That's because it makes 0 sense to make a digital asset strategy other than Bitcoin, and if you really want to gamble, perhaps Ethereum if you think it will have a role long term for smart contracts which I doubt since it cannot seem to scale, but nontheless, an ETH strategy is better than XRP. SOL is just like a faster, even more centralized ETH. The strategy only makes sense with BTC because it's the only digital asset (or any asset type) strictly limited in amount and decentralized, the rest of these companies making reserve strategies on altcoins will just dump as altcoins do against BTC long term, so only buy companies that have a serious strategy to buy and hold BTC, and so far MSTR is the best one.
agree, but now it seems that big corporations can buy out large amount of bitcoin and what should do small and medium companies when BTC will cost $500 000 or $1 million?
Anyone, whether individuals, companies or governments, who recognize and/or appreciate bitcoin's game theory are going to need to start to act to buy bitcoin sooner rather than later, and so yeah, whether big or small, folks have to figure out that it is better to get started and stop fucking around with delays. Saylor/MSTR is straight-forward about highlighting such strategy for folks who still seem to NOT want to get motivated into either looking further into bitcoin and/or starting to take action to accumulate bitcoin. The longer that individuals, institutions and governments wait, then they will just have to buy at higher prices. They are not exactly prejudiced by having to come to bitcoin at a later time and higher price, even though they likely would have had been better to get started sooner rather than later.
some other assets also have limited supply, for example LTC or BCH, but have problems with decentralization. what if such assets will solve some problems could they be used for digital asset strategy? of course I mean as one of the conditions total scarcity of bitcoin at that moment.
Sure you can put your time, energy and/or value anywhere that you like, even into inferior investments, products, assets, currencies, and sure sometimes, you might have temporary overperformance of inferior assets, yet it seems that within the dynamics outlined by Gresham's law, value is going to continue to gravitate towards the superior assets (bitcoin in this case).
There also likely continue to be roles for various inferior assets, including like you suggest, some of them could have utility value, yet many of us recognize/appreciate that bitcoin is the best of monies, and surely currently there are assets in which monetary value is held such as in real estate, art, stocks, etc, yet bitcoin is a better money, to the extent that some of those assets might be merely be serviing as places to store monetary value...
You can check your watch against these announcments.
Anytime there's an update on their purchase the first thing I normally do is check the average price.
This got me curious, so I calculated what the average price would be if Saylor bought same number of Bitcoin they own @ $120K.
I.e 592100×$120K =$71,052,000
Total Bitcoin purchased = 592100×2
=1,184,200
Total amount used = $71,052,000+$41,841,338,600
=$112,893,338,600
Average price : $112,893,338,600/1,184,200
=
$95 333This is still below $100K. This shows that early buys has given strategy advantage over any new entrants
Especially those that started above $100K
For several reasons, it is likely a bit distracting (or maybe even somewhat irrelevant) to be overly focusing on their cost per BTC, since one thing is that it is going to be quite difficult for any company (even governments) to catch up with MSTR's quantity of bitcoin acquired without causing slippage. There is also a quite a bit of power in MSTR's largely owning the BTC that they hold (to the extent that the BTC really exist - since they seem to not exactly be in their custody).
I also had been concerned in regards to MSTR's seeming inability and/or unwillingness to bring their cost per BTC below the 200-WMA, which is part of a function of the seemingly snowballing manner in which their business has been growing, which is causing the later purchases to be way higher than their earlier purchases.. which it is like they continue to accumulate similar quantities (if not higher quantities) of bitcoin, even while the BTC price is getting higher and higher and higher, yet it seems likely that a lot of this will work itself out to the extent to which the snow balling dynamics might be able to tapper off with the passage of time.. still to be seen, yet perhaps another cycle in bitcoin then maybe they might start to get to average BTC costs that are at or below the 200-WMA.. perhaps? perhaps?.. that is if they do not end up blowing up due to some issues with key management...or even that they do not end up having the BTC that they claim to have due to their own mistakes or due to mistakes of one or more of their custodians...or perhaps something like governmental intervention, which is not a non-zero possibility (unless Saylor is already a psyop?.. hahahahaha).