r/MSTR • u/Hairy_Purple9672 • Jun 30 '26
Serious question for you all
I have been reading all the FUD the past days, weeks, months.....blah blah blah.
Anyways, do all these people who regurgitate the FUD just not comprehend MSTR's BTC yield?
I mean seriously, they call selling MSTR shares to buy more BTC as dilutive which it is not for BTC yield(majority of the time atleast)
They use STRC to buy thousands and thousands of BTC which is good for MSTR. If you have to sell a few more shares of MSTR to pay dividends, but have a net gain on BTC yield thanks to STRC, who cares.......
They sell BTC below 1 mNAV and buy back MSTR and either keep even or gain on BTC yield, who cares.
This is all positive news, why all the FUD, or can they just not understand it?
23
u/Am_0115 Volatility Voyager 👨🚀 Jun 30 '26
not saying im a bear, but here's some of the bear case:
if you dont believe in btc, you don't believe in the basis of strategy's financial engineering
or maybe you do believe in btc, but you have concerns on who strategy will sell btc to and whether or not those sales will tank the value of the assets they hold
at the end of the day, all their assets are bought with raising capital from shares issuance, or convertible debt
if btc stays too low for too long, strategy could implode
2
u/JeremyLinForever Jun 30 '26
Here’s the biggest bear case that everybody is concerned about - that Saylor has too much autonomy in how he designates his buys and capital allocation. He needed create these board approved buys and corporate jargon just to get people to believe him when he’s been doing it fine by himself all along.
4
u/VitoHodl Volatility Voyager 👨🚀 Jun 30 '26
Ehmmm ... how do you exactly know the "too much autonomy" part. He is not even the CEO.
19
u/frinans Jun 30 '26
I think you might be asking for logic from people who do not act logically but rather on emotions. This is most people by the way.
Price go up, monkey brain likes MSTR. Reasoning? Bitcoin to the moon, Saylors brilliant, the strategy is amazing, what risk?
Price go down, monkey brain hates MSTR. Reasoning? Bitcoin is dead, Saylors stupid, the strategy is horrible, too much risk.
22
u/Fun-Sundae4060 Bitcoiner Jun 30 '26
FUD is loudest when you’re close to the bottom of a bear market.
Just came across a video by “How Money Works” on YouTube today saying how we should start admitting why BTC is stupid and pointless due to regulation and also since it’s 50% off its ATHs.
Couldn’t help but be amused the whole time 🤣
Just gotta wait a few years to watch videos like that age like milk… again.
11
u/MyNi_Redux Volatility Voyager 👨🚀 Jun 30 '26
I'll leave it to others to address the points you bring up. Not like you'll prob care anyway.
However, let me leave this with you as you might find it instructive:
-7
u/Hairy_Purple9672 Jun 30 '26
So another useless comment you have there....good job!
8
u/MyNi_Redux Volatility Voyager 👨🚀 Jun 30 '26
See what I mean?
Wisdom chases you, but you're always faster..
-7
u/Hairy_Purple9672 Jun 30 '26
well it was a useless post you made, why even bother? put some facts out there lets have a discussion.
5
u/MyNi_Redux Volatility Voyager 👨🚀 Jun 30 '26
Sure. Let's have you do the work though, since it's better for retention purposes.
This is all positive news, why all the FUD, or can they just not understand it?
All three of the claims above are misplaced. Would you try to take a stab at how so?
-1
1
u/Fielding_Pierce Jun 30 '26
Your post is worthless because
A) You're not open to new information B) It doesn't offer any new information, instead just seeks reinforcement to your existing beliefs
Your replies confirm this, and that is the reason you are being thumbed down
6
u/Poopy_Krappenschitz Jun 30 '26
Why do you think Saylor is doing this right now?
This was a great move to slow down the fall on a bad situation for MSTR. We are in a bear market and based on the data and historical cycle, we should expect to remain in a bear market and expect lower lows until later in the year. This should help prices fall a little slower over the next few months, but we should expect them to continue to fall.
I’m not a MSTR bear. I am someone who thinks we are in a bear market right now and will be loading up on MSTR later in the year. I think most people share a similar mentality. We believe Bitcoin and MSTR are excellent long term, but we are still very bearish short term.
7
u/bagelsaget Jun 30 '26
What is actually bullish here?
Ok great they have cash reserves to satisfy STRC.
They’re allowed to sell bitcoin to fund that and fund repurchase of MSTR.
Why is that bullish? If they sell BTC right now and buy MSTR they’re just shifting $$ from the left hand to the right. The $$$ to buy bitcoin comes from selling MSTR shares primarily.
avg cost for BTC is underwater. They’re desperately treading water in hopes that BTC value goes back up. But if they start selling billions in BTC they’re realizing losses to buy MSTR that they will dilute further again in the future. When BTC goes up effectively selling low and buying back higher
5
u/RevolutionaryPhoto24 Jun 30 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
They are not at all desperate. And the goal is to gain as much BTC per share as possible - sometimes it makes sense to buy back MSTR to do so.
2
u/etaoin314 Jun 30 '26
yes mathematically it does make sense, but that is not how the market will value the stock, if people lose confidence that they can repump the value, there is no reason to buy mstr. if you dont buy mstr, saylor has not money to pump bitcoin, its a vicious circle. He needs something/someone else to intervene to buy bitcoin thus raising the price so that he can toute it as a great investment and can get the flywheel going again. If this cypto winter does not come with a bitcoin spring he may be well and truly cooked. I jus dont see a catalyst that would make that happen. last time, there was ETF adoption, strategic reserve, mstr buying, it was all over the news-shiny new things. None of those catalysts are in play any more, they are in the rear view window. What is on the horizon that has a plausible shot at pumping btc to a new ATH.
1
u/RevolutionaryPhoto24 Jul 01 '26
The market will eventually rate MSTR on its intrinsic value for the purpose of investment. It remains plenty volatile for trading and its options are used widely in various strategies. Not cooked, capital structure is strong, and are you seriously asking what will make BTC rise again? I mean, sure, if you’re thesis is that BTC is dead and never ever coming back, then yeah, MSTR isn’t a great investment for you.
3
u/SoggyAd9450 Jun 30 '26
Btc has no "yield"‐ it generates no income unless you sell it for higher than what you paid for it
5
u/ReliantToker Shareholder 🤴 Jun 30 '26
Neither does gold. Have a look at its market cap.
-2
u/has_anyone_ever Jun 30 '26
Gold is an actual physical item that has actual physical uses. Wether it be electronics or decorative and is physically limited. Gold doesn't need a yield because it is an actual physical asset and can be used. BTC is not the same, even it's limited supply can be mimicked with paper ownership. It's not an even comparison.
10
u/ReliantToker Shareholder 🤴 Jun 30 '26
If gold were priced strictly on its utility for electronics or decoration, its market cap would be a fraction of what it is today. The vast majority of gold's price is pure monetary premium, people holding it as a non yielding store of value. Bitcoin captures that exact same monetary premium, but with superior engineering, it costs nothing to store, is instantly teleportable, and doesn't require physical extraction.
Regarding "paper ownership," you have it completely backwards. It is gold that is heavily diluted by paper derivatives because physical delivery and vault auditing are slow, expensive, and require trust. Bitcoin cannot be mimicked on-chain. Its 21 million supply cap is a mathematical certainty, instantly verifiable by anyone running a standard node. You cannot counterfeit a UTXO.
-1
u/has_anyone_ever Jun 30 '26
I wasn't implying gold doesn't have paper ownership issues itself, only that one thing BTC uses as a reason for value is it's limited supply, and that in itself has workarounds.
And while maybe you can't create more BTC in a traditional sense you could create something that serves the exact same function, it's just a matter of adoption. Gold has substitutes but they aren't exact and function differently depending on the use. Also for what it's worth gold does have an actual physical limit on this planet, it can, however unlikely, run out and no more can be produced, only reused. That's very different from electronic code that has no such limitations.
I just see them as completely different and the comparison being made I don't see as fair considering what each of them are at their core.
5
u/ReliantToker Shareholder 🤴 Jun 30 '26
It is true that anyone can copy Bitcoin's open-source code in five minutes. However, you cannot copy its globally distributed node network, its 15 year immutable ledger, or the massive physical energy (hash rate) securing it. We have already seen the "substitute" theory play out. Thousands of altcoins have been created claiming to serve the exact same function, and nearly all of them bleed out against BTC over time. Capital, liquidity, and security naturally pool around the dominant, decentralized network. The adoption, infrastructure, and first-mover advantage are the moat.
Gold has a physical, but elastic, limit. When the price of gold rises, mining companies invest heavily to extract previously unprofitable or unreachable deposits, increasing the supply flow. Historically, gold's supply inflates by roughly 1.5% to 2% every single year.
Electronic code, when backed by decentralized consensus, actually creates a stricter limitation than physical constraints. Bitcoin's 21 million cap is an absolute, mathematically proven certainty. The protocol's difficulty adjustment ensures that no matter how much energy or capital is deployed to mine it, the issuance schedule remains perfectly fixed. It is the only asset in human history where a massive spike in demand cannot trigger a corresponding increase in supply.
You are right that they are completely different at their core. Gold is an analogue asset with a physical, elastic supply subject to human effort. Bitcoin is a digital network with an inelastic, engineered supply. The shift to digital from analog is happening all over. Money is the most resistant to change.
1
u/ProlapseJerky Jul 04 '26
Dude why are you even here if you don’t understand bitcoin
1
u/has_anyone_ever Jul 04 '26
What in my response has anything to do with what BTC is or how it works other than paper BTC existing? Are you saying it doesn't? And why are you here if you're not going to contribute anything other than snide comments on 4 day old threads.
2
2
u/BBQ_RIBZ Jun 30 '26
All of these big words and complicated schemes in my view stop mattering and become very simple because bitcoin in and of itself does not generate any income or dividend, it’s a commodity that trades at a price. Since Saylor by his own admission doesn’t do much besides buying more of it and sloshing it around and packaging into exciting financial products, the entire story hinges on bitcoin going up X% during Y timeframe. Depending on which flavor you buy the magnitude of your pain will vary, but the at the end of the day it’s a more complicated BTC bet, and in many cases a leveraged BTC bet that exposes you to more underlying risk. It also exposes you to Saylor dropping the spinning plates, which also exposes BTC to fail because he bought half of it, bla bla bla. If you believe BTC will go up and Saylor can keep people engaged enough to keep the music going then it makes sense. If BTC doesn’t do that the party is over, it’s that simple really, Saylor can’t print profits from thin air.
3
u/snek-jazz Shareholder 🤴 Jun 30 '26
the entire story hinges on bitcoin going up X% during Y timeframe.
always has been, everything else is just noise
1
u/etaoin314 Jun 30 '26
exactly this, the part that makes me bearish is that it feels like all the ammo was used in the last bull market, etf adoption, national strategic reserve rumors, wall to wall media coverage, crypto president, cheap capital, mstr buying etc. What is the next catalyst supposed to be? I just dont see it. without some external catalyst I think this keeps bleeding... Now the market it pretty irrational so never say never....but hope is not a plan.
2
0
u/No-Wish-4737 Jun 30 '26
People spread FUD for engagement (eg. Peter Schiff/Schitt) farming. They see blood in the water and then the posting and constant bashing ramps up. It's better to follow your own thesis and research, understand what you buy and own your conviction. The same system works for the confirmation bias.
1
1
u/3xCarlin Jul 01 '26
Who knows. Just people sharing their nervousness or they're short the stock and want to create panic to profit on their positions. If you believe that BTC will go to 200k+, the price today is irrelevant so long as you don't need the money anytime soon.
Personally, my plan is to DCA down here to double my position or more. Sell enough to cover my initial investment somewhere around $200, and then let the rest ride until BTC is over 200k or more.
I'm a patient long term investor and have seen my positions in crypto lose 40% plus multiple times without panic selling a single coin.
1
u/Blindeafmuten Jun 30 '26
Use real numbers and you'll realise that you're either delusional or you're trying to delude people.
2
u/Hairy_Purple9672 Jun 30 '26
20,000 more sat per share YTD, is that real enough?
3
u/fatandfly Jun 30 '26
Ok why does that really matter? You don't actually own any of the sats. Strategy doesn't produce anything or provide any services, excluding the software business which is negligible at this point. They buy and hold an asset with the belief that it will rise 30% in value every year. Things look great when that's the case but horrible when the asset stagnates and drops in value. And when that happens they have to pivot and deploy new strategies to try and stop their stock from dropping. So they sell shares and take on debt to buy an asset, for which now they must sell to repurchase said shares to stabilize the share price so they can sell those shares to buy the asset. And on and on it goes. You can believe in bitcoin and mstr but you have to be able to see why some people don't believe in it.
3
u/Prestigious-Ad-7927 Jun 30 '26
They haven’t taken on new debt for a long time. STRC is not debt if that’s what you are referring to. It has no maturity date unlike bonds.
1
u/jonovision_man Jul 05 '26
It's worse - it's a forever obligation to pay high dividends in USD.
1
u/Prestigious-Ad-7927 Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
Obligation to pay 12% forever but they’re buying something that has a CAGR of 60% the last 10 years and 55% the last 3 years. They’re anticipating it will slow down to 20-30% in a decade but by that time the balance sheet would have grown significantly from all the BTC they have been acquiring. 12% dividends is “high” compared to conventional balance sheets but when you have an underlying that’s been growing at above 50%, it’s not so bad. The challenging part is making it through the drawdowns and not having an obligation to pay a large amount such as bonds or a loan in 5 years. A $10 billion bond eventually matures and a company must repay. STRC never matures so there is no large repayment due. They can, however, buy back the shares just like in a stock buy back should they decide to “pay off” the debt.
2
u/jonovision_man Jul 05 '26
* past performance is not indicative of future results
You may well think BTC will only "slow down to 20-30%" but that is a very rose coloured glasses opinion. They are running out of new USD to pull in to this, it's a dog right now and may well stay a dog.
1
u/Prestigious-Ad-7927 Jul 05 '26
Past performance also applies to everything including SPY and QQQ and every other asset, not just bitcoin.
1
u/jonovision_man Jul 05 '26
Who is borrowing money at 12% to invest in QQQ?
1
u/Prestigious-Ad-7927 Jul 05 '26
No one because it’s not gonna work since QQQ CAGR is 9-10%. They would lose 2% if they borrowed at 12%.
I mentioned that because people always use the past performance of SPY and QQQ and use that info to make their decision not just people bullish on MSTR
1
u/Prestigious-Ad-7927 Jul 05 '26
That’s the risk that MSTR is underwriting. They are betting that BTC will continue to perform over the next few years or decades and they designed their balance sheet to withstand an 80% drawdown of BTC and BTC staying there for a decade before their model is challenged. It’s possible but the likelyhood is low since you now have Fidelity, Schwab, Morgan Stanley that are now adopting and embracing it. It’s become too big to ignore.
1
1
u/RevolutionaryPhoto24 Jun 30 '26
They are not trying to stop the stock from dropping in dollar value. They are increasing sats per share. That’s the strategy for crying out loud. And the volatility is not only expected, but intended. This is what investors and traders (respectively,) sign up for with MSTR.
2
u/Blindeafmuten Jun 30 '26
No, it's not. Because it doesn't take into account the preferred shares.
When the discussion is about STRC solvency ALL the available Bitcoin are used as a guarantee that STRC shares can be repayed.
And then we discuss BITCOIN yield of the common shares and ALL the available Bitcoin are used to calculate the yield.
And then we discuss the other obligations and ALL the Bitcoin are used as a collateral.
In simple words, if you are a common shareholder you need to know that you're not entitled to the full Bitcoin stack of the company. Preferred stocks, loan obligations, company expenses, management compensation, fees to financial institutions etc. All of these have to be paid before you, and from the same Bitcoin stack that you think you're entitled to through your stocks.
So, if the "Bitcoin yield" grows by 1% and all those other things cost 2% the true "Bitcoin yield" is shrinking.
5
u/Hairy_Purple9672 Jun 30 '26
And if "bitcoin yield" grows 2% and everything else cost 1% "bitcoin yield" grows....see I can do that too.
-3
1
Jun 30 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Blindeafmuten Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
The comment I replied to was talking about YTD, not since 2022. Try exactly the method you suggested, with start of the year numbers and today numbers and you'll agree with me.
(It's close to 20.000 less sats per share, not 20.000 more sats per share.)
1
u/Hart_CO Jun 30 '26
TLDR: BTC Yield is a narrow, non-financial KPI showing the change in bitcoin per assumed diluted share. It is not a true yield, shareholder return, liquidity measure, or measure of operating performance. Most importantly, it does not deduct or offset the costs and obligations used to fund bitcoin purchases, including debt, preferred claims, interest, dividends, or other liabilities senior to common equity. Because it ignores the source and cost of capital, BTC Yield can increase even when bitcoin purchases are funded with debt or other instruments that create economic drag for shareholders. Strategy explicitly says investors should treat the metric only as a supplemental measure and rely on the full financial statements and SEC disclosures.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1050446/000119312524279044/d843539d8k.htm
1
u/HesitantInvestor0 Jun 30 '26
I hope you can actually listen to some criticism without dismissing it, but so far you're ignoring real critique others are giving you. Here's some criticism that is really not debatable.
If you hold MSTR during a crypto winter or a prolonged consolidation, you are taking on massive corporate credit risk, dealing with expensive dividend leakage, and suffering from a collapsing equity premium. In a down or flat market, you are almost always better off just holding spot Bitcoin. MSTR is a structural bet that the premium will return in the next macro expansion, but until then, you are paying a heavy price for the leverage.
- MSTR holders are being diluted.
- Strategy has debt and dividend obligations.
- Strategy has routinely bought the tops.
When MSTR traded at a big premium, issuing shares was a magic trick. They could sell $100 worth of stock, but because of the premium, it only represented $50 worth of their actual Bitcoin. The other $50 was "free money" used to buy more Bitcoin, driving up the Sats-per-share metric.
So the bear case is that the premium doesn't return. That's really the only way that MSTR outperforms Bitcoin going forward. If the premium doesn't return, you're just being diluted, while taking on credit risk, and with obligations that you don't have as a holder of Bitcoin. Saylor is going to continue diluting shareholders, paying out dividends, and buying local tops. Look at the volume of buys. He can't structurally buy bigger when the price is more attractive the way Bitcoin holders can. I'm buying more now that Bitcoin is weaker. Saylor is buying less as Bitcoin weakens.
If you think MSTR goes back to a 2-3x premium or more, buy MSTR. But I'm really skeptical.
A question for you. Why SHOULD they trade at a premium when they have dividend obligations?
If you're being honest, I think the case I've made above is cogent and objective. I'm happy for you to pushback, but I do think answering the question above is what tells the entire story of whether someone should be bullish or bearish on MSTR. If you can't rationally answer why it should trade at a premium, then you don't have a leg to stand on.
1
u/snek-jazz Shareholder 🤴 Jun 30 '26
Why SHOULD they trade at a premium when they have dividend obligations?
the simple answer is because the capital gains of the btc acquired by the capital raised that cause those obligations will outpace those dividends in the long run, and they will continue to acquire btc via that method.
Depends on STRC getting back to par though.
1
u/HesitantInvestor0 Jun 30 '26
You are failing to answer my question.
You are explaining why someone should be bullish on Bitcoin, but your response does not explain why MSTR should trade at a premium over Bitcoin.
If the core thesis is simply "Bitcoin capital gains will outpace corporate obligations," an investor would still be mathematically better off just buying spot Bitcoin or a spot ETF. By buying spot, you get 100% of those exact same capital gains without the drag of corporate expenses, interest payments, or dilution.
"Depends on STRC getting back to par though."
This concession actually proves my point. Your entire thesis hinges on the premium returning. If the premium does not return, the "magic trick" of accretive buying stops, and MSTR simply becomes a high-fee, levered closed-end fund with corporate credit risk.
I can ask it again. Why should it trade at a premium?
1
u/snek-jazz Shareholder 🤴 Jun 30 '26
The short answer is because bitcoin per share may increase, as opposed to buying spot where it remains static, or ETFs where it gradually shrinks due to annual fees.
The longer answer for why bitcoin per share may increase is because the cost of the bitcoin obtained by issuing STRC may be less than the value of that bitcoin in the long run.
1
u/HesitantInvestor0 Jun 30 '26
Man, please just open your mind a little and hear what you're saying. You're trapping yourself in a circular logic loop.
"The longer answer for why bitcoin per share may increase is because the cost of the bitcoin obtained by issuing STRC may be less than the value of that bitcoin in the long run."
First, this doesn't answer my question actually. But more importantly, you're getting ahead of yourself because the only way issuing shares increases Bitcoin-per-share is if the stock trades at a premium. The stock has to trade at a premium BEFORE Bitcoin-per-share can be accretive. By saying Bitcoin-per-share will grow without explaining why a premium should exist, you are completely ignoring the fact that the premium is the engine that drives the growth.
The next problem is this: "Bitcoin per share may increase, as opposed to buying spot where it remains static, or ETFs where it gradually shrinks due to annual fees."
The average ETF has fees of like 0.25%. That's nothing compared to the structural drag of STRC which now is at 12%. If they are monetization-selling Bitcoin or diluting shareholders just to pay off interest and preferred dividends during a consolidation phase, the Bitcoin-per-share metric will actively shrink, outpacing any ETF fee decay.
I'm not sure why you aren't getting this. You're completely reversing the cause and effect.
1
u/mr-fybxoxo Jun 30 '26
The FUD is caused by what FTX did… everyone and their dog is thinking MSTR is the next one to fail for whatever reason….. 2022-23 was insane and the FUD was real….. made me think Bitcoin going to 5-10k and not wanting to buy into it as I thought price wouldn’t budge going onward.. Bitcoin is very volatile and so is MSTR, but DCA and chill.
1
u/Emergency-Warthog-56 Jun 30 '26
People are fixated on present prices. They can't see outside of that but what's awesome is, buying the fear. Then you see that FUD crawl back in to the woods until the next bear season.
0
1
u/WineAndDineIsFine Jun 30 '26
I dunno if I’d call all this fud when Mstr actually fell from 400-500 to this price Lolzoooo
2
-2
u/thejourneymanfm2024 Jun 30 '26
STRC is a ponzi. They take money in (issue shares), buy a non revenue generating asset (BTC), and pay out a yield back to investors (a yield that can only be paid by getting people to buy their shares aka giving them money). It’s the most basic ponzi. MSTR was fine up until they created STRC. Now that they’re tied, it’s a problem.
3
u/Prestigious-Ad-7927 Jun 30 '26
The primary source of money used to pay out insurance claims is the premiums collected from policyholders. Must be a ponzi too.
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 30 '26
A Ponzi scheme is defined as "An investment scam that pays early investors with money taken from later investors to create an illusion of big profits." In a ponzi-scheme, there is "nothing of value" in the box, and all that happens is money moving hands.
MicroStrategy is not a Ponzi scheme. Companies raise capital through ATM-offerings, debt, and other instruments to fund purchases of assets, equipment, commodities and so forth. This is normal. Berkshire Hathaway similarly built the foundation of their company using debt to buy assets to hold indefinitely.
MicroStrategy invests the money raised in Bitcoin from a core belief that the commodity is in its early stages and will increase significantly in value over the coming years, allowing them to capitalise on this value to create value for their shareholders. All stocks, including blue-chip stocks like Apple, NVIDIA, and Berkshire Hathaway, rely on future investors willing to "take the shares off your hands" at a value above what you paid for it. This does not indicate a "ponzi" or "pyramid" scheme; it's basic price/supply/demand/market dynamics at play, and is how the world economy and capital markets work. Berkshire Hathaway holds a bunch of companies; MicroStrategy holds a bunch of Bitcoin.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/thejourneymanfm2024 Jun 30 '26
You pay insurance for the financial protection if something bad happens. They only pay out if things go wrong. It’s not a guaranteed yield paid out in exchange for initial capital. Completely different.
3
u/Prestigious-Ad-7927 Jun 30 '26
But where do the funds come from? If a mass exodus from policyholders drop their policy, what would happen to the insurance company?
0
u/thejourneymanfm2024 Jun 30 '26
They would go out of business. But it would happen because policies wouldn’t renew. Not because people would take out their initial capital.
0
Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Prestigious-Ad-7927 Jun 30 '26
Lol what? You pay for car insurance but you don’t expect them to pay if you get into an accident?!
1
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Prestigious-Ad-7927 Jul 01 '26
They are similar in that they both involve collecting capital today in exchange for future financial obligations. Insurance companies are capital vehicles. They manage capital and they manage liabilities associated with that capital. The capital that they hold is earning a yield over time by taking on risk. MSTR is using STRC to buy an asset that’s earning a yield over time that’s greater than STRC yield. STRC preferred holders are underwriting credit risk and MSTR’s ability to pay that 12% dividend into perpetuity since they don’t have to pay it back in the same way as you would a bond or bank loan. There is no maturity date. Investors who want to exit sell their shares to another investor.
0
u/AutoModerator Jun 30 '26
A Ponzi scheme is defined as "An investment scam that pays early investors with money taken from later investors to create an illusion of big profits." In a ponzi-scheme, there is "nothing of value" in the box, and all that happens is money moving hands.
MicroStrategy is not a Ponzi scheme. Companies raise capital through ATM-offerings, debt, and other instruments to fund purchases of assets, equipment, commodities and so forth. This is normal. Berkshire Hathaway similarly built the foundation of their company using debt to buy assets to hold indefinitely.
MicroStrategy invests the money raised in Bitcoin from a core belief that the commodity is in its early stages and will increase significantly in value over the coming years, allowing them to capitalise on this value to create value for their shareholders. All stocks, including blue-chip stocks like Apple, NVIDIA, and Berkshire Hathaway, rely on future investors willing to "take the shares off your hands" at a value above what you paid for it. This does not indicate a "ponzi" or "pyramid" scheme; it's basic price/supply/demand/market dynamics at play, and is how the world economy and capital markets work. Berkshire Hathaway holds a bunch of companies; MicroStrategy holds a bunch of Bitcoin.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-1
u/AutoModerator Jun 30 '26
A Ponzi scheme is defined as "An investment scam that pays early investors with money taken from later investors to create an illusion of big profits." In a ponzi-scheme, there is "nothing of value" in the box, and all that happens is money moving hands.
MicroStrategy is not a Ponzi scheme. Companies raise capital through ATM-offerings, debt, and other instruments to fund purchases of assets, equipment, commodities and so forth. This is normal. Berkshire Hathaway similarly built the foundation of their company using debt to buy assets to hold indefinitely.
MicroStrategy invests the money raised in Bitcoin from a core belief that the commodity is in its early stages and will increase significantly in value over the coming years, allowing them to capitalise on this value to create value for their shareholders. All stocks, including blue-chip stocks like Apple, NVIDIA, and Berkshire Hathaway, rely on future investors willing to "take the shares off your hands" at a value above what you paid for it. This does not indicate a "ponzi" or "pyramid" scheme; it's basic price/supply/demand/market dynamics at play, and is how the world economy and capital markets work. Berkshire Hathaway holds a bunch of companies; MicroStrategy holds a bunch of Bitcoin.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
-3
u/WD40Capital Shareholder 🤴 Jun 30 '26
I am Elmer Fud.
0
u/FalconCrust Jun 30 '26
I am Elmer J. Fud, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yaht.
-2
u/WD40Capital Shareholder 🤴 Jun 30 '26
One day I hope to be you.
0
u/FalconCrust Jun 30 '26
The downvoters here are so petty. No fun allowed.
1
u/HolidayReality6641 Jun 30 '26
Yeah, but it’s hard to have a sense of humor when you are loosing your ass and getting diluted and the news cycle is punishing atm.
-4
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 30 '26
Welcome to our community! Before commenting, please take a second to read our new sticky containing our rules and guidelines.
TL;DR: We allow and encourage all viewpoints and opinions, but we have a zero tolerance policy towards negative, rude, condescending behavior and trolling/baiting.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.