Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 09:54:03 AM

Quote from: Fara Chan on Today at 09:17:51 AM

Quote from: bestcandy on Today at 12:50:51 AM

Inasmuch as most investors that are financially capable may likely be nterested in buying Bitcoin at once than buying by parts I still believe there is still need to know the best strategies that will be more favourable because if one is equip with the right information it gives more confident and determination to make more significant investment.
DCA strategies is more leverage to accumulate Bitcoin and I think most investor will consider it more preferable.

Buying Bitcoin all at once in large or large amounts is also not a problem for investors or companies who have a lot of money and I have also seen this in several investment companies that are very brave to do this, for example, like Blackrock and Microstrategy today where they very often buy Bitcoin in large quantities and the DCA they do is also in larger amounts rather than in smaller accumulations like investors who only have limited capital. However, what you need to understand here is that a strategy like DCA is not bad at all even though the amount of Bitcoin purchases can still vary greatly for each person because it is also always adjusted to our respective abilities.

Blackrock buys bitcoin on behalf of clients who had purchased Spot BTC ETFs.

Sure, blackrock owns the keys, but they have legal obligations to clients.

MSTR structures its financial products in ways that they BTC are not encumbered, even though they tend to promise (repeatedly) that they are never selling.. ]

There are similarities yet differences, and surely if we are talking about individual strategies then we have to consider cashflows and perhaps other investments that they might have and I suppose your mentioning of companies is because you are wanting to show examples in which lump sum might be used rather than DCA, which is fair enough, and surely anyone who has lump sum available may well choose to lump sum rather than DCA, yet even if they have a lump sum they still might spread their entry over a few weeks rather than buying everything at once, even if they might get into their target allocation position in a relatively front-loading kind of a manner.

Which to a certain degree is good for bitcoin because as far as I understand, Blackrock is obliged to have 100% of their sold derivatives covered, which means there is no thin air gap in what they sell to their clients and what they have to have under their control. At some point I thought that these companies have some scope, which allows them to only hold like 50% or something and that could have led to systemic problems and potential fire sales. Then again Blackrock is unlikely to get into trouble if bitcoin doesn't perform well even if these gaps/leverage were allowed. But as I said, I think it isn't.

MSTR is an interesting case that is difficult to assess if you don't take the time to have a closer look at their balance sheet and how they have structured all the financials. It is complicated because they have set up a huge toolbox, but so far Saylor has been using it in a way that makes sure the balance is kept. While I can't verify this at first glance, here is a quote from someone that I think could be about right:

Quote

“But if you really study his balance sheet, he has long, long-term debt, and he has rolling long-term debt. You’d have to have a systemic collapse in Bitcoin, and you’d have it to last six or seven years to flash him out.”

The various tools with varying durations, convertibles etc. gives enough runway to survive for a long time even if bitcoin goes through prolonged bad times. Now there is still some concern as to why MSTR is trading at market cap 3x its BTC holdings. But I think this has mostly to do with the vision that Saylor presented (first global bitcoin bank) and the fact that the current holdings give MSTR a huge competitive advantage for future endeavors. In order to a bitcoin bank, a certain amount of BTC is necessary and if any other company would like to compete with MSTR, they would first have to acquire a lot of BTC, which MSTR has already done. Competitors would make MSTR stronger while they try to become more competitive themselves as there are only so many bitcoin.

Here it is well explained how MSTR trading at a premium in relation to its BTC holdings plays out.

"Think about it like this: if MicroStrategy holds ~$30 billion in bitcoin and the company’s worth ~$100 billion, by issuing $1 billion in convertible debt (or equity) to buy bitcoin, its bitcoin holdings increase by ~3% while equity is only diluted by ~1%. Buying pressure sends the price of bitcoin higher, MicroStrategy’s stock continues to increase as bitcoin grows more valuable, and the cycle repeats."