You are talking gobble-dee-gook Wind_FURY, as seems to be something that you really enjoy doing. 

1) Saylor/MSTR does not seem to give any shits about buying on dips.  They seem to buy in accordance with when money is available to them, and it is not purposefully aimed at buying dips.  Sure, I am not opposed to the idea of buying dips when it fits, but Saylor/MSTR does not seem to have that kind of a focus.

2) Rather than proclaiming that MSTR's cost basis could be x or y or whatever made up baloney, you can look just a few posts back in this thread and see that on February 10, they had specifically proclaimed their cost basis to be $65,033.  Not that difficult to accomplish.
3) Regarding MSTR's actual cost basis. They are not getting liquidated if the BTC price goes below their cost basis.  Don't you know nuttin?  Their coins are largely unencumbered, if not completely unencumbered.  The main thing that MSTR has to worry about is their ability to service any debt that they have, which much of their debt is not even due for several years down the road, such as 3-5 years or more, and even frequently some of their outstanding debt ends up getting resolved from time to time, which is the meaning of "convertible."  In other words, from time to time, convertible bond debt converts into equity and then is no longer debt. Their debt to equity is not very high, and they also seem to be keeping quite  a bit of cash on hand for servicing of debt (and/or even for the continuing of buying of bitcoin if they were to want to use it that way).

Your assessment of MSTR's "liquidation" potential just comes off as superficially presumptuous (like you have been reading what other uninformed retards are saying), if there were some need to be worried about MSTR's ability to hang onto their coins. 

Don't get me wrong, there are other potential reasons to be worried about MSTR (such as custodial issues, or one man vulnerabilities, or honey pot concerns), but surely not the superficial cost per BTC risks that you mentioned.   

By the way, on a personal level, I consider portfolios to be much stronger when their costs per BTC are lower than the 200-WMA (which is currently at $44.2k), yet I understand that MSTR is playing a bit of a different game in regards to it use of debt to accumulate bitcoin in a way more aggressive way than many folks would want, which includes their assessment that accumulating there is value in accumulating the most pristine asset in the world, so it become more important to accumulate such most pristine asset at almost any cost rather than ending up with less of it due to being worried about costs.  Their framing of the matter (at least while Saylor continues to lead the effort) seems to justify that they are going to continue to be accumulating bitcoin in a relatively aggressive way, even if BTC prices go to $1 million shortly down the road (within this cycle or the next).


Of course, none of it is guaranteed, so we have to figure out ways to do our best based on our own circumstances our knowledge about what we know and what we don't know and to stay focused to accumulate as much bitcoin as we are able to, yet without overdoing it or wrecking ourselves in the process, and if we screw up and we get our balances wrong (or we misjudge the information, whether related to bitcoin or something else), we are going to have to take responsibility for the consequences of our choices.  There have been people who have wrecked themselves by being over-aggressive, and there have also been folks who have enjoyed quite mediocre performance of their BTC holdings because they were overly whimpy in their bitcoin accumulation, sometimes not accumulating enough and other times selling too much too early.  It can take a long time to really build up a meaningful and solid bitcoin portfolio, even if we are able to mostly stay focused and to exercise amongst the best of cashflow management and/or bitcoin accumulation practices.