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).
When MicroStrategy announced it had purchased $250 million worth of Bitcoin back in August 2020, it sparked a lot of excitement on crypto forums. Most people saw it as a bold, bullish move finally, a public company putting its money where its mouth is and treating Bitcoin like a serious financial asset. Some called it a turning point for institutional adoption. The general mood was optimistic.
The forum thread reflected that. Some users praised the company’s confidence, saying Bitcoin was superior to cash, especially with central banks printing money like crazy. Others highlighted how Harvard and Yale had already invested in crypto quietly, and now this was just the start of bigger things to come. There was a lot of energy and for good reason.
But reading through the discussion, it became clear that a few important things were being left out.
Nobody really questioned how this move affects MicroStrategy’s actual business model. They're not a crypto company they sell business software. So the decision to pour a huge chunk of their treasury into Bitcoin could shift how investors view them. At what point does it stop being a tech company and start becoming something else?
Even more concerning, there wasn’t much talk about the risks. What if the price of Bitcoin dropped 40% in a month? That’s not a crazy scenario. How would that kind of volatility affect their financial statements, their stock, or their reputation? Bitcoin might be a great long-term bet, but short-term, it's anything but stable.
There was also no mention of the accounting issues. Under U.S. accounting rules, Bitcoin is treated as an intangible asset, meaning companies can write down losses if the price drops but they can’t write up gains unless they sell. So if Bitcoin dips temporarily, it could make the company’s books look worse, even if they’re still in the green long-term.
And what about regulatory uncertainty? It’s fine now, but if more companies start copying this strategy, regulators are definitely going to take notice. That’s a ticking time bomb no one in the thread brought up.
One of the biggest missing pieces, though, was the lack of conversation around fiduciary responsibility. This is a public company where was the board of directors in all of this? Was this a carefully reviewed decision, or just a CEO making a high-conviction bet and dragging the company along with him?
It also raises questions about influence. A move like this from a well-known company could easily send the wrong message to regular investors: “Bitcoin is safe now. Get in.” That kind of herd behavior has blown up in people’s faces before.
Finally, the decision to go all-in on Bitcoin, rather than diversify into other inflation hedges like gold, real estate, or even commodities, seems extreme. There’s no doubt that MicroStrategy’s move was bold but bold doesn’t always mean smart.