BTC

CommercialDuck7496

You’re right about one narrow point: if we freeze Strategy’s BTC holdings and common share count today, Bitcoin going back up does not magically repair gross BTC/share. Gross BPS only changes when the BTC numerator or common-share denominator changes. Where I disagree is your conclusion that this means STRC can never become economically accretive, or that its maximum accretion is the company’s 1.7% gross BTC yield. That 1.7% is the aggregate gross BTC/share result of everything Strategy has done this year. It is not the isolated contribution from STRC. STRC itself does not issue common shares; when Strategy sells STRC and buys BTC, gross BTC/share mechanically goes up because BTC increases while the common denominator does not. Strategy explicitly notes that non-convertible preferred issuance used to buy BTC increases BPS while simultaneously creating senior claims that gross BPS does not capture. What subsequently dragged gross BPS down was largely separate common issuance, including common issued to build the USD reserve. If you want to argue that some of that dilution should be charged back against STRC because the reserve exists partly to service STRC dividends, that’s completely reasonable. I’ve already agreed that it raises STRC’s break-even materially. But you have to actually attribute the dilution and compare the counterfactual; you can’t look at the company-wide 1.7% gross yield and declare that STRC itself was only 1.7% accretive. Also, ‘gross is the upper limit of net’ does not mean gross BTC yield is the upper limit on the percentage increase in net value. Imagine gross BPS is 1.00 BTC but senior claims reduce net BPS to 0.60 BTC at a depressed BTC price. If BTC rises enough that those fixed-dollar claims become relatively tiny, net BPS can approach 1.00 BTC. That’s a roughly 67% increase in net BTC-equivalent exposure without gross BPS changing at all. Strategy explicitly says its gross BPS metric does not account for the senior claims created by preferred financing. So there are two different statements here. ‘BTC going up alone cannot increase gross BTC/share’ is correct. ‘Therefore BTC’s future return cannot determine whether STRC was a profitable financing for common’ is not. STRC exchanged a fixed-dollar preferred claim and ongoing cash dividends for BTC. Whether the BTC purchased ultimately appreciates enough to exceed the issuance discount, dividends, and any common/BTC sacrificed to service STRC necessarily depends on Bitcoin’s return, which has been my whole entire point from the very first comment. If BTC never recovers, STRC can absolutely have been a bad trade. If BTC rises enough, the incremental BTC purchased can become worth far more than the fixed-dollar claim and cumulative servicing cost. That does not retroactively increase gross sats/share; it makes the financing economically profitable despite its carrying costs. Those are different concepts. And importantly, Strategy itself warns that BTC Yield/BPS are not measures of intrinsic value or stock-price performance. They are specifically gross BTC-per-share KPIs. So I’m not conflating gross and net. My entire point is that you cannot use gross BPS alone to answer whether STRC ultimately created or destroyed economic value for common.” Your statement “gross is only +1.7%, therefore STRC can be at most 1.7% accretive” is not valid. The 1.7% is the net result of multiple transactions pulling gross BPS in opposite directions. You could have STRC contribute +10% gross BPS and common issuance/reserve building contribute −8.3%, leaving +1.7% overall. The +1.7% aggregate number by itself tells you nothing about STRC’s isolated contribution.

hoppeeness

Why hold BTC when you can hold tokenized gold?

AutoModerator

Post is by: Fair_Cookie7527 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1vng019/why_4h_momentum_outperforms_standard_1d_breakout/ When BTC trades \~9% below its 200-day moving average, most trend-following strategies get chopped to pieces trying to catch daily breakouts that fail. In backtesting 6+ years of data, we found that switching to a relative-strength 4H momentum engine specifically during bearish regime filters (when BTC < 200d MA) cuts drawdown by over 30%. It scans the universe for short-term relative strength, holds for a fixed 3-day window, and exits regardless of noise. Curious how others here handle regime filtering when macro direction is flat/down? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

SomeonesSecondary

I do a direct deposit into BTC on Coinbase weekly, no fees. Same with Cash App, if it’s deposited directly from your paycheck then no fees

koinlens

Seems like next year might be a new journey for the **BTC** and **crypto** world 👀

Bronze_Rager

Its tied to the perceived value of labor, like all currencies are. Again, you can't use BTC to do anything other than exchange it for something else. It's not a productive asset.

whisperedstate

Why would anyone want to own Bitcoin? The network is useless, and the asset is already worth trillions. There is zero reason why Bitcoin should be worth as much as Apple or Nvdia, who make products used by the entire planet whereas Bitcoin is used about as much as a top 1000 app on the Apple appstore. Bitcoin is not going to be worth as much as gold. BTC at 500k 2026 dollars or anywhere near that valuation is complete fantasy/delusion. So what appeal does owning BTC have other than as a play to get 2x in 5 years before it dumps into oblivion?

Trick_Put5148

I have a new idea!! "Digital gold" - some ppl said its BTC though

CompetitionDouble420

\> I'm seeing people say Bitcoin is now centralized due to bip110 failing and I don't see how that is the case. it's 100% *not* the case, you're right. however, this is the tactic the pro-110 camp chose to employ in an effort to garner support for their rushed BIP: they tried to fearmonger, gaslight, tell half-truths (for their benefit), ad hominem attacks (although this came from the core side as well), and create a false sense of urgency with retail hodlers, who don't truly understand how BTC works under the hood. This, in my opinion, is the BIGGEST reason the BIP failed, regardless of it's technical merit (or lack thereof). BTC is decentralized by design. They say that because a handful of mining pools chose to ignore the BIP (by not signaling), they must've all colluded together in the interest of "Big Bitcoin" (aka saylor && strategy, the US govt, blockstream, etc. along with the large mining pools -- foundry, antpool, etc.). Nodes are still decentralized and redundant (at least core nodes are, which was 80% of all BTC nodes), BTC is not "captured."

AstralVenture

Considering US Dollars are reduced in value year-to-year, I believe BTC will eventually mature, and become a stable, appreciating asset.

rece_fice_

>put your BTC, ETH or SOL on a real exchange. Since fucking when is this better than cold storage still? You can still buy a Trezor with cash and you're golden

fan_of_hakiksexydays

Oh my god there is so much gold here, thanks for this lol. This really illustrates how deeply delusional MSTR supporters have had to become now. Strategy has not failed? Their whole "strategy" was literally stacking BTC and never selling BTC. But now they're not doing that. And now they've switched to their new strategy of buy high and sell low lol. Wait, your whole argument is that it bounced back less than 2 years into their new Strategy of buying BTC? You realize they only started buying their first BTC in the middle of 2020, right? Also the whole hype train about MSTR started in 2024. 2022 was 2 years before the whole hype. But the one that takes the gold is your argument that "no they didn't have to, they chose to sell because they wanted to show that if they sold it wouldn't tank the market". So it wasn't because their stock was tanking, their profit per share was going into the negatives, or that STRC was unpegging too much for too long, or that they were hitting losses in the billions, or that their whole system was collapsing. It was because they wanted to do a social experiment to show that if they sell the price wouldn't go down? 🤣 That experiment seemed to have failed. They started to sell in the final week of May when the price was above $73K. Then the market tanked. The only reason it stopped tanking (other than always having a bounce when there is a drop this big), is because of the very bullish march of traditional markets into record territory. Plus the constant renewed hopes that the war with Iran might end.

AdmirableSock192

I stopped doing fixed daily buys. I prefer keeping the cash aside and buying more only when BTC is significantly down from its ATH.

Objective-Walk6780

They don’t need to know. They can just show up and force you to give them your BTC. Or they kill a family member … etc

too-many-things-todo

For sure River, the app is beautiful, they track everything and you can put excess cash in your cash account and earn 3.3% interest but it’s paid out in BTC rather than more cash. I automated $10 a day and then every Friday an automated $30 purchase so in stacking $100 per week. I’ll stop stacking BT in post halving years but the cash will stack in the river cash account and then in the next midterm year I’ll use the cash to Lump Sum during the bottoms

Capital_Situation961

I largely agree with your analysis. But my case has one rather unusual feature. The thieves didn’t simply move the stolen BTC through an exchange before anyone noticed. They deposited and exchanged my specifically identifiable stolen funds in **30 separate transactions over roughly 40 hours**. The exchange was alerted **within about five hours of the first deposit**, while this was still happening and warned them 4 times more. So my argument has never simply been, “I was robbed, therefore the exchange must reimburse me.” It is that once an exchange is given credible, specific notice that identifiable proceeds of a reported theft are moving through accounts under its control, what responsibility does it have for what happens **after that notice**? They had many hours in which they could at least have investigated, restricted the relevant accounts, preserved information or otherwise intervened. They chose not to. I’m under no illusion that they particularly care about me. I’ve spent years pursuing this legally. My last weapon may ultimately be a different one: **a book**. I’m nearly finished writing the full story, and it is already attracting considerable attention before publication. A court judgment can sometimes be ignored across borders. Reputational damage is rather harder to jurisdiction-shop away from.

birktorsten2

Don't expect to get rich overnight, set realistic goals, invest only the money you want to save for a few years and understand the risks you are taking. I personally use BTC as a pension fund and don't plan on touching it for at least 20 years. This way I don't even think about my holdings or how much they are worth. Every month I just put in what I have and I continue living my life

cachitodepepe

Looks like they want to bring BTC price down with all this atacks and scams around lately. Doesn't look like coincidence

Hfksnfgitndskfjridnf

The 1.7% is their gross BTC yield, not their net. Their net BTC a share is very negative for the year, not positive. Gross is the upper limit of net, if Bitcoin goes to 1 billion a coin then net and gross will be essentially equal. But Bitcoin going up does not increase gross Bitcoin per share. They issued a bunch of STRC, waited for Bitcoin to crash and then diluted to raise the cash reserve. This is why their gross Bitcoin per share for the year is so low. THIS MEANS THAT EVEN IF BITCOIN GOES BACK UP IT STILL WONT BE ACCRETIVE. (It will be at most 1.7% accretive). Gross is not down because Bitcoin is down. Gross is down because they diluted so much at bad prices. Now it doesn’t matter if Bitcoins price goes back up, they’ve already diluted so much it’s a loss. You are conflating gross and net. If gross BTC per share hasn’t increased because of the STRC issuance by now, it can never be accretive. Gross is the upper limit of how much net can be. If the upper limit doesn’t go up, it’s not accretive under any Bitcoin price.

Current-Champion7572

See I don’t actually think a lot will go back to the legacy dollar system once it lands on the blockchain. Banking, brokerages, payment infrastructure is all moving on-chain. And yeah I think we are still in the early innings of this migration from legacy —> Blockchain. From the end user standpoint, I don’t think they will care or even notice that they’re now using stablecoin dollars or trading tokenized equities. Whether that be on their banking apps, brokerages, or credit card payments. It’s all backend infrastructure to them. To my OP, I was thinking about this purely from a BTC vs Gold perspective as I see these two store of values often compared to each other. I guess they don’t have to promote either one, but it would be advantageous for them to push Bitcoin if people are going to seek hard money regardless.

MPDisorder

Anyone that had their shipping address leaked basically now becomes a target for a "$5 wrench attack" because it'll be a known location where someone more than likely has BTC.

TCr0wn

Just not true that all BTC prior ATH have. Even retested. Stopped reading there

MusicIsVice1

BTC is not for those that are financially ruined.

rapid5590

Binance has like 0 fees, so i'm going with that. Im not trying to be rich, just trying to save up for the future, and i figured that theres a chance my savings could be bigger if i put them in BTC

Independent-Bee-8397

Oder mögliche Rendite kennt keiner. Jedoch ist es nicht verkehrt, Geld was du nicht unbedingt brauchst monatlich/wöchentlich in BTC umzuwandeln, wenn du eine gewisse Risikoaffinität mitbringst.

CryptoGod666

You forgot how they mint stablecoins out of thin air and use it to prop up BTC and ETH. Technical analysis is all bullshit on crypto

FamiliarMulberry8017

I like the balance here since you are still getting exposure consistently ehile keeping some dry powder in case BTC decides to throw a sale..

adjudantloic

If someone offers you an investment with a 12% annual return and no dips, wouldn't that be suspicious? I prefer BTC to dip occasionally, it's healthier.

na3than

No, I hold my BTC on the blockchain and I keep my seeds offline. I use Electrum as a watch-only wallet to view my transaction history, create and export unsigned transactions, and broadcast transactions that have been signed by an air-gapped device.

OkRadish2611

Yeah crypto is flopping. I remember when he called BTC "rat poison squared" and oh man I wished I listened to that advice. I could kept that money in the stock market and would have 2-4x my money. Instead I put into this bullshit garbage tokens.

Inevitable_Painn

If you are having a bad day, just remember someone bought BTC at 125k.

CyberCrud

The market doesn't drive the crypto cycle.  It's right on schedule.  It's like saying the weather drives the winter and summer solstice.  It doesn't.   The seasons have a cycle that happen regardless.  If you want to compare apples and oranges by using market terminology, then fine... crypto is in the equivalent of a bear market.  However, the difference is that whereas the normal economic factors of market investing is speculative and cannot be predicted, the crypto market is predictable within a specific cycle.  Those who understand the cycle are the ones that make money in it.  Those that don't are the ones whose exit liquidity become my profit.  I've been through this cycle 3x.  The last one I just paid off my house with.  This next one, ending in 2029, I'm so absolutely confident about that I'm already building a new house to be paid off with my crypto investments.  Unlike other folks on here that argue, I put my money where my mouth is.  If you want to make the most of it, I suggest you start investing this Fall, DCA and lower your averages. Then hold until Summer of 2029.  Your ROI can absolutely be 300+% if you sell within the $175k BTC range at that time.  I always time my sells just before the ATH to avoid the inevitable pullbacks.  We can sit here and argue semantics all day.  Or you can profit with me.  💪

Furious_Raccoon_9473

If BTC doesn't hit $420,069, Carolina Reapers might be out of my budget

statoshi

I was confident all year about 110 and no one would accept my offer to take my BTC via fork futures if I was wrong. Thus I'm limited to making predictions that will age well. My business (Casa) has nothing to do with arbitrary data. My investments in second layer projects that anchor onto bitcoin are rounding errors, relatively speaking.

XapoBank

and 1 BTC = 1 BTC and is deflationary by nature. When and what will be the next world reserve currency?

Sad-March-2358

Come on BTC, pump it

nugymmer

Alts are shit. Stick to BTC. The lesson was learned but it cost you 30x in lost opportunity.

nugymmer

Keep it at 98% BTC!

Calm_Recognition_940

How is BTC going to be traded like the S&P 500?????????????

p51mustangkkz

Made the switch a few months back after the same pile-up of bad signals. Been on Nexo since, mainly for the card and Earn combo. Cashback-wise it's less "cashback" and more that your assets keep earning while sitting on the card. Debit mode assets don't stop accruing rewards until they're actually spent, which is a different model than a locked staking tier getting cut whenever CDC feels like it. No 365-day lock required either to get better terms, tiers are based on what you hold relative to your portfolio. Earn rates for reference right now: BTC around 5.7%, ETH 6.25%, XRP 8.25%, all flexible and compounding daily rather than weekly. Worth comparing against CDC's current cut-down rates. If you want something more bare-bones for just holding without the card/credit stuff, Kraken and Coinbase are good for straightforward staking without the drama, just lower ceiling on rates and no lending/credit line option. Binance has better raw liquidity if you're trading a lot, but same story, no comparable credit-against-crypto product.

Traditional_Most105

Do you even read the question? If not, read it again. If you don't want to answer what am asking then dont comment. I don't care about BTC and ETH. I might lose money in alts, i already know this and i accepted it so stop trying to persuade people who have no intent to move from alts to BTC and ETH. Go comment in an BTC and ETH post. Am tired reading comments in my posts always about BTC and ETH. I don't care. You guys are like a virus...

One_General4348

No it’s not over. This is exactly what BTC does .. Once the Clarity Act is passed it’s going to boom 💥 Just Hodl never sell 🙏🙌

PlantMOU

I’d separate the catalyst from the confirmation. If BTC reclaims the range high and holds it on a retest, that tells me more than the CLARITY headline itself.

tenor_tymir

Yeah, I’m thinking the same. There must be some Chinese based tech-guys who are not completely anti-everything. Hardest part is finding them and trusting them not to scam you. Maybe there are some BTC core engineers you can look up or get in touch with? I would try getting in touch with u/bitusher from r/bitcoinbeginners - he seems super knowledgeable about anything BTC related and helps out wherever it’s needed. I don’t know the dude personally, but I follow his comments for years already and they are always high quality.

No_Community7021

I bought at 60000€ and since then it has been around 55000€ for so many months so BTC has been pretty boring for a while now. I hope american midterm s* gives it a shake.

PutAdministrative809

A $2T market cap doesn’t magically make an investment environment serious or safe lol. Madoff had \~$65B in purported client assets. Enron was one of the largest companies in America. FTX was valued at $32B. History is full of enormous valuations attached to fraud, speculation and fundamentally broken systems. And “$2T market cap” doesn’t mean $2T of cash was invested in Bitcoin. It’s supply × the current marginal price. Size proves people are willing to assign something a high price; it doesn’t prove the market surrounding it isn’t manipulated, corrupt or irrational. BTC having a legitimate use case is an argument. “It’s worth $2T, therefore the investment environment must be serious” isn’t. And everyone keeps acting like “regulatory clarity” automatically fixes this. It could easily do the opposite. If the rules are written around institutional custody, compliance and access, the biggest players get a cleaner playing field while retail gets boxed into whatever’s left. Crypto doesn’t magically become a fair market because BlackRock and Wall Street get clearer rules for participating in it. If anything, institutions are the ones with the capital, lawyers, infrastructure and political influence to benefit most from whatever framework gets built. Retail getting fucked while institutions get preferential access would hardly be a new chapter in financial history.

Visual_Ad_8061

I believe so as well, I think the bottom would be around sub $55,000 BTC.

Capital_Situation961

I think you’re largely right. I got into Bitcoin in 2012 precisely because of its libertarian character. But the reality has overtaken that ideal. Bitcoin now operates in a heavily regulated world, centralized exchanges require KYC, institutions and governments are involved, and frankly far more people own BTC hoping to make money than because they believe in cypherpunk ideals. So yes, if we want crypto to become truly mainstream, regulation inevitably comes with it. And that includes clear rules about what an exchange must do when specifically identified stolen assets arrive under its control. We can debate whether that’s what Bitcoin was *supposed* to become. But it’s where we are. So again, let’s not pretend it’s still 2012.

plumpyplummy

I love how BTC peaked to 60k back in 21' then 2 months later it fell to 28k

sykemol

Here's the problem: If BTC drops 50%, it needs to double (100%) to get back to break even. But he's using leverage. So he's down way more on his BTC purchases, which means it needs go up way more just to break even. He's in a pretty big hole already. Worse, he's being forced to sell the underlying asset at a loss which means BTC has to go even higher just to break even. Mathmatically, it is easy to show that you can go bust using leverage on a volatile asset even if you are directionally correct. In fact, that's the probable outcome. Unless Bitcoin goes up by a lot, he's going to lose. And the clock is ticking. Interest on those preferreds keeps accruing. Which means Bitcoin needs to go up by even more, and fairly soon.

Arphinator

It’s a process that keeps BTC as good as stale. No owner, no liability, no progress. Just BIPs and high hopes that “anonymous” miners agree to mine the new chain.

Current-Champion7572

I looked this up bc this is an interesting point. Apparently, once the stablecoin is minted (t-bills bought by circle), they stay in circulation even if you sell/swap for BTC and are mostly only sold on the secondary market. I guess my broader point is that the US has incentive to push Bitcoin (and other digital assets) because that stablecoin on-ramp is a net buyer of t-bills

No-Masterpiece2246

Knots is hot garbage just like Core. Look at Cardano or Solana code. It's a big world out there. Bitcoin has been maligned, hijacked, and rehypothecated. It's fine to be idealistic about crypto, I share your enthusiasm. But try to be objective about the facts on the ground. Get your Bitcoin off that Lightning node before it gets hacked. Read up on BCH and I think you'll see the development happening there (BCH Node, Electron Cash, CashFusion, etc) exceeds BTC Core by 100x. Blockstream isn't innovating and Core is a bunch of pencil pushers.

Calm_Recognition_940

How? I’m ashamed you’re part of the BTC community. It’s a currency not an ETF

AwareGanache6190

It’s just whatever % of your net worth you feel like spending on something non productive. Things will still be priced in $ and if the combination of BTC you have and price equal a large enough that say buying a 10k first class ticket doesn’t make you worry about it, that’s the level. Different for everyone.

Capital_Situation961

Huobi’s role may potentially go beyond simply receiving stolen Bitcoin. If the exchange was warned in real time that specifically identified BTC was proceeds of theft, but still allowed it to be held, moved, converted or withdrawn, that raises questions not only about civil liability but also about handling stolen property and money laundering offences. The key issue is when Huobi knew or suspected that the BTC was criminal property, and what it did with those assets after that point. The fact that the exchange may also have derived fees or other economic benefit from assets held on its platform makes this worth examining further.

LionRivr

Nope. And I’ve been in since 2017. Have you ever heard “BTC is everything you don’t know about computers combined with everything you don’t know about money.”? Well, I understand the “money” part very well now after nearly 10 years. But for the node/computer part I just have so many excuses. It’s not even worth typing. Never got around to it, nor did I feel the need to.

DsrptFinance

Right conclusion, wrong mechanism. STRC issuance itself doesn’t dilute — no new common shares, BTC/share ticks up on day one. The erosion is downstream: \~$1.5B/yr in preferred coupons now getting paid by selling BTC and printing common through the ATM. The funding loop is what’s bleeding you, not the issuance. And “doesn’t matter what BTC’s CAGR is” is backwards — it’s a carry trade, and the problem is worse than that. STRC reprices monthly to hold par, so the hurdle rate rises as the collateral falls. Seven hikes since July ‘25, now 11.5%. That’s short vol with funding cost indexed to your own distress. The hazard isn’t dilution arithmetic. It’s the trigger: STRC slips below par, ATM stalls, and the choice becomes massive dilution or cumulative coupons stacking senior to common. Watch the funding spread, not BTC/share.

OkProject2361

The more I see these types of posts I wonder how BTC grows. It either grows via the very institutions we don’t want to take over OR it stays where it is. Normies aren’t going down this path. Hell, after the CC fiasco I’m done with self custody…It feels like the bottom is in. All I have to say is I’m not missing my next chance to exit during the next bull. I’ll keep 0.21 but everything else is for sale then.

iz_raymond

BTC will not survive another decade is quantum hacking became a thing and rampant in less than a decade from now

delenain

Those who understand the importance of BTC have no limit.

Interesting_Loss_907

Sure, it’s happened to many people. Lots of people bought into the hype in 2011 & paid almost $30 /BTC, only to see it shortly thereafter tumble down to just $3 (losing 90% of its value). They must have felt like real losers for a while… Others bought in around $240 in early 2013 & watched it fall to under $80 for months. Then there were those who paid $1000 /BTC in Nov 2013 & held on in 2014-2015 as it eventually fell to just $200… I think you get it now.

xylyze

BTC will be $250k and a loaf of bread will be $30

Brennapz445

If the recipient address owner doesn't return the BTC. You're fighting a lost battle.

redbow7

Once you realize BTC is everything you get so deep that you want to sell assets to buy more.

Dull_Reply5229

Honestly I know it's a running joke to say bitcoin is dead for the 17th million time but i think crypto has had its time and people have moved on. Trading options satisfies the gamblers, stock market ETFs satisfy the safe investors, the new shine of crypto has gone, young investors don't care about it, rugs and scams have scared people off, no one cares about the tech, the days of BTC doing 10x in a cycle are over, there's just no reason for it to blow up again

Riya-Brief-8162

Having a solid financial foundation probably makes it much easier to think long term with BTC.

Effective_Engine319

BTC is a tool for saving money into the future. As long as I'm earning an income I will be saving some of it. When I retire, then I'll start spending it.

parcelwing

If you are putting every spare dollar to bitcoin, you are in for a rough time. BTC should be 10% of net worth max

5nakeplisken

I am buying Kaspa. It's dirt cheap right now. The tech is far superior to BTC.

confusedguy1212

Let me save you the trouble. Invest in ETH or buy BTC. That’s basically it.

JimmySki6166

I’ve been purchasing large amounts of BTC monthly for years and will continue to do so!! 👌🏼

JimmySki6166

Don’t look at stable coins, worthless! BTC is the only crypto!

CommercialDuck7496

He needs to raise $6.7 Billion to pay the bonds anyways. It may not end up being a cost associated with STRC. Even to the extent that I agree that it's a cost associated with STRC, you can't just subtract 4 billion from the amount of bitcoin they purchased. First off, STRC is only 70% of the total dividend and debt payments. secondly the reserve is still an asset, its not a 0. Thirdly, that doesn't play into the calculation of "If they didn’t have any BTC to begin with and simply issued STRC at IPO they would have 0 Bitcoin at this point, so Bitcoin could go up 100% a year forever and it wouldn’t matter." AND even if it did, it STILL wouldn't be true...

Hfksnfgitndskfjridnf

It’s hilarious that since STRC IPO they now have about the same gross BTC per share than they did prior to the IPO. AND they now have 10 Billion in senior claims that cost them 1.2 Billion a year that they didn’t have before. STRC so far has been a complete disaster for common shareholders. Could future STRC issuance actually be accretive? Sure, but the current STRC they’ve sold is already a net loss and will continue to be a drag going forward. This is what happens when you issue STRC at 90, buy BTC at 117k and then wait until BTC drops to 60k before issuing common stock to build a 3 years cash reserve. 12% * 4 (3 years of cash reserve + 1 year of divs paid) * 2 (BTC price is half what they bought it for) *10/9 (issued STRC IPO at 90) = 106%. So they’ve already diluted more than the STRC IPO increased their BPS by. It’s already a loser and future payments just make it a bigger loser going forward. Shareholders better hope they don’t screw up future STRC issuance as much as they’ve screwed up what they’ve done so far. (Doubt)

fan_of_hakiksexydays

Going to? Strategy is already coming apart at the seams. MSTR has already dropped more than 80%. STRC still hasn't been able to peg back for the last 3 months despite all efforts. Strategy hasn't been able to buy BTC in 2 months. And now Strategy has had to break from its core "strategy" and has had to keep selling BTC to keep itself from spiraling too much.

Hfksnfgitndskfjridnf

The cash reserve came from selling MSTR but it’s a cost associated with STRC. It absolutely counts against the BTC yield of STRC. They wouldn’t have needed a cash reserve otherwise.

Nathaniel_Sparky500

In case anyone is wondering, the highest price BTC hit in 2011 was $26.15 USD.

crimeo

> LOL. Talk about paranoid delusions and zero self-awareness You've offered no other explanation for how you don't know basic english grammar rules. So that's the best theory so far. > The topic is "Russia central bank just named BTC, ETH, and USDT the only cryptos eligible for retail trading", to which your response was a copy-paste propaganda nonsense. Re-confirming that you don't seem to know how to read English correctly. I replied to commenters, not to the OP. The topic was in fact: "I wonder how their three day special operation is going after like five years. They are state level terrorists and we share news about them… I mean come on." and "you have been westwashed"

anycept

>But we can chalk that one up to your first language being Russian >paranoid delusion LOL. Talk about paranoid delusions and zero self-awareness 👌🤡 >still hasn't made one single point about the actual topic The topic is "Russia central bank just named BTC, ETH, and USDT the only cryptos eligible for retail trading", to which your response was a copy-past propaganda nonsense. Not only you don't know what you are talking about, but you also don't know when to quit, digging yourself deeper and deeper. LOL. Dumb bot.

Queasy-Ride4291

There is no set end date for a cycle. It is generally 4 years from when it started with a 10% variance. It started in November 2022. So the reasonable ending point (which also begins the next cycle) is June 2026 to May 2027. BTC will bottom at some point in that year long period beginning in June. Well, since it registered a low in July. We know it wasn’t June. The bottom could have been July, but I doubt it. The last cycle ended on the early side of 4 years, the cycle before that ended on the lat side of 4 years. Due to the guideline of alternation, I would imagine this cycle will be on the late side. More towards 1H of 2027. 

iloverunning11

I don’t know man to me it sounds like you’re kicking him when he’s lying on the ground, sorry if that’s not the case. And yeah your opinion regarding BTC is reasonable imo

sssssssssssssss5s

Why would BTC ever reach 250k? People spout insane numbers but have no explanation. Its nonsense. MSTR already pivoted away from their hold BTC and never sell strategy. The writing is on the wall, but you dont want to read it.

airestotle092

The more I see posts of people getting there BTC stolen from cold wallets the more reason I see not to get one

TheCodifiedTrader

So it's an expensive lesson not to use BTC as a currency? I said it in a harsh way but I'm not kicking OP for inputting the wrong address, like those shits are so easy to fuck up we have to triple quadruple check them. We're human, we all make mistakes. I'm just shitting on BTC as a whole, like okay buy it, sit on it, wait for it to moon, whatever tf ya want, but using it as a currency is just silly and this is just one example of why. Maybe OP can contact customer support?

iloverunning11

TL;DR almost everyone buying BTC is a speculator. That said don’t kick the guy when he’s lying on the floor (he just lost money)

Itur_ad_Astra

Saylor makes money in two ways, none of which is simply holding BTC: 1) Diluting his shareholders for money. 2) Selling price manipulation services to big whales. The second, specifically, requires him to pump the price furter during bull markets (for exit liquidity) and create liquidation cascades/sell panics during bear markets (for stop loss harvesting). Buying high and selling low is a feature, not a bug.

CommercialDuck7496

Everything you just said is correct as far as I can tell, and none of it disproves what I said. You're explaining why net BPS is price dependent, which is exactly my point. A common issuance that looks net BPS accretive at a low bitcoin price can become dilutive if bitcoin rises enough, and the inverse applies to a fixed dollar financing like STRC. an STRC issuance that looks net BPS dilutive today can become economically accretive if the BTC it financed appreciates enough to overcome the preferred claim and dividends. So Bitcoin's CAGR absolutely matters when determining whether STRC ultimately created or destroyed value for common shareholders. Saying a tranche is net BPS dilutive today is not the same as saying it is permanently economically dilutive regardless of Bitcoin's future price. On another note, I don't disagree with you that CEBE is a flawed framework. My guess is that they are using it, because its the only thing that makes it look ok to issue more shares right now, which it seems like they want to do for raising capital.

MC_SKWAIRD

Just buy another asset on CEX, send to your nonKYC wallet, and swap for BTC there. I buy ETH on Robinhood, send to Tron Energy to swap for BTC, then send to my storage

CommercialDuck7496

This is factually not true. They bought like 120k bitcoin from the proceeds of STRC, and have paid 620 million in dividends, at current prices that would be like 10k work of bitcoin, He would have 110k more bitcoin than he started with if you ignore everything else. MSTR will not forever be worse off from what they've done with STRC. they currently have a lower net bitcoin per share because the price of bitcoin has gone down, so the relative burden of the liabilities is increased as a percentage, and they've had to pay the dividends, but if bitcoin goes back up, it will be a net increase in bitcoin per share again. I ran you through the math in a different comment. but the STRC IPO shares have not lead to a permanent decline in net BTC per share, if bitcoin gets to 185k by the end of 2028, Even the IPO, which is the worst out of all of the STRC issuance, will be accretive.

L4gsp1k3

Someone told me that the 4 year cycle ends in October and that's where things starts to go up, now I see this chart saying November. BTC needs liquidity, no liquidity no growth, with this prolonged still stand it will affect BTC negatively. But yea, 4 years cycle and whatever makes your boat float.

Particular_Pop_8548

Calling BTC “low risk” is the part I’d push back on . Low risk compared to random alts, sure. Low risk in general... not really. I also wouldn’t assume the next cycle has to look like the last one. ETH already showed us that playbook can stop working pretty fast. I’d rather watch where liquidity actually goes than bet on another copy/paste cycle.

magma_lakes

You don't need any online platform to send BTC, you just need a non-custodial Bitcoin wallet, such as BlueWallet. To buy BTC using fiat, yes, you'd typically need KYC, given the stringent regulations that governments impose on us. However, for smaller amounts, you could try [HodlHodl](https://hodlhodl.com).

Capital_Situation961

No. The right to recover stolen property doesn’t suddenly arise when BTC reaches an exchange. The exchange simply creates a point where that right may become enforceable. If innocent third parties held the coins in between, ownership becomes a much harder legal question and depends on jurisdiction. **That’s where real life enters the blockchain.**

Designer_Speech8942

DCA an amount you can afford weekly. If BTC price drops in the fall … raise your DCA. The key to dollar cost averaging is consistency as long as the underlying investment appreciates in the long-term (as BTC is very likely to do). Don’t wait for dips or crashes, the chances are that you’ll miss them at their lowest anyway. If you do get in at a low it will be from luck.

LionRivr

I want to agree with the 110 because I believe BTC should be a monetary asset. Can I legitimately ask though: if someone is willing to pay the fees or whatever to get their “spam” onto the chain, then what does it matter if its a valid transaction? How much does it hurt the network? And at what point does it become a precedent for censorship on what could otherwise be “valid” transactions, whether it’s “spam” or not?

Federal_Pie_8864

BTC is decentralised, USD, EUR, and other fiat are not…

Hfksnfgitndskfjridnf

I don’t think you get what actually has happened because it’s obscured by the fact that they started with over 600k Bitcoin before they issued STRC. If they didn’t have any BTC to begin with and simply issued STRC at IPO they would have 0 Bitcoin at this point, so Bitcoin could go up 100% a year forever and it wouldn’t matter. MSTR will be forever worse off from what they’ve done with STRC so far because they waited until Bitcoin tanked and then raised 3 years worth of dividend coverage. If they had done it at the same time they bought the Bitcoin this wouldn’t be the case. And future issuance of STRC may be accretive long term depending on how quickly BTC appreciates. But the STRC IPO shares have already lead to a permanent decline in BTC per share.

Ornery-Plankton9844

Every muppet thinks that they are buying Monero, until years later they realize thats what they should have, not BTC

devCheckingIn

I don't want to tell Saylor his business, but maybe a better Strategy is to sell BTC in the bull market to build up the USD Reserve so he can buy more BTC in the bear market? 🤔