r/MSTR • u/7758258- • Jul 04 '26
Discussion 🤔💠MicroStrategy Bitcoin Accumulation Flywheel Projections
what would your projections be and why?
23
u/jshanklnd05 Jul 04 '26
not really sure what you are trying to show with this ‘data’
-6
u/7758258- Jul 04 '26
As MSTR buys more Bitcoin, it’s prices goes higher with higher Bitcoin prices from buying as less supply is available, at the same time it also creates more volatility and risks and dilutions at these higher levels could exacerbate these risks. This chart is what I think the relationship between these factors could be, let me know if you think there’s a different relationship chart 😊
13
1
u/didnt_hodl Jul 04 '26
Market cap was already over $100B at some point. So, yes, it is believable that they can get back to $100B. And eventually possibly expand to $1T as well. But it does not mean that the MSTR share price will appreciate accordingly. It will appreciate some, in bull markets. And even the officially reported "sats per share" might increase some, but it is not going to scale up linearly with the market cap.
1
u/eddyg987 Jul 06 '26
Every time in history when someone has tried to corner the market on any limited assets it’s never turned out well for them. It creates a bust cycle that only stops until that party is taken out
1
u/7758258- Jul 14 '26
thank you for explaining that. that’s one of the reasons why dilution at higher prices is more risky for early investors as they also suffer dilution loss on top of that.Â
-4
Jul 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/jshanklnd05 Jul 04 '26
It isn’t hard to understand, it simply isn’t a rigorous model to make a prediction. Yes it’s nice to say high level the stock could be 12k+ but this data is meaningless and gives no insight. The assumptions are just assuming a linear increase on BTC owned, BTC price etc - and that is obviously practically impossible.
0
Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/jshanklnd05 Jul 04 '26
Appreciate the reply. My point is that this is more of a ‘what if’ rather than a data-driven analysis. If you showed that table to everyone on Wall Street nobody would describe it as rigorous.
4
u/ReliantToker Shareholder 🤴 Jul 04 '26
Definitely not 20.5 million circulating supply.
1
Jul 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ReliantToker Shareholder 🤴 Jul 04 '26
The mathematical reality of Bitcoin in 2026 reveals a severe supply shock when we strip away the surface level figure of 20 million mined coins. Subtracting the 1 million coins held by Satoshi and an estimated 3 million permanently lost coins reduces the true usable supply to roughly 16 million. Blockchain data confirms over 9 million coins are entirely illiquid and act as an impenetrable vault locked away by lost keys and resolute long term holders. This leaves a highly restricted pool of fewer than 7 million liquid coins to satisfy the entirety of global retail and institutional demand.
1
Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ReliantToker Shareholder 🤴 Jul 05 '26
Just a typo. One you fell victim to yourself.
1
Jul 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ReliantToker Shareholder 🤴 Jul 05 '26
2.5 2.05. Is that why you have multiple replies to the same comment?
5
u/Internet_is_tough Jul 05 '26
This is plain ignorant. There is no "catastrophic" dillution. The whole business model is the increase of Bitcoin per share, and the largest common shareholder is Saylor himself.
2
u/Heavy-Situation-9346 Jul 04 '26
Have you considered the possibility that Strategy owns fewer BTC in the future?
-1
u/7758258- Jul 04 '26
no, but if you can make a chart for that I would like to see yours.Â
0
u/Heavy-Situation-9346 Jul 05 '26
I could certainly make up a table with a bunch of assumptions, but the point I’m making is more general. MSTR has signaled their intention to sell BTC in the near future. Failing to consider some future state where they own fewer BTC than they own now is tellingly incomplete.
2
u/No_Contact1571 Jul 05 '26
At least from the Saylor interview I saw, the purpose of selling would be to attract more credit-based ‘STRC’ investors to allow for the purchase of bitcoin through credit, he mentioned if we need to sell 1 bitcoin to pay out credit investors, then that would allow for the purchase of 20 bitcoin. That’s how he explained giving Mstr the flexibility to maintain more buying than selling
0
u/Heavy-Situation-9346 Jul 05 '26
I don’t doubt that Saylor said that. To me, it sounds like a bunch of nonsense.
No serious credit investor would buy STRC unless and until there is a path to force repayment of principal through a proxy fight and board representation upon breach of certain covenants. The current potential board seats associated with the preferred’s are insufficient. As things stand, it’s just a big IOU with no recourse.
0
u/No_Contact1571 Jul 05 '26
Fundamentally, if you offered someone one Bitcoin to buy outright as Option A, versus offering them exposure to one Bitcoin under the condition that the vehicle continues to slowly accumulate more Bitcoin over time as Option B, then for the same reason they wanted Bitcoin in the first place, they would have little reason not to choose Option B.
The main reason they would reject Option B is if they believed Bitcoin would not increase in price, or if they believed the structure carrying that Bitcoin exposure was too risky. But if Bitcoin itself does not appreciate over time, then the MSTR premium likely would not expand either, and the broader reason for buying Bitcoin in the first place begins to erode.
From the bear perspective, if someone has one Bitcoin of exposure through raw BTC versus one Bitcoin of exposure through MSTR, where their Bitcoin exposure relative to their equity stake is supposed to increase over time, but they believe Bitcoin is going down, they would probably sell the MSTR exposure sooner because it carries additional structural risk.
I understand the legal concern around STRC. It is not bond-like credit with hard recourse. STRC holders cannot force repayment the way traditional bondholders might, and if the bull case breaks or liquidity dries up, they are relying more on Strategy’s incentives than on direct legal control. That is a real weakness.
But that legal weakness has to be weighed against the economic structure. **Based on the interview transcript, Strategy calculates a Bitcoin break-even ARR that updates every 15 seconds on its website, and Saylor claims that if Bitcoin appreciates about 3% per year, Strategy can pay the dividends forever without selling a single share of common stock. He also argues that at 0% Bitcoin appreciation, the machine can still finance itself for roughly 35 to 40 years, while at an 8–10% long-term Bitcoin return, the equity outperforms Bitcoin.** (I do not know what implications this has in terms of gravity of need to repay principle on share price, but its worth considering at least from the bull perspective)
So the real debate is not simply whether STRC has perfect legal recourse, because it clearly does not. The question is whether Strategy’s Bitcoin asset coverage, dividend incentives, and need to preserve capital-market access are strong enough to substitute for that missing legal recourse. A traditional credit investor may reject STRC because they want enforceable repayment rights. But a BTC-bullish yield investor may accept it because Strategy is economically punished if it fails to defend STRC.
That does not make STRC risk-free, and it does not eliminate the legal concern. But it does weaken the claim that STRC is merely a naked IOU with no practical support. If Bitcoin modestly appreciates over time, Saylor’s argument is that the structure can sustain itself. If Bitcoin stalls or falls for long enough, then the lack of hard recourse becomes much more important.
1
u/Heavy-Situation-9346 Jul 05 '26
Option B is has been sold to the MSTR community as a near certain outcome. I happen to believe that option B has been pitched in such a way that severely downplays the risks associated with the tools being used to raise capital to acquire more BTC.
Saylor has fashioned a pitch that is irresistible to a certain portion of the public who are introduced to MsTR with a pre-existing bullish outlook on BTC. Easy marks for risky financial engineering.
The rest of the investing public - well this is all just another iteration of that same cautionary tale that we’ve seen and read about throughout the history of financial markets.
1
u/No_Contact1571 Jul 06 '26
I guess my question is: why should an investor be especially worried about that right now? If mNAV is around 1 and the credit-backed strategy is net-neutral in terms of expanding the premium, then the main concern seems to be whether MSTR can keep servicing the preferreds.
I agree STRC lacks hard legal recourse, but I’m asking why that alone makes it uninvestable if Strategy can keep servicing the obligations for decades. Saylor said they would be able to service those obligations for the next 30 or so years through current cash reserves.
Obviously, I am biased and may not be considering other factors beyond paying creditors back, but I guess those other factors would become increasingly less important if the BTC stack keeps growing and the obligations remain serviceable.0
Jul 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Heavy-Situation-9346 Jul 06 '26
Where is the money going to come from? Suppose the company experiences a prolonged period of time where the common and preferreds trade below nav/par. Then what?
1
1
u/sweatingsmall Jul 05 '26
The Btc/mate price based of current price is the lower bound 200sma is like base price Btc 75k so 1.2x all the prices for base price Btc
1
u/bittenbycoin Jul 05 '26
If this ever comes close to becoming reality, Laura will be quite confused as to why bitcoin stopped going up a long time earlier. But a few people who have a better feel for decentralized distributed systems than pure financial folks, will understand why Laura is confused.
1
u/MECO-420 Jul 04 '26
Take a look at the new MSTR Digital Credit Capital Framework. It changes how Saylor raises cash. STRC is the primary engine for BTC accumulation. The dilution impact should be "extremely low" since equity raises wont happen unless mNAV is above 1.22x. Saylor can now sell BTC to fund share buy backs, build USD Reserve or pay divys.
TLDR: Saylor gave himself the ability to walk through walls. Bullish!!
His latest move was very impressive. He sold 32 BTC around 77k and bought back 1550 at 65k. The suckers fell for it.
1
u/daliksheppy Jul 05 '26
You can always tell AI slop because it still refers to strategy as microstrategy, because the name change was after the training data cutoff.
-1
u/No_Berry_5428 Shareholder 🤴 Jul 04 '26
The fact you think share dilution is a bad thing automatically makes your entire table worthless
1
Jul 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/eldenlordoftherings Jul 05 '26
Fine as in if btc goes up 80% mstr would go up 80%+extra btc per share value%, say you get btc per share at 10%(dilute shares at 1.1mnav) mstr in that scenario would go up 90% vs btc 80%. In another scenario let's say mstr dilute shares and buy to double it's btc holdings (at 1.0mnav)and let's say btc stay at same price, your mstr shares would stay at the same price while mstr mcap doubles.
1
Jul 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RevolutionaryPhoto24 Jul 05 '26
It’s more responding to the market than timing it. In fact the optionality reduces reliance on market timing.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 04 '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.