BTC

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.

Timely-Fig2030

Agree until the btc maxi bullshit. Once BTC has a bad season, finally we won't need to listen to this annoying maxi talk any longer.

ViolaSwampp23

Switched my BTC out for GOOG and Amazon 6 months ago and happy with that. So many people who don’t understand BTC bought at 100. I’m not waiting for ANOTHER 4-8 years I was up 220% that’s good enough.

ptrnyc

I very much doubt that BTC mining ASICs have any use for AI.

kdoughboy12

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. Trust me I've made TONS of bad trades trying to chase maximum gains. And of course i didn't sell everything at the top and re-buy everything at the bottom. It's a learning process, I've been in crypto for about 10 years now. All I'm saying is if you buy now and sell in two years you're gonna (most likely) beat the S&P. I'd be incredibly surprised if BTC doesn't hit $100k again within that timeframe.

unknowngloomth

Nobody can give you advice, dude. As nobody knows shit about fuck. Plus. We don't know you and we don't know what's your risk tolerance. But yeah, bagholders will shill their favorite shitcoin and BTC maxis will be "BTC only bruh" tho the rois will be likely be conservative at best.

Deto

Even if you believe that fiat value itself doesn't matter, the price in fiat is a proxy for what you could actually buy with bitcoin. at $65k, one BTC gets you a nice car at $10, one BTC gets you an ok sandwich This matters.

NorthHaverbrookNate

Tldr at bottom, my middle school English teacher once said I was "too wordy", and she was right. As in what do I think about where BTC and crypto generally are in the lifecycle, or something else? I think it's hard to say for certain whether something novel like a decentralized and globally available currency is early or not, and harder still for me than people here or in related subs. I have been looking at crypto from a social sciences standpoint rather than tech, and it's quite possible the tech is not yet been appreciated or applied in a way that will bring crypto into maturity. I think about the gap between the invention of the metal food can and can opener a bit in relation to this, something that has a lot of utility but the tools to make it accessible to the broader public didn't exist. It seems possible that crypto has not had that (things like Trezor/Ledger and Binance/Coinbase seem to move things in that direction, but not enough if the broader plan is a decentralized and practical currency for general consumptive purposes. Personally, just opinion and not opinion based on data but more feel and conversations with folks in, to use the parlance of the late 90s/early 00s scifi action series The Matrix, the real, I think crypto is no longer early and the general share of the public with active participation (the not your keys/not your coins and longtime exchange trader groups, rather than loose ETF holders at Schwab who have it as novelty relative to the rest of their portfolios) is probably about at the largest share it will be. Again, this is not based on anything rigorous, except maybe some observations about the number of active wallets over time, but I just don't see many people talking about crypto in real life and those I do tend to be pretty skeptical. As a caveat, most folks I talked to fall into three broad camps - my coworkers who work in Democratic (the American political party) campaigning, generally conservative (again, American political sense) guys (mostly men) in places like gun ranges, tobacco shops, etc, and people in the service industry, mostly bartenders, front of house staff at restaurants, and a couple people in security. Disclosure - for my last I only hold a small amount of BTC and a bit less of some alts (we're talking real small, I think the current value collectively is ~$80) Tldr I don't think it's early, and while I think it's likely the "peak" (adoption, not pricing) has passed I don't know what I don't know, and I don't know for sure if the use case has not been demonstrated yet.

ForeverLaca

never again in history, or short/mid term? If it is short mid term, I agree. But saying that never again in history it's the same as saying that BTC is dead.

TrixoftheTrade

irrelevant, 1 BTC = 1 BTC. the value of bitcoin measured in an arbitrary fiat currency does not devalue the inherent value of bitcoin. whether 1 BTC = $1, $100, $10,000 or $1,000,000 is irrelevant.

flangarky

BTC market cap is only 1.2 trillion, not trillions.

Clean_Difficulty_225

Always the same with you bots/shills. Can’t form a proper or coherent argument at all, just dismissive attitudes which are really just ad hominem logical fallacies. What exactly makes this absolute nonsense, what actual evidence or rebuttal do you have using any factual economic data at all? Your opinion is worth about as much as BTC, hint that’s worthless.

Nervous-Plantain-788

Expect something great to happen? Its like going to the casino, who knows. Learn what btc does and who you are lending your money to. If you have not already invested 90% into index funds you should do that first. BTC is highly speculative

Dense-Permission8346

And everything rotated into gold, silver, and AI. It’s 1 of two things. 1. For the first time in crypto history we had no blow off top/euphoria phase of the bull run. 2. That blow off top is delayed because everyone rotated into what i said above. If BTC is sitting around $80k on September 1st we are very likely headed to a blow off top later this year.

chainglance_cm

No one knows for sure. And by the time it's clearly a bull run everyone's already in and the easy money's gone. The quiet phase before that is honestly more useful to pay attention to than trying to call the run itself. A few things I look out for: \- BTC dominance starts dropping but the total market cap isn't really moving yet. That usually means money's quietly rotating into alts before the price shows it. \- Stablecoins sitting on exchanges start piling up, that's dry powder waiting to be deployed. \- And DEX volume creeps up even while prices are flat. This could be people positioning before the move. None of it's exciting and that's kind of the point. You won't catch it just glancing at price on one app, you gotta actually be checking across your positions regularly, which is why most people miss it till it's already obvious

Clean_Difficulty_225

Yup, I mean we're about to experience another 1929/1987/2000/2008 type of macroeconomic bear market. What is BTC worth in that type of liquidity crunch? Anyone long-term bullish BTC is either a bot/shill or just plain misinformed. Note that the sell-off of speculative assets already started, that's why BTC is down 50% already. All these poor people have been trained like pavlovian dogs to be the exit liquidity during these upcoming events, and they don't even realize it yet.

kdoughboy12

Lol maybe that's the case for you. I sold around $55k at the ~$60k peak and around $120k at the ~$125k peak. If you are using money that you may need for an emergency then that's just poor planning and not how you invest. Regardless of that, even if BTC underperforms compared to previous cycles, we are currently close to the bottom. If you buy now and sell at any point between 1 to 3 years from now you'll most likely beat the S&P.

magus-21

>Well even if the next cycle has zero gain (from peak to peak) that's still a 100% gain from the current price in the next 2 or so years. I don't think that is worse than investing in the S&P right now. You're only looking at the peaks. Why don't you take a look at how long BTC stayed at its ATH before crashing back down, and then figure out *when* in that cycle you're most likely to sell to fund some emergency.

goldvenetianmask

If Satoshi every rises again, to sell all of his BTC it’ll be to remove crypto as a viable technology lol

martianfrog

Could be a year or more away, we'll see, but I don't see BTC going down much in the mean time. My best guess right now.

UrbanGrower187

All I know is I’m up a lot on BTC over the years …. Best of luck to everyone I honestly don’t care if ppl DYOR or not invest or don’t invest but regardless whatever you do know that BTC will always outperform in the long run.

AromaKachu

Yeah, still plenty of room to grow. The next phase could be less about price and more about expanding how BTC is actually used, from payments and lending to native staking and other financial use cases....

AromaKachu

Yeah, more than price... I think the utility side is still massively underexplored. BTC can be money and still have other uses like collateral, lending, payments, etc. We already have native staking, and TBVs are getting closer to becoming available too..

arveena

It's funny how you can tell people who are young and that a market crash in stocks is imminent. Its like if people forgot the stockmarket can crash and burn as well. I am no gold maxi or bond maxi but BTC obviously gets his value by an asset class that does not need insane amount of storage and is decentralized to a degree thats its IMPOSSIBLE to recreate. Also its deflationary. The stock market is cool at the moment but its way too hot. Like crypto was 2021. Or the stockmarket in the dotcom or housing bubble.

anonymousopsec1337

Same issue leaking data, closed source code, the fact they pitched ledger live to people to online backup seeds, constant firmware updates, no BTC only option like Trezor has

BorrowOnBitcoin

I posted this on a different BTC mortgage thread but the answer is multifaceted on when to use BTC in conjunction with a mortgage or to pay off a mortgage. We have lots of articles and guides on this but in the spirit of how to make a decision on selling your BTC for mortgages, we have a guide below (with math) [https://borrowonbitcoin.com/articles/sell-bitcoin-to-pay-off-mortgage](https://borrowonbitcoin.com/articles/sell-bitcoin-to-pay-off-mortgage)

BorrowOnBitcoin

There was some talk on older threads about selling BTC to pay off mortgages. We put together a guide that links in personal cash flow, market cycle timing, and rates. There is math in there too if you want to look. Personally, i think when the BTC market is bottoming, thats the right time to take out a mortgage loan against your stack. [https://borrowonbitcoin.com/articles/sell-bitcoin-to-pay-off-mortgage](https://borrowonbitcoin.com/articles/sell-bitcoin-to-pay-off-mortgage)

oliver_jay_dev

There’s only one way I recommend storing BTC for the long term and it’s none of those suggestions. Albeit more technical, it’s worth the piece of mind 1) Generate seedphrase (search iancoleman BIP on Github) and download then run in offline mode 2) Buy cryptosteel, or cheaper alternative and put your letters for the seed phrase into it 3) Store in a safety deposit box The advanced version of this for the super paranoid would be to: a) have AI triple check the repository for any issues before generating keys b b) run the wallet seed phrase generator on a new device which has never touched the internet (ideally a mac, transfer software via Airdrop from another mac) c) split the keyphrases into say 3 parts where you need 2 of 3, keep one in safety deposit box, one with family, one at home. And whatever you do, never actually password protect your wallet, because you can forget it! Rely on physical security. Finally, if this scares you enough to not proceed, ignore everything and just use Coinbase :)

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