt call that much of a pettern, I mean they only started that this year, their Bitcoin
based financial product has not been in a Bear market before so its new territory.

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 wouldnt call Saylor a misunderstood genius, he was just able to see a niche Bitcoin based financial
tool to sell to potential customers who have no interest in owning Bitcoin outright.

So yea Saylor and Schiff have their own ulterior motives.

[Lexandroove]

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

Peter Schiff is one of the biggest haters of Bitcoin and he doesnt hite it at all! His priority
and business model is Gold so at any opportunity he likes to attack a sizeable rival to Gold
- Bitcoin.


I recently came upon an interview he did and it decented into slamming Bitcoin and made a
post about it

Fear Bitcoin, Buy Gold from me

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.

TBH I wouldnt call that much of a pettern, I mean they only started that this year, their Bitcoin
based financial product has not been in a Bear market before so its new territory.

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 wouldnt call Saylor a misunderstood genius, he was just able to see a niche Bitcoin based financial
tool to sell to potential customers who have no interest in owning Bitcoin outright.

So yea Saylor and Schiff have their own ulterior motives.

Saylor identified a way to give investors Bitcoin exposure through a publicly traded company without requiring them to hold BTC directly, and I think this divide comes down to whether Strategy’s structure continues to create value for shareholders over time.

The same applies to Schiff and his preference for gold, but I personally favour Strategy’s approach.