It is undeniable that for now we can see that Saylor looks like a “marketing department” for bitcoin because indeed the consistency with which he has continued to launch his actions with bitcoin in recent years has made a lot of sentiment both positive and negative that comes his way.

But even so, regardless of bitcoiners who hate or support the way I think he still won't stop because apart from future goals it looks like he is targeting this as a form of popularity enhancer because whether you realize it or not Microstrategy and Saylor themselves are always associated or noticed when bitcoin starts to experience growth because indeed the assets he has and the buzz he does to become a maximalist are always worth talking about a lot of people.

Why do you think that a person who:

- conducts a company depending heavily on the Bitcoin price,
- will benefit probably also personally from it,
- are one of the biggest Bitcoin whales (and thus the market will "hear" them),
- knows that each "change of direction" in the MicroStrategy communication, even if it becomes slightly more "reasonable" (e.g. mentioning 200.000 as a possible cycle top and not a million), could be interpreted by other investors as "he changed his mind, he now will sell and Bitcoin will crash!"

... should make accurate statements about the long term future of the behaviour of the company? Or should they instead make bullish statements all the time?

I'm quite sure that MicroStrategy's strategy is much more flexible than many think. They may re-evaluate continuously if their business model still works, and if yes (like now), deepen it, but if not, they may have several "B plans" (if they don't do that, they aren't doing their homework as a public company).

It's already interesting that it seems that in their newest Senior notes they don't even guarantee a cash repayment of the investment (if I understood this announcement correctly).

If something has only value when you "get in early", well, we have a name for it - starting with P. I'm not accusing Saylor of that, but the investment is still speculative: we don't know what Bitcoin's fundamentals will look like after some Central Banks bought it. Does it then still have room to the upside? I personally think 100.000 is still a good price to buy, but that's because I'm more bullish than the average investor and I think there are chances that Bitcoin could become a global currency. The market, however, prices BTC slightly lower at this moment.

Besides of that -- I think I already posted that in this thread, one or two pages earlier -- MicroStrategy bought very few coins in the 2022/23 crypto winter and their cost is above average, because they simply don't get the money to buy really cheap (their senior notes sell well in a bull market, but only when the best days to buy have already passed).

For this reason, imo a Bitcoin DCA is much better than MSTR.

I think people have legitimate reasons to vilify MicroStrategy. They are buying so much Bitcoin and are using leverage that is increasing. Their liquidation price is currently $20,000. While it is unlikely that will happen, it isn’t unheard of for Bitcoin to drop 85% in a correction. If that happened it would cause a liquidation that would destroy the price and likely confidence in Bitcoin. In other words, people hate MSTR because they’re creating a systemic risk for Bitcoin.

Here's what X is saying about MSTR right now...

I do think it arises from the fact that - such - big sums flow from one person or a company of his - that's natural too.
But I wouldn't think it would bring that much harm in the perspective, only if - all - companies like MS would drop their BTC off while doing it simultaneously.

The biggest thing I've heard by far is the thing you said - not even being jealous, but skeptical about the idea of a big whale and his entity holding so much, whereas it can be seen from either good or bad side depending on the overall situation on the market and how others whales like Saylor feel about BTC currently.
As it was said, such people and entities always have plan B if plan A doesn't work as intended.

No - I think those who invested in MSTR have made a very rewarding choice

See below!




I'm not sure if this is a Plan B or if it is a goal but didnt MS mention that they want to be

Well, I think the answer is very simple, reason for this is because most believe that the man already have too many bitcoins in his possession alone, and you know this popular saying about when power is left in the hands of one man, he may likely misuse it, and by so doing, become a threat instead of a blessing.

Personally, I do not hate Michael Saylor, he has his money and can do whatever he wanted with it, and those of us who love bitcoin should be happy for such a man, because whether we believe it or not, he has contributed greatly to the acceptance and confidence people, large cooperations, and even governments have in bitcoin today, his story is an inspiration and encouragement to alot of big Firms to consider creating a bitcoin reserve for the company, for the more we have this, the more our bitcoin becomes more valuable.

So, in the nutshell, I do not see any reason to hate or even envy the Man, hard and smart work pays.

Bitcoin was never meant to integrate itself with the traditional financial system (institutionalization). It was created as a response from banks' (and governments') inherent failures. By welcoming "Wall Street" with open hands, we have essentially introduced a "single point of failure" into Bitcoin. I'm afraid all of these giant corporations will buy and "hodl" most of the circulating supply for their own benefit. Bitcoin will become centralized just like the Internet. It's human greed that will lead it towards its demise. The approval of spot ETFs is just the beginning.

It's not about making lots money. It's about becoming free (as in liberty) from the oppression of state-controlled currencies. I guess central banks and governments win after all. Why do you think Fiat currencies are still relevant these days? At least, BTC is open source. If all else fails, we can just "fork off" to a new chain and forget about the rest.