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.

[edited out]