BTC

roopert

Copium off the charts. It’s not just the magnitude of their sales but also their radical change in strategy (sell your kidney, not BTC etc) and weakness that is spooking the markets. If it looks like they are in a death spiral, other rats will flee the sinking ship and compound the issue. What Saylor chud is doing has a massive impact on market sentiment

CommercialDuck7496

I’m not saying Strategy’s selling has literally zero effect. Every incremental seller affects supply/demand at the margin. I’m saying calling it a “huge drag” is completely unsupported by the scale involved. Strategy sold $108.6M of BTC over the latest reported week, or roughly $15.5M per day. Bitcoin is currently doing roughly $31B of daily trading volume according to CoinGecko. That makes Strategy’s selling about 0.05% of total daily BTC turnover. Even using CoinGlass’s much narrower $3.5B/day spot-volume figure, it’s only about 0.44%. So what exactly is the mechanism by which a seller representing roughly 0.05% of broad daily volume becomes a “huge drag on the market for the foreseeable future”? You can reasonably argue that their selling creates some marginal downward pressure. You cannot just jump from “some sell pressure exists” to “the quantity is so enormous that it has to materially suppress Bitcoin.” The quantity is not enormous relative to the market. And the derivatives market makes the comparison even more extreme. CoinGlass is currently showing roughly $50B/day of BTC futures turnover, versus Strategy’s ~$15.5M/day of BTC sales. Their daily selling is roughly 0.03% of futures turnover. Futures volume obviously shouldn’t simply be added to spot volume as though every derivatives trade represents physical BTC liquidity, but it illustrates the scale of the market Strategy is operating in. The legitimate argument would be that BTC order book depth can be much smaller than headline daily volume, so if Strategy dumped $100M aggressively into thin books over a short period it could move the price temporarily. But we have no evidence that they are doing that. Their disclosures show sales occurring across multi day periods. The latest 1,690 BTC was sold across Aug. 3–9, not slammed into the market at once. More importantly, we have an actual natural experiment. Strategy sold 1,638 BTC for about $104.7M during the previous selling period, and Bitcoin nevertheless rose after that sale was disclosed. So clearly a ~$100M Strategy sale does not mechanically overpower the rest of the market. They’ve sold 6,916 BTC worth about $429M across the recent selling episodes. Bitcoin is a roughly $1.3 trillion asset currently trading tens of billions of dollars per day. Calling $429M spread over weeks a “huge drag” requires evidence beyond simply pointing out that $429M sounds like a large number in isolation. If Strategy started dumping 10,000 or 20,000 BTC every week, particularly through aggressive spot orders, then yes, I’d take your direct market impact argument much more seriously. But 1,500–3,500 BTC in a week is nowhere remotely close to demonstrating that Strategy is suppressing the Bitcoin market. Am I missing something?

Queasy-Ride4291

BTC definitely has cycles. But it has nothing to do with halving or peaks. I’m not going to tell you what they are because I’ve put an enormous amount of effort into discovering them. Just know that the next bottom isn’t far off, relatively speaking. It hasn’t occurred yet, and it isn’t in October .

LexxM3

I so wish there were clear separate discussion forums about Bitcoin vs Bitcoin speculation. Bitcoin speculation belongs in the same forums as Polymarket, day trading, and other forms of fun gambling. Bitcoin core raison d’être is unrelated. You know the discussion is about speculation when anyone says “Bitcoins price is …”. It is much more interesting when the discussion goes “1 BTC will buy you …”. If you can understand that, it will advance your understanding of Bitcoin beyond the cycles. If you still want to speculate then, fine, but at least you’ll do it with clarity.

GaRGa77

After 3 bear markets I’m starting to doubt BTC it self 🤣

DiamondHandsDarrell

I don't claim to know any better than anyone else, but I feel that it's a combination of things. Primarily when borrowing money is cheap, funds flow into BTC. When there's a play for bigger gains, money flows out of BTC. Part of the appeal for BTC is that it's immediately liquid. No need to wait for funds to settle. Recently money exited for the AI (LLM) and memory rush needed to power it, along with data centers. As to the halving themselves (cycles), the first was just aberrent behavior that created a self sustained hype model. Since then, it may appear that hype pumps the price. But we're too early to see if that will hold up, but maybe it's more akin to Moore's law where it's true for a length of time until it no longer applies. There are so many factors at play, particularly now that BTC ETFs exist and they'll want to take gains and then buy back in at a later point. Also since different world governments are buying in. The uniqueness is the blockchain making everything instantly public also creates an interesting dynamic. But it's a bit difficult for anyone to know for sure. Coinbase has a news letter in which they share many of the things that may affect price is your interested in learning more. Cheers

Fine-Face6403

It is possible to swap BTC to ETH with https://switcher.fi/, however, wBTC is custodial. Just select Bitcoin > Ethereum, click and swap. It takes seconds and it's fully decentralized.

DiamondHandsDarrell

Yikes. Definitely a reason for BTC

ir88ed

Also old, and have been involved since 2014 or so. The halvings are more like global warming: a push that has a general effect. But there will be wild variance from day to day, month to month based on leveraged trading, FUD, FOMO, scandal, etc. Also your point about sample size is also well taken. Bitcoin has been around less than 20 years, and much of that time was in it's infancy were different forces were at play than now. Just like technical analysis of stocks is witchcraft, same applies to BTC. If you like the asset, just buy and hold.

Realistic-Ad1498

The people with access to the BTC accounts would be long gone along with the BTC

AromaKachu

I think that’s the cool part. The tech may be here, but we’re still figuring out what makes BTC practical beyond just holding it. There’s still plenty of room for new financial applications to emerge around native BTC....

AromaKachu

Yeah, I think the possibilities around BTC are still being figured out. We’ve already seen native staking, lending, and collateral, but I’m curious what other use cases emerge as the ecosystem grows.

CommercialLychee7956

Don't expect any solid gains for two years. If you want money now, find something else to invest in. Alternatively, you can buy something like btci, which will pay out a pretty sizable monthly dividend regardless of BTC price action.

Impossible-Bus1

>The U.S. government is estimated to hold roughly 325,000 to 328,000 BTC across various federal agencies, largely accumulated through major law enforcement confiscations. I'm sorry what did you just say op?

Realistic-Ad1498

No you don't understand. BTC will be worth more than the entire world's GDP. Just follow the chart. It can't be wrong...

heinzmoleman

Everyone thinks they can time it until BTC does what it wants.

_Stylite

Nearly every pattern in BTC is not worth recognizing 

Zerogrinder

Don’t look at dm’s there are scammers lurking here. Keep your seed phrase on paper and off of your devices (photo libraries and cloud services are easier to hack or exploit than BTC). Never enter them on any website and double check your websites, transactions etc. in other words, be vigilant. Read and learn from reputable sources and don’t let the apathy of bear markets get you. You’re off to a good start already.

koinlens

I think its 126k is still better than having other coins for long term😂 BTC will surpass 126K in coming years for sure.

TheReaIJuice

Can't believe how little this community knows about BTC 😭

Purple-Marsupial5855

Crypto is more than a fad… Useless meme coins can be seen as a fad and IMO are done (maybe they’ll jump a bit in next bull market - but really serve no purpose).. but I think coins like BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP will be around

Purple-Marsupial5855

Most lost money on BS Meme coins.. not legit crypto like BTC, ETH, XRP, SOL .. of course some will always follow hype and buy at the peak.. yet that happens everywhere - precious metals, stocks etc

botford80

He doesn't directly say that but reading between the lines I suspect that is at least a part of it. However, Strategy selling off chunks of BTC doesn't seem to be having as much as an impact as say the Coldcoin fiasco.

God_Hand_9764

The religious fanaticism when I learned of it really gave me pause on this guy. And it's something that always gives me pause when I learn it about a person. A little religion is fine enough, but when people take it that seriously and have such die-hard and holier-than-thou conviction about things that are not provable, I'm not about to trust them on anything. But what really sent me was when I learned of him losing all of his Bitcoin (over 200 BTC) due to his own negligence. This guy is supposed to be trusted to help manage and develop the network, but he can't even secure his own stack? This was not like the recent coldcard incident, because in Luke's case he did NOT do everything right. That's just absurd to me that a Bitcoin dev could fuck up their own stack so badly.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Capable_Coach9437 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1vo897a/the_market_feels_different_when_you_stop_checking/ I've been trying to spend less time watching every 5 minute move and more time asking whether the bigger market story has actually changed Crypto makes it easy to confuse noise with information. Sometimes BTC drops 2% and nothing meaningful has happened. Other times, a small move is the first sign that liquidity, sentiment aor positionign is shifting *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.*

doughless

I'm wondering if the wallet seed was compromised, and in an attempt to sweep the BTC as quickly as possible, the attacker set the fees too high.

Halfgallonkalin

This. So this. You’re spot on. Totally tame and normal bear market with the 4 year cycle. It’s textbook. We basically bottom at the previous 4 year cycles top, which is exactly where we are. No idea why it’s all doom and gloom around here. You should be buying now with an appropriate time horizon of at least a 4 year investment. If you “trade” BTC you lose. If you play with altcoins, you lose. If you buy and hold BTC when it’s cheap according to the 4 year cycle chart, you win. Don’t make life harder than it is.

ptrnyc

I’m not playing dumb - the BTC protocol doesn’t, and can’t, have 2FA built-in. You can put 2FA in the wallet app but this is useless - anyone with the seed can send transactions directly at the BTC protocol level. By design, the seed is the 2FA proving you own the wallet.

kush_patil

**Update!!! I actually backtested the idea behind this chart.** What I tested was simple: * Take the **2018 cycle bottom → 2021 cycle top** window: **1,059 days** * Freeze that duration no changing it afterward * Start again from the **2022 cycle bottom** * Hold for the same **1,059 days** * Compare where that lands versus the actual 2025 peak The frozen rule pointed to **Oct 15, 2025**. Bitcoin’s actual close-based peak was **Oct 6, 2025**. **Miss: 9 days.** I also included next-bar execution, transaction costs and the full daily BTC path in the backtest. The result itself looks impressive, but the important caveat is huge: there are only **two comparable completed cycles**, and the historical bottoms are identified with hindsight. So this is an **event/timing study, not proof that the 4-year cycle predicts the future.** The next test is the one that really matters: **can the bottom be defined mechanically using only information available at the time?** Full disclosure: I built **Helvetic Research** and used it to run the test: [**helveticresearch.com**](http://helveticresearch.com)

Previous_Valuable873

It is always good to see that the one and only crypto (that you all thought you are buying when buying BTC, just completely traceable and non fungible...) is doing so well...against BTC over the last year especially. https://preview.redd.it/8nwuor7uecjh1.png?width=1034&format=png&auto=webp&s=69dee9fc5c7129478501911c0ed9ce87f4a2d22c

DudeWhatThe

Not yet you mean. What about if BTC hits a million a coin? You don’t think dark web is going to be selling this as a hit list?

lazoras

btc being the currency ai uses makes so much sense. any processing purchased through btc makes sense and converting fiat to BTC to buy it makes sense... you could buy computing from any nation with capacity!

devCheckingIn

Miners need to pay their bills, after all. They mine over 3,000 BTC a week.

SkidMarkShark

Self-custody spreads ownership and removes counterparty risk, making the system more resilient and aligned with Bitcoin’s design as permissionless money without trusted intermediaries. Centralized ETFs and exchanges concentrate coins under a few custodians. That adds systemic risks from failure, seizure, or regulation, weakening the network’s antifragility even though the protocol and hashrate themselves remain unchanged. Putting capital into [$MSTR](https://x.com/search?q=%24MSTR&src=cashtag_click) (and ETF products) funds BTC purchases held with a few institutional custodians rather than individual self-custody. That concentrates counterparty, corporate, and regulatory risks instead of spreading ownership, reducing the network’s antifragility the same way ETFs and exchanges do—even as it supports demand and accumulation.

SomeGuyInOz

Where was the BTC sent FROM? The sender is the one who would have set the transaction/miner fees and the entire amount was spent on those fees, leaving 0 BTC for your wallet to receive.

BTCGlobeLive

Nobody in this thread has said the thing that reframes it: **that transaction is seven weeks old.** I pulled it off my own node just now. It confirmed on **26 June 2026 at 14:24 UTC** and it has **6,925 confirmations**. So if you were sitting in your wallet this morning watching something confirm, it wasn't this. Either you pasted an old txid out of your history, or the thing you're worried about today is a different transaction entirely - and that's worth settling before anyone diagnoses Cake Wallet. What it actually is: **1 input, 115 outputs, 0.969 BTC total.** That's a service or exchange paying 115 people in one go. It isn't "your" transaction - your coins are one output among 115, and the median payout in it is 0.00156874 BTC. That also explains why it looks strange on an explorer. Now the useful part. **Of those 115 outputs, 113 have already been spent. Exactly two are still sitting untouched:** - output #65 - **0.00304888 BTC** - output #84 - **0.04170628 BTC** If either of those is your amount, **your money is right there and has never moved** - the coins are fine and the problem is entirely display-side in the wallet (rescan, or the wrong derivation path). If your amount isn't one of those two, then your output was spent, and the next question is *when* - which you can answer without trusting anyone here. The check that settles it, on any node, no wallet involved: bitcoin-cli gettxout 632188193a9ea4f445891c3280707557cd8d1e694e87d1d319d2e3c0a827025d <your output number> Output comes back - unspent. Nothing comes back - spent. That's the entire answer, and it's the same command I just ran. One thing I'd want ruled out before relaxing: if your output *was* spent and you didn't spend it, that isn't a Cake Wallet display bug, it's a compromised seed, and reinstalling the app is the worst possible response. Find out which of the two cases you're in first.

brando2131

It shows on a block explorer that once you received it, you (or something) immediately spent it, [https://blockstream.info/tx/1ff8742b770f75fd16310f63033c74867278c4e6ba1b5891df7b42222e4aebc7](https://blockstream.info/tx/1ff8742b770f75fd16310f63033c74867278c4e6ba1b5891df7b42222e4aebc7) The output is 0, everything went to the transaction fee/miner (0.00489635 BTC), which is unusual. Maybe someone else knows why.

Timely-Fig2030

BTC is not advanced tech. It's very simple tech. But it was the first one to utilize blockchain financially, so i give credit to that and always will recognize it at the first one. It's like in climbing you wouldn't call Edmund Hillary as the most advanced climber by modern standards. But the climbing community will always respect him for being the first to reach the summit of Mount Everest and being on the sharp end of many other expeditions.

f2pool-CSR3

There was a real-life case in China where the government froze all of a prisoner's bank assets; yet, by the time he was released from prison, he had become a multi-millionaire. This was because he still held a significant amount of BTC in his wallet—so, you get the picture.

uuewy

I think it is good. institutions will have to rely on real money and will benefit less from USD debasement. BTC adds transparency.

CryptoAngelo

Hold BTC for long term, do not try to search x100 with memecoins or other projects, you will just waste time and money. Nobody knows what project will outperform others. You can also check ETH and SOL for long terms, but not too exotics shitcoins..

ImProbablyHighh

If you understood it you wouldn’t give a damn about influencers and what they’re shilling, BTC is the advanced tech.

tenor_tymir

You don’t need the physical wallet to access your BTC, you just need the keys, though I wouldn’t recommend taking them with you when on holidays. You could trust someone else with your keys and retrieve them from there but I wouldn’t recommend that either. There’s not much you can safely do when your country goes to war whilst you’re on holiday and your house is inaccessibly bombed to the ground.

LTCistheFuture

We'll see how it plays out. China also holds some. I don't know. It's getting really institutionalized which might be good for the price of BTC but I do not know if it is good for the core BTC idea

semanticweb

Better to stick with BTC and ETH and call it a day.

Babad00k123

There is only a handful of crypto you can touch. BTC, XMR and maybe USDC/PayPalUSD - not sure what the point would be to hold a stablecoin though. Thats it. Sell the rest and lick your wounds.

Big_Percentage_7541

Well, trading the news is mainly a latency game. I have zero edge over there. About buy and hold. It was indeed worked when BTC was younger. Unfortunately I can’t ignore the fact that in the last 4-5 years there was a wild USD printing spree, yet somehow the price of BTC is not holding up,plus halving plus scarcity and it’s still not behaving as it used to. So I feel I’m missing an important part of the puzzle.

Lexieewitt

BTC Go up with 3,4 month.. possible touch 126000$

Efficient_Range1156

I hate that i can’t downs BTC at more places but I understand that we are still early and most normies either don’t understand bitcoin or outright hate it because they feel it is alienating and that they are too late. I suspect this will change rapidly, BTC/USDT is use growing rapidly in the developing world where banking is not accessible. I will be spending more time in these places because whichever country develops the best bitcoin infrastructure stands to gain the most in terms of quasi of life as capital flight from other countries.

Lexieewitt

Possible BTC touch 126000$>> With 3,4 month.. I say yes.

Remarkable-Opening69

Gold is in many products in my home. BTC is only on my phone on an app.

GreenStretch

If BTC dies, this will shrink into a marketwide version of pump.fun.

Significant-Field232

Just open up a BTC chart and if you look over the years there is an undeniable pattern.

Romanizer

What underlying value or utility have you seen before leading you to BTC?

btwwhichoneispink

Sell AI > Buy BTC?

georgejetsonn

In 2010 BTC was used as a functional medium of exchange, as it was originally intended. That's how I also used it in 2013 as well. The passive store of value narrative came much later

Suspicious-Holiday42

Isn't that exactly what blackrock is offering, you send them your BTC and they give you the ETF

graceface2131

You may or may not be aware of this story but in 2010 a guy paid 10,000BTC (around 41$USD at the time) for two Papa John's pizzas, today that is worth $632.9 million. If your having a rough time with trading just keep this in mind.

ImProbablyHighh

How is it misinformed to be bullish on BTC? You think AI agents are going to be using fiat? Lmfao

ihavenotimeforgames2

Bitcoin will go up because of institutional adoption. If Blackrock fails, we have bigger problems than worrying about what the price of BTC will be.

Suitable_Acadia_190

Its a thing with a fixed supply in a pair agaist the USD. Thats the mechanic that I'm referring to So if you'd like to see comparisons of things still being priced in their infancy globally with massive volatility that also continued higher over time, that is my only point in the prior reply, aside from all other pairs are not fixed in supply so can be and are diluted so in turn become weaker over time vs the USD. Whereas BTC is finite making it mathematically stonger and also more volitile as the elastic doesn't get weakened when stretched in this instance.

iz_raymond

TLDR; no one want to spend BTC hence BTC won't replace Fiat.

iz_raymond

And? U expect the Bitcoin maxxers want to spend their BTC? 😂 See, the maxxist ideology of Bitcoin itself is the Achilles heels of BTC adoption. Which back to my earlier statement; no one belief or want BTC to replace Fiat..everyone want to make money off it, not use it as money. It's almost like asking Warren buffet to buy Yatch with his stock — he sell stocks at profit to get fiat then use fiat to buy yatch

IBAN-IBON64

BTC HODL DCA . Fin de Bear dans 3 mois

hoppeeness

Yes it is finite…gold already outperforms btc. Now it will be able to be possibly more secure than btc and available to all ages and locations. BTC isn’t the most secure.

hoppeeness

I mean link isn’t going to tokenize anything but yes I get it as important infrastructure. BTC is going to be dead once RWA’s are tokenized. It won’t be able to hold enough value for people to use as a store of value.

ihavenotimeforgames2

Wish there was an option to convert BTC to an ETF so you don't have to deal with the bullshit of cold storage.

DescriptionAware2961

Historically BTC has seen structural support at its 2WK 200 EMA. Currently this level is at 51280. (I have a chart image but I don’t think I’m allowed to share it yet?) I theorize that price will make another move down to meet it before we encounter another bull cycle. This is optimistic speaking; hoping we’ve already seen the worst that the current administration will do to the US economy. this proximity to support could be the reason for the recent tight volatility and price coiling

Useful_Calendar_6274

I don't know a lot about BTC but something ridiculously simple like 2FA built directly into it would have prevented the coldcard attack and any unwanted transaction unless the hackers compromise that too. There are open source things for it, it's not all microsoft authenticator

donnieplath

Wait so if interest payments double in 10 years, do you think that forces the Fed to print even harder and that's what actually sends BTC parabolic?

archm1chael

I’d start by looking for large communities that resemble past winners in the space like XRP, ADA, DOGE, SOL, BTC. you’ll want to identify that are fanatical and their onchain data backs up what they say on here or X. ideally the coin has bottomed against its btc pair months ago.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Choice_Employee_7739 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1vntdi5/investing_btceth_or_xaut_with_2k_after_clearing/ I plan to clear out all my alt positions around $2k because I don't want to spread across too many places, just keeping BTC and ETH. The only thing I’m unsure about is what to do with these USDT. I could leave them and wait for a better entry for BTC/ETH, but I also looked at XAUT recently. I believe a gold position might help hedge a portfolio. I can buy XAUT through the same account I use for crypto, which makes trade and manage convenient. At the same time, buying it means having less cash ready if BTC or ETH pulls back. Need some advice for these USDT. Thanks! *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.*

digital__bits

"If isn't BTC, is a 💩coin" mentality Yeah, that's why Bitcoin market dominance has fallen below 60% since 2017 and never came back to it. BTC created his own tomb. 

AffectionateYam624

I click nothing in my inbox regarding banking or anything finacial related. I will not click a coinbase email. I would think someone with 24.6 BTC would be smarter than me. Sorry man. Hope you get your coins back.

wheresabel

Yeah I made a lot of money but I started to exit my position this year. I donated a few BTC to my DAF and sold some to invest in stocks which has been much better investment.

Remarkable-Opening69

Prediction market made BTC less attractive. It’s literally a gamble now.

anonymousopsec1337

The main part of the hack I’m interested in is how they scouted the initial round of whales. I wonder if any BTC chain websites got a shot load of queries from a handful of IP addresses within the month before the hack from the hackers API connections. Might be worth looking at. I don’t query the block chain en masse but I’m sure there are some API limits in place where you need to be using a registered account or pay $

loud1337

I got you fam, I'll hit ya with the real advice. Unsubscribe from here and go subscribe to Personalfinance and Bogleheads. Read the wiki and get moving on having an emergency fund, max out healthcare, and then retirement. For retirement accounts I recommend a simple target date retirement fund from Vanguard. Once you are doing that reliably and on track to max out the accounts, I recommend using up to 1% of your net worth to put into crypto or wallstreet bets. If you don't like this advice and still want crypto, fine. Start buying BTC and ETH once a month on a set budget. Still not enough risk for ya? Send me $100 a month and I'll turn it into $10 and send it back in 2 months.

wheresabel

A get rich quick scheme for 20 year olds stuck holding the bag. Source: I made 7 figures and exited being in BTC early. The price does not need to rise to keep providing value to the world.

Chance-A-La-Mer

I’m confused here, so the argument is that spam is ultimately difficult or even impossible to filter out so we should be OK with bitcoin core running rough shot over the community by pushing through a contentious change that makes spamming the chain easier? To the extent that BTC is permissionless unstoppable money (not sure I really buy that narrative anymore), how does making to easier for people to embed arbitrary non monetary data on chain for all time help with that thesis?

Chance-A-La-Mer

I’m confused here, so the argument is that spam is ultimately difficult or even impossible to filter out so we should be OK with bitcoin core running rough shot over the community by pushing through a contentious change that makes spamming the chain easier? To the extent that BTC is permissionless unstoppable money (not sure I really buy that narrative anymore), how does making to easier for people to embed arbitrary non monetary data on chain for all time help with that thesis?

Even_Routine5011

I didnt show my BTC holdings or even say what was in my main Trezor wallet. Posted this so other people don't freak out like I did. Recent Cold Card incident has me on edge I am sure im not the only one.

magus-21

> Still doesn't make it a good decision. Only in hindsight. By your logic no one should have bought anything in June 2020 because BTC had just pumped from $3k. They should have just waited for the next "low." Except the next "low" wouldn't be until 2022 and would cost $16k instead of $9k.

sssssssssssssss5s

But where can you spend your BTC?

Left_Entrepreneur918

Damn really, I thought in 2022 the day after FTX, this shit is done. BTC was at 15,500 and well under the last market high of 20k. I remember I had half of my inheritance left and thought. You’ve lost money on everything so just do the opposite. I became a whole coiner that night. But if you are talking Alts, yeah technically it’s been a bear since 2021 lol.

magus-21

>If you put 100% of your capital available for investing into an asset that was already about 2x it's previous all time high, and didn't sell a significant amount when it went up, or didn't buy more when it was down 50%, then that's on you for having a poor trading strategy. Read what I said again. If you sold ~10% at the cycle high, then later used those funds to rebuy at the cycle low, you'd still only be ~20% of the S&P500 but with **significantly** more volatility. > But with your example, if you bought at where we are in the current cycle (about a year after the previous peak) then you'd be buying in at around $3500 in january 2019, Except that my whole point is that from now on it's diminishing returns. >or $16000 in january 2023, which are both significantly lower than the $35000 in january 2021. No, I accounted for that: "If you bought $10k of BTC on Jan 1 and you sold 10% of your stake at the 10/21 $71k ATH, **bought at the $16k low on 12/22**"

Hfksnfgitndskfjridnf

> But that is materially different from saying the STRC already issued is permanently a loss today. Even using your own numbers and your own attribution methodology, the worst tranche has not yet crossed the irreversible threshold. And if the worst tranche has not crossed it, the blanket statement is even harder to make about the later STRC issuance, which started with substantially better economics. Thanks for agreeing with most of what I’ve said. There are a ton of moving parts and trying to get a truly accurate depiction of what exactly is or is not attributable would take more time than it’s worth. If you’re going to hang your hat on the fact that only 89% is gone after a year instead of the full 100%, I would say that is rather foolish. I will concede that they technically aren’t in an irrecoverable position quite yet, I’ll let you do the math on what CAGR Bitcoin needs to salvage the situation, I’m guessing triple digits. It’s clearly a disaster and I don’t see how a reasonable person could say otherwise. MSTR would be in a much stronger position today if they hadn’t issued any STRC. But this is the issue with STRC, it’s not that BTC just has to grow faster than the dividend rate, it also depends on the path it takes getting there. And having to keep years of dividend coverage makes that hurdle even higher. And the fact that structurally they are designed to buy tops because that’s when they have the most access to capital means it probably won’t be that great of a funding mechanism going forward either.

effdanwo

They've sure as hell nailed down all the exits to tax you on BTC, though

CommercialDuck7496

I think your historical math and data is mostly reasonable, but I don’t think it supports the conclusion and claim you started with. I’ll grant your framework for the sake of argument. The original STRC IPO bought 21,021 BTC, which you calculate represented roughly 10.9 million MSTR share equivalents of additional gross BTC exposure. You then estimate roughly 2 million MSTR share equivalents have been consumed by dividends already paid, and allocate another roughly 7.6 million shares of reserve building dilution to that original STRC tranche. That gets you to about 9.7 million shares of attributed dilution against an original benefit of about 10.9 million. But notice what your own calculation says: 10.9 million minus 9.7 million is still positive by roughly 1.2 million share equivalents. In other words, even under your attribution assumptions, the original July 2025 STRC IPO ... * the worst tranche by fsr*, because it was issued at a discount, bought BTC around $117k, and has accumulated the most dividends ... has still not crossed into negative attributable gross BTC/share. That matters because you’ve now clarified that your actual irreversible threshold is gross BPS going negative. On that specific point, I agree with you: if a particular STRC tranche has genuinely caused gross BTC/share to fall below the no-STRC counterfactual while the STRC senior claim still remains outstanding, then Bitcoin simply going up cannot make its net-BPS contribution positive. As BTC rises, the BTC-equivalent burden of the fixed-dollar claim approaches zero, so net approaches gross from below. If gross is already negative, BTC appreciation alone cannot push net above zero, sure. My point was, we arent there yet. We are closer than I thought for the OG tranche, but the others are substainally better. But by your own numbers, that has not happened yet, even for the original IPO tranche. So the statement you have been making throughout this discussion, that “the STRC they have already issued is permanently a drag on shareholders regardless of what Bitcoin does,” is stronger than what your own calculation establishes. What you’ve actually shown is that the original tranche may have consumed roughly 89% of its initial gross BPS benefit under your allocation methodology. Losing 89% is NOT the same thing as crossing below zero, and that difference is critical here. I also think the 7.6 million share reserve allocation needs to be treated as an estimate rather than a fact. Allocating 19.3% of reserve building issuance to the original STRC tranche because it currently represents roughly 19.3% of covered annual obligations is a reasonable simplifying assumption, but it is still an assumption about the counterfactual. The USD reserve is pooled across preferred dividends and debt interest, the capital structure and STRC outstanding balance changed throughout the period, and the exact percentage of the marginal reserve requirement attributable to the original July 2025 tranche was not necessarily 19.3% at every point when those shares were issued. A truly precise calculation would have to reconstruct the liability mix and reserve requirement through time rather than apply one current percentage to the entire period. There is also a potential accounting issue we should be careful about before simply adding the 2 million historical dividend share equivalents to the 7.6 million reserve shares. If some common issuance was used to replenish the USD reserve after reserve cash had already been spent on dividends, then counting the historical dividend separately and then allocating the replenishment issuance as additional reserve dilution can double count the same economic cost. You would need to follow the reserve cash flows and distinguish cash still sitting in the reserve for future obligations from cash that replaced prior distributions before adding the two buckets together. And there is an important distinction between gross BPS and economic value here. If you are strictly calculating gross BTC/share, then yes, cash in the reserve gets zero credit by definition and the additional common shares reduce gross BPS. I have no disagreement with that. But if you move from “gross BPS fell” to “that amount of shareholder value has already been permanently destroyed,” then the cash raised by those shares cannot simultaneously be treated as worthless. It remains an asset until it is spent. Gross BPS deliberately ignores that asset; an economic or net value analysis cannot. Most importantly, future Bitcoin and MSTR prices still matter until the tranche actually crosses your negative gross threshold which has been the thing ive been trying to get across FROM THE VERY START. STRC’s dividends are fixed dollar obligations at a given dividend rate. If MSTR remains depressed, servicing those obligations can consume a lot of common shares and eventually erase the remaining gross BPS benefit. If Bitcoin and MSTR appreciate substantially, the same dollar obligation can be funded with far fewer common shares. So whether that remaining ~1.2 million-share equivalent cushion ultimately gets consumed is not predetermined today. Even tho we woule probably both agree that it most likely will. I think the strongest version of your argument is: “The original STRC IPO has already burned through most of its initial gross BPS benefit, and if the cumulative servicing dilution eventually exceeds that initial benefit, then BTC appreciation alone cannot repair the resulting negative gross BPS.” I agree with that. But that is materially different from saying the STRC already issued is permanently a loss today. Even using your own numbers and your own attribution methodology, the worst tranche has not yet crossed the irreversible threshold. And if the worst tranche has not crossed it, the blanket statement is even harder to make about the later STRC issuance, which started with *substantially* better economics.

Lacklusterspew23

Mostly garbage political drivel having nothing to do with the security of BTC. 1. Hard drives continue to grow in size. This won'r be a problem. As someone who buys BTV ASICs, the storage cost is maybe 1/100th of the price and will continue to be a deminimis cost. 2. Stop trying to impose your political censorship views on BTC. Whatever someone posts as a message is on the chain. Deal with it. If we allow people's political views to change BTC, it is worthless garbage. Only absolutely necessary security updates should be made. Your other points are predicated on falsehoods about consensus, so I won't respond to them. Basically, if garbage like BIP110 passes, the next stop is removal of the cap. and BTC becoming worthless.

sssssssssssssss5s

From what? Who controls the energy? Who makes the chips? Who do you pay with BTC to get your groceries? Freedom from having to think, I guess.

bollocksgrenade

BTC has only been around since January 2009, so…

TheCodifiedTrader

I thought crypto wasn't centralized and that was the point? Which is why it's never going to work. Look at all the people who lose on ColdCard and even others who sent to wrong address off by a single character. Crypto, BTC, NFTS, all the same shit.

magus-21

>All I'm saying is if you buy now and sell in two years you're gonna (most likely) beat the S&P. Yeah, I did the math. If you bought and held $10k of BTC with no buys or sells on Jan 1, 2021, then as of today you'd have $19k. Your portfolio low would've been $5k in 12/22. If you bought $10k of BTC on Jan 1 and you sold 10% of your stake at the 10/21 $71k ATH, bought at the $16k low on 12/22, and then sold 10% again at the 7/25 $116k ATH, then you'd have $24k now, and your portfolio low would've been $6k in 12/22. Otherwise, if you had simply held the S&P500, you'd actually be beating the "Hold BTC" strategy with $20k, and your portfolio low would've been $9,821 in 10/22. But even with your perfectly timed buys and sells, you're still only looking at a benefit of an extra 20% over five years. Substantial? Yes, but considering the competing strategy is literally **doing nothing** while also having far FAAAR less volatility, it's not exactly a compelling argument.

AdmirableSock192

I don't try to decide if today is a good day. I keep some cash aside and buy more when BTC gets further from its ATH

magus-21

> Welllll it kinda has been a reliable strategy so far. If you try it on a short timeframe then yeah that's when you lose. But if you're patient and buy somewhere near the obvious lows and sell somewhere near the obvious highs then you'll beat any other traditional investment strategy. It's been a "reliable" strategy because BTC isn't even old enough to get a driver's permit. People are looking at that chart and seeing diminishing returns leading to value flattening out, but it could just as easily be an arc that starts going down. > And of course i didn't sell everything at the top and re-buy everything at the bottom Then your actual gains are actually much less. I just did a quick Excel sheet that simulated what would happen if you sold 10% of your holdings at the top, held it in cash until the low, and then used all that cash to rebuy at the bottom. Then I compared it to simply holding in the S&P500. Interested in the results? * Start date: Jan 2021 * Starting investment: $10,000 in S&P and $10,000 in BTC * Key checkpoints: * BTC Cycle 1 Monthly ATH: $61,309 on 10/2021 * BTC Cycle 1 Monthly Low: $16,537 on 12/2022 * BTC Cycle 2 Monthly ATH: $114,048 on 9/2025 * BTC Cycle 2 July 1 Price: $62,875 So based on these checkpoints: * Starting investment: $10,000 on 1/2021 * 10/2021 ATH: * Portfolio value: $18,518.01 * Sell and bank $1,851.80 into cash * Allocation: * $1,851.80 in cash * $16,666.21 in BTC * 12/2022 Low: * Portfolio value: $6,846.77 * $1,851.80 in cash * $4,994.97 in BTC * Buy $1,851.80 of BTC @ $16,537/BTC * Allocation: * $6,846.77 in BTC * 9/2025 ATH: * Portfolio value: $34,447.31 * Sell and bank $3,444.73 into cash * Allocation: * $3,444.73 in cash * $31,002.58 in BTC * 7/2026 Current: * Portfolio value: $22,435.70 * Allocation: * $3,444.73 in cash * $18,990.97 in BTC Meanwhile, the $1,000 S&P500 investment, with no sales or buys, is now worth $19,804.94 So congrats, you gained 10% over the S&P500 over 5.5 years measured as of today. But with significantly more volatility and risk, and assuming perfect knowledge of when to buy/sell. Now, if you sold more, you'd have proportionately more gains over the S&P, e.g. if you had sold 25% of your holdings at the ATH, you'd be ~40% ahead of the S&P now. But 25% is a large chunk of change to liquidate. >I'd be incredibly surprised if BTC doesn't hit $100k again within that timeframe.

DiamondHandsDarrell

With respect, this is a terrible take. At any moment in time they could just remove the app and prohibit it from being installed. Centralized control of a wallet that controls BTC is the antithesis of what BTC is: which is that no one authority can turn it off. You'd literally be handing them control of your money.

Numerous-Annual-721

are you seriously asking if it's a good time to buy BTC on a Bitcoin group?

Hfksnfgitndskfjridnf

Go ahead and look up the historical numbers. When STRC IPO’d they issued 2.8 Billion notional and bought 21,021 BTC with it. Based on their Bitcoin per share that was the equivalent of 10.9 million MSTR shares. Since then they’ve paid out $10.94 in dividends on those STRC shares (through July 31), which if you go by the MSTR share price at the time paid (which is how you have to do it because they issue the shares the week of the dividend payment) equates to 2 million MSTR shares to cover just the STRC IPO share dividends. Now since the start of June they’ve issued 39 million more MSTR shares to build the USD reserve. The STRC IPO accounts for 19.3% of the dividend obligations so if you attribute that ratio to the shares issued you get an additional 7.6 million MSTR shares attributable to STRC IPO. (I’m even ignoring the BTC sales fyi). This means in total they’ve issued 9.7 million MSTR shares to pay for the STRC IPO dividends and USD reserve. So they have lost 89% of the gross BTC yield from the STRC IPO and are still on the hook for 330 million in yearly dividend obligations forever. I’m not saying future STRC issuance can’t or won’t be accretive. I’m saying the STRC they’ve issued so far is a massive negative for shareholders. They’ve given up essentially all gross Bitcoin yield already and the dividends will continue to be a drag forever. Once the gross Bitcoin per share attributed to the STRC issuance goes negative, it does not matter what Bitcoin does subsequently, they are already at a loss. The company would have had more gross and more net Bitcoin per share if they simply hadn’t issued any STRC period.

na3than

Prove it. From what I can see at https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html, there are fewer than 90 *addresses* holding 10,000 or more BTC. If you have some special ability to see *wallet* totals and can see how many wallets hold 10,000 or more BTC, please elucidate us.