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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Some are thrilled, others are not. The market is always full of diverse opinions.

Does it also bother him that Strategy does everything the wrong way around?

Not to defend Saylor, but he is betting on bitcoin while ensuring he profits from it. Also, one shouldn't forget that "keeping the company afloat" sometimes requires compromising one's principles slightly (so as not to harm the company).

What would you choose? To remain unyielding and stick to your principles to the bitter end (bankrupting the company) or to show flexibility and allow the company to survive? Business is a field where you need to be able to adapt quickly to changing conditions. Otherwise, you won't survive.

No matter what others say, their voices fall silent when they see (positive) results. Performance (profitability) is the best "answer" in such a case.

If a company's shares have risen (more than bitcoin's), it means investors have greater confidence in MSTR's profitability than in BTC's. This is likely also linked to the convenience and risk reduction offered by the MSTR.

And what prevents someone from combining brilliance with hidden motives? I don’t think the "brilliance" of Saylor’s investment approach will turn many people into millionaires. It certainly made him a millionaire, though. Well, of course, like any investor, Saylor has self-serving motives. And hidden ones, too, after all, what idiot would go around broadcasting their strategy? Is that really grounds for criticizing investors for keeping their motives under wraps?

Of course he can turn some investors to millionaires if he remains profitable and if those investors invested a substantial amount: Around say $200k - $500k will give you $1M if the investment does a 2X - 5X, so it's very much possible. But being a misunderstood genius? Um.....not quite sure what to say about that. But I can say for sure that he's doing okish, and he'd do even better if the price of Bitcoin soars.

On Saylor's ulterior motive, I wonder what that will be. Oh Schiff Schiff, can you just stop FUDing? Bitcoin is doing well now and you want to FUD.

A lot of us are saying he sold low and bought high, is that true though? I mean, he has bought even lower than the price he sold (he first bought at 11k BTC price), so he's in profit anyway. Therefore, I won't necessarily say he's making a bad financial decision.