Do you know Strategy did not publicly announce their Bitcoin addresses.

Arkham Intelligence did their on chain analysis and found something but their findings can be not completely accurate.
https://intel.arkm.com/explorer/entity/microstrategy

Other Bitcoin Spot ETFs or institutional investors can announce their Bitcoin addresses or not, as there are no existing rules on it.

Yes companies increasingly use Bitcoin holdings to attract investors much like MicroStrategy did. While public nature of Bitcoin blockchain makes it very hard for company to fake owning much of Bitcoin without facing legal trouble especially if they need to show proof it is fair to wonder if all companies are being fully truthful or if some are just seeking attention.
Investors need to be careful and do their research as some companies might only hint at buying Bitcoin or have indirect exposure other than holding large amounts directly to gain interest without major investment.

It is easy as it has always been for any digital asset. Bitcoin's features have nothing to do with this. If you want to fake buying it, you can do it. I think you are a bit mistaken here. What Bitcoin's features enable you to do is to provide mathematically sound proof that you have some Bitcoin but only if you want to provide it. If you don't want to provide such proof, you can claim you have bought any amount of Bitcoin. It is even possible that exchanges are trading fake Bitcoin right this very moment. Such services are closed boxes and you can't really know what is happening inside of them.

The law is the only thing that protects against fake buying from malicious actors.

Personally, I was very surprised to learn that large companies such as Microstrategy or Bitcoin spot funds Bitcoin ETFs do not publicly disclose information about the Bitcoin addresses under their direct control.🤷

Don't get me wrong! I myself am an ardent supporter of the principles of anonymity and privacy in the Bitcoin network. I am categorically against the KYC procedure - I do not want a plate with the owner's last name, first name and postal address hanging above each Bitcoin address in the Bitcoin blockchain. However, it should be noted that the business of Michael Saylor's company and the business of Bitcoin spot ETF funds is very specific. Strictly speaking, it consists precisely in the fact that they publicly own Bitcoins and issue derivatives for their clients based on the fact of owning the first cryptocurrency. I do not quite understand how it is possible in such a situation not to disclose the very fact of owning Bitcoins?! Shouldn't such a business be absolutely transparent? In such a situation, in my opinion, excuses with references to security measures look extremely unconvincing.  Security is a necessary thing, but in my opinion, such a business requires publicity and openness🦧

By the way, I am interested in one very interesting question, indirectly related to the topic under discussion. Is Michael Saylor's activity connected with the plans of the American government to create a reserve of bitcoins? After all, such a reserve, theoretically, should include a very large number of coins (1 million pieces or more). How can you buy such a number of coins at market value? After all, this will lead to an immediate increase in prices? However, many things can become clearer if we assume that there is some kind of secret agreement between Michael Saylor and the American elite. Perhaps this is why Microstrategy's bitcoin business is not open and transparent.🙇

Personally I think I agree with you about public disclosure of bitcoin holdings most especially from an institution which is supposedly the holding bitcoin for customers, I think we have been asking of the same thing in the past from centralized exchanges where many think they don’t hold the coins they hold and some of them actually do reveal there addresses and some usually do a yearly access of their wallet by revealing the address. I have always questioned the authenticity of those bitcoin that this institutions usually say they buy, most especially for the fact that the Volume do not sometimes reflects this buys. Most often I usually think that this information might be revealed to the investors of the institutions only but even if it is that does that makes it transparent, public reveal is still the best to even lure in more investors too.


I don’t know maybe there is an hidden agreement between Microstrategy and the US government, but very inv one million bitcoin at a go is definitely not going to be easy in my opinion not that they wouldn’t have such money to spend. Personally I think if the US bitcoin reserve comes sound and they are going to buy from scratch then I think they will most definitely be doing a DCA for that. The DCA can be an aggressive one that it could even be daily buys.

About the impact on bitcoin price I think it will definitely affect the price and pumps it up. Bitcoin price is affected by sentimental analysis, the news of bitcoin been a US reserve asset itself is going to create FOMO then the public announcement of them buying will most definitely create demands which will definitely affects the market and increases the price

Publicly listed companies in the United States, such as those traded on NASDAQ or the NYSE, are legally required to submit regular, accurate, and transparent financial reports. Intentionally falsifying or concealing information in these reports is considered a criminal offense and can lead to serious legal consequences, including hefty fines and prison sentences for those responsible.

For that reason, there's no need to doubt whether these companies actually hold Bitcoin or not. Just a few days ago, one of the companies that holds Bitcoin on its balance sheet, Block Inc., was added to the S&P 500 index. MicroStrategy is also expected to join the S&P 500 soon

They are buying Bitcoin to protect themselves from inflation, because if they hold large amounts of fiat money, inflation quickly causes it to lose value. They need some harder and more stable form of money, like Bitcoin, which appreciates over time.

Or they take out loans and buy Bitcoin, because the rise in Bitcoin's value is expected to outpace interest rates on those loans.

In general I agree, but there were examples of public companies with enourmous "criminal energies" out there which went on to fake a lot of activity. German public company Wirecard, for example, allegedly maintained an intransparent conglomerate of fake companies for more than 10 years until they were discovered (now they're insolvent and some of the executives were jailed). Now imagine such an intransparent network of sub-companies, one of them could be buying Bitcoin but using other funds than those that are claimed to be used. 10 years is a lot in the Bitcoin world, they could do a lot of damage.

Technically, if the company has trust in another person, it's as easy as to publish a "buy order" (and a withdrawal transaction) which was made by that other person. Or you could sell the coins fast (without every publishing your sales) and re-buy them, while labelling the buys as "accumulative".

What I want to say with that is that the transparent blockchain structure normally doesn't prevent fraudulent practices of "Bitcoin companies", because the blockchain activity can be separated from their traditional financial activity, and it's the "traditional" branch where the fraud would occur, e.g. by it not being clear where the money originates, and who's the real "owner" of the Bitcoins.

There may be some cryptographic techniques to prevent that, but that would require "totally transparent companies", and our economic system doesn't provide the incentives for that.

^ But from where said transfers were made, then?

Interesting..

In fact it's really easy to lie about owning bitcoin. First of all, you can get bitcoin OTC, but also you can get it OTC through an exchange of private keys. This means that the coins don't even have to move for the transaction to take place. Then, as others have said you don't have to make the address public. A company can own multiple bitcoin addresses and can also buy ETFs and say they have bitcoin exposure, because they do. To Wall Street people owning paper bitcoin, or paper gold, equals owning the real thing.