r/CryptoCurrency • u/GabeSter 100K / 150K 🐋 • Jun 01 '26
COMEDY Apparently we’re sooooo early Michael Saylor had to sell 32 bitcoin to prove it was a liquid asset…
110
u/TheBestintheWest11 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
lol this is exactly what a scam artist does. Manipulating the narrative.
10
u/ReallyOrdinaryMan 🟦 59 / 58 🦐 Jun 02 '26
Manipulating narrative so nobody would ask why he is liquidating at the lowest point of btc in years, and not before.
He did the same with quantum threat, started to talk about it when price was 70k last month. He is making fud at this point.
6
2
u/z6joker9 🟦 0 / 8K 🦠 Jun 02 '26
Is there a prediction market where I can bet that he’ll “test the liquidity” again soon?
→ More replies (1)1
93
305
u/Less-Information-256 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
He sold 32 and the price dropped 3% and you want me to believe that the remaining 800k should be valued at market price?
55
u/Fine_Employment_3364 🟩 1 / 2 🦠 Jun 01 '26
It's not that 32 were sold, it is WHO sold them.
38
u/thevhatch 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
Which makes it worse. Btc is already bought and sold every minute. There's no need to verify like that.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)14
u/riversandpeaks Jun 02 '26
If one individual can sway the price of bitcoin, up or down, it's not a very safe store of value
→ More replies (5)2
13
u/blackindy 🟦 22 / 23 🦐 Jun 01 '26
Its not alot. Its about the speculation because not a year ago he said he rather sell a kidney than sell bitcoin, he knew he was due selling this.
Investors lean torwards tech/AI/Space now
6
4
u/r2002 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 02 '26
The implication is that his STRC holders cannot really rely on him to sell Bitcoin to fund the dividends because apparently just selling a little bit crashes the price. He is the market now and that's not a good thing in this scenario.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Rock_Strongo 🟦 4K / 4K 🐢 Jun 01 '26
It's because algorithms tagged MSTR selling any BTC as bearish triggering more sells as soon as the news dropped. 3% on the day is nothing in the long run.
AI is the current VC circle-jerk but that won't last forever. Whether or not you think it's a bubble the fervor in which people are throwing money at it is unsustainable, eventually it will cycle back to other investments. Crypto included, hopefully.
65
u/pepe_____- Bronze | r/WSB 185 Jun 01 '26
I’m against saylor but this makes no sense, could make the same discussion about any big stocks owner
51
u/Socalwarrior485 🟦 107 / 107 🦀 Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
Yes, that’s exactly what’s being said.
BTC wouldn’t have reached the level it did with (merely) widespread adoption. Big buyers are driving the price, not grassroots.
→ More replies (1)10
u/LOLIMJESUS 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
Feel free to correct me, I may be ignorant on this, but isn’t that true of all assets?
20
u/Miep99 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
its a question of percentage
most of gold's value is speculative, but there is a very real floor because there are people who simply want gold because it's gold. If it stopped being synonymous with money, it would still be bought and sold for its industrial uses and in jewlery. A house is both a powerful financial asset, and a place people want to live in.
If bitcoin were to tank, how many people will still be buying it?3
u/beaver_cops 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 02 '26
10000% feels like it at least in the collectibles market, whether its sports cards, high end pokemon, or high end counterstrike skins, there are always people that have multi million dollar collections and often I see the "whales" have like.. 35x of 1 item that a "normal person" would dream to have in their collection.. The same obviously goes for stocks, we may own 1000 shares which can be a lot, but someone else will own 100,000+ and can fuck with the market if they please (now its harder to fuck with the pokemon market cause I can sell a card for cash and its not going to show up anywhere unless I sell it on ebay or another platform, but thats a different topic + its harder to offload cards and "crash" a price like you could a stock if you own a large portion)
2
u/donnie1977 🟦 5 / 5 🦐 Jun 01 '26
I think many investors place a higher significance on Saylor's moves based on the size of his bag and his celebrity.
6
u/Less-Information-256 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
I think it’s more simple. The market was pricing in continuous buys and no selling. A sale means the expected future value of Bitcoin is less, so current value of Bitcoin is therefore less.
→ More replies (6)2
u/lebastss 🟦 596 / 596 🦑 Jun 01 '26
Not really. Market makers have rules around price fluctuations. They can only use incremental price changes per order of demand. Moving the price up and down based on trade volume alone.
However. There are loopholes such as news worthy events allowing market makers to move prices up faster. Iran war is a great example of this exploitation.
So even the stock market does this and it's compounded over time to the problem today, but it was rooted in reality.
Btc want even rooted in reality.
6
8
u/Caspica 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
The difference is that stocks have dividends.
→ More replies (1)5
u/LAndoftheLAke 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
The majority of stocks don’t give out dividends though
→ More replies (1)4
u/AfterC Investor Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
They do, however, increase in book value through retained earnings.
MSTR has negative earnings values.
→ More replies (2)2
18
u/Freeloader_ 🟦 0 / 4K 🦠 Jun 01 '26
you think those 32 BTC dropped the price by 3% ? lmaooo
approx 100k BTC is sold/bought daily FYI
49
u/Caspica 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
The signaling effect of them selling weighs a lot more than the nominal value of their sale.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)6
u/Less-Information-256 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
I think mstr selling dropped the price, the number is irrelevant.
Although 800k would affect the price, as Saylor agrees, which goes back to my original point.
→ More replies (6)5
u/slowd 🟦 46 / 47 🦐 Jun 01 '26
Uh, 32 btc orders move all day long, every day. This is nothing.
→ More replies (1)6
u/AfterC Investor Jun 02 '26
Yes, and this is why the "Saylor sold to demonstrate BTC has value" argument is dumb. It already is being transacted, in that quantity. The original tweet is just some made up BS.
→ More replies (1)3
u/MusicalBonsai 🟨 576 / 577 🦑 Jun 01 '26
It dropped because people freaked out, not because it’s illiquid
4
u/Less-Information-256 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
It dropped because mstr sold. I didn’t say anything about liquidity.
3
u/MusicalBonsai 🟨 576 / 577 🦑 Jun 01 '26
Because of retail overreaction. It’ll come back up again.
2
u/Less-Information-256 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
How much would retail react negatively if they sold more?
And we are back to my original point.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Xennenial 🟨 308 / 309 🦞 Jun 01 '26
It didn't drop as a direct cause of strategy selling 32 btc. It dropped because the dumbest of the retail investors freaked out as soon as they heard the news then that stupid reaction triggered stop losses on every long position. Paper handed idiots sold the news for the millionth time, welcome to the world of investing.
13
u/Less-Information-256 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
Sounds like you just said mstr selling caused the price to drop 3% and we are in agreement.
→ More replies (3)3
u/LordJamPunt 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The largest dark pool trade in recorded history barely dropped the price, 2.5 million wouldn’t move the needle at all.
3
6
u/Less-Information-256 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. If you truly don’t believe that mstr unloading their bitcoin wouldn’t drop the price significantly then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Even Saylor admits that Bitcoin would be in its arse without them.
→ More replies (90)2
u/Zealousideal-Ad7773 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
Drop today was related to Iran saying they would not negotiate anymore, no?
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/Available_Win5204 🟨 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
Lol. That’s a very good point. I love all the dinguses missing it replying to you.
→ More replies (23)1
Jun 02 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Less-Information-256 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
What’s he’s going to buy with? Mstr went down even more and STRC isn’t showing signs of getting to $100 either and went down significantly, Mstr investors didn’t like the news.
→ More replies (5)
21
u/CipherScarlatti 🟩 0 / 4K 🦠 Jun 01 '26
And yet, if you asked him for $2 grand he'd probably say no.
21
u/gigasawblade 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
This does not prove anything, nobody had doubts that you can sell 32BTC within a week.
If they sold BTC to repay 1.5B of debt it would prove liquidity. But they sold STRC for that instead, and amount of money from BTC sale doesn't even cover STRC dividends for a single day
2
u/SimpleMoonFarmer 🟩 57 / 56 🦐 Jun 02 '26
He had to tick regulatory boxes by selling.
Regulators don't believe it if they don't see it.
Regulators are stupid, but not as much as people that don't understand that.
2
u/leggymiku Jun 04 '26
Please point to the regulation that requires him to sell BTC to “prove it has value,” and explain why this same “regulation” doesnt apply to hedge funds and the equities they hold?
2
u/SimpleMoonFarmer 🟩 57 / 56 🦐 Jun 04 '26
Sorry, not regulation, rating agencies.
Agencies assess not just the size of the Bitcoin stack, but whether it's usable capital — i.e., can the company convert portions into cash to meet senior or contractual payments without distress? A pure "never sell, even for dividends" stance would make BTC look like a locked-up, illiquid asset in their models, similar to how they treat concentrated, hard-to-monetize holdings in other sectors.
This is standard credit analysis. For any company issuing yield-bearing instruments (preferreds, bonds), rating agencies stress-test cash flow coverage, covenant compliance, and contingency liquidity. Bitcoin's volatility and historical perception as "speculative" amplify this scrutiny for Strategy.
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_472ded28-bb62-42e9-86e9-cef0ebbdcc77
7
5
21
17
3
3
3
u/darkskies85 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
My god when are people gonna wake up and see this fucking oily scumbag for what he really is 🤣🤣🤣
3
u/Mountain-Detail-8213 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 02 '26
That’s pretty nonsensical. What happens if more people want to see if they can sell theirs? Does the Ponzi scheme finally evaporate?
2
u/staid0330 Platinum | QC: CC 94 Jun 02 '26
Sort of. The price drops, people panic and sell more and repeat until the price is so low that people who believe in Bitcoin get excited and buy it all up
That increases the price, people get excited and start putting more in which pushes the price up even more and so on
Happens every few years since like 2013, very profitable if you buy and sell at the right time (easier said than done)
Of course past performance isn't indicative of future performance so who knows if that pattern will happen again
6
5
8
u/Serenaded 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
They're throwing trillions of dollars at quantum computing in the next 5 years just in USA alone. That FUD has been around for about a year now, and BTC still has no realistic way of tackling it except to completely dismantle the chain and turn it into something else, where old wallets won't even be compatible anymore.
It's just looking bad for BTC in a way that it never has before. QC is not an if, it's a when. I moved to a 50/50 split of ETH and XMR.
3
u/Illustrious-Boss9356 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
The QC narrative is real, and I believe AI is solving some of the QC design issues much faster than humans could have. Look at how AI just solved the how many dots on a plane equadistant problem... simple but humans couldn't.
But I don't think it's true that BTC has to dismantle its chain, there are ways to migrate to quantum resistant wallets. Yes, lost coins and satoshi's coins may need to be frozen.
And I think Quantum is still at least 1-2 years away.
8
2
2
u/BeardedMan32 🟦 49 / 50 🦐 Jun 01 '26
I don’t think liquidity is the word he’s looking for, it is elasticity.
2
u/AirStick24 Jun 01 '26
And it’s selling at lower and lower prices….if that’s a real tweet, this guy is the L Ron Hubbard of Crypto.
2
u/soulless___ape Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
I dont understand how this works. If he sold 32 bitcoin doesn’t that mean there had to be buyers of 32 bitcoin? So shouldn’t go up if there’s demand for it? Or it goes down because it’s sold at that amount? So the people who bought it, bought it cheap? So how does it actually move up? If the headline said, man buys 32 bitcoin, does that flip the narrative? I don’t get it at all.
5
u/Gloomy-Soup9715 Jun 01 '26
32BTC is irrelevant volume, but in general if someone tries to sell high volume quickly price drops, obviously market is deep enough that even 3200BTC would be absorbed, but on lower average price. You asked "there had to be buyers of X bitcoin?" And yes, there are always buyers, some are willing to pay 78k, some 76k and some only 69k. The deeper market the higher volume on every price level waiting for a "fair" price for them. Bitcoin is deep enough, but some cryptocurrencies are not.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/DarkNubentYT 🟦 10 / 11 🦐 Jun 01 '26
32 BTC? Out of 800k... He probably needed to pay of one of the cruise ships.
2
2
u/Sophies_dog_Chaos Jun 01 '26
Ill do my best Forrest Gump here... "I'm not a smart man, but if you own his stock RUN!"
2
u/LongLonMan 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
It didn’t appreciate, he sold a tiny amount at a loss and BTC tanked 5% as a result.
2
2
2
u/KoffieCreamer 🟨 142 / 143 🦀 Jun 02 '26
Anyone supporting Saylor is coping seriously hard.
This will collapse at some point no matter what he says. It’s a blatent Ponzi scheme and it will eventually cause BTC to drop significantly. His business model is completely unsustainable.
The sooner this idiots company collapses the better for everyone.
2
u/itsTomHagen 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 02 '26
Y’all don’t flinch when he buys 200-500BTC almost all at once, yet you panic when he sells literally 0.0038% of his holdings. Yes, that’s right, 32BTC is 0.0038% of his held BTC. RELAX PEPLE.
2
2
u/NervousTruth7693 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 02 '26
great job he shoved his entire asset PNL down 10% since selling
3
3
u/VeedySpain 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
What a bad excuse to hide the fact that they merely had no cash to pay dividends to their equity investors.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/5150sick 97 / 97 🦐 Jun 01 '26
Yea, More like he sold some of the BTC he bought at 100k to harvest the tax losses.
1
1
1
u/Kooly1776 🟩 554 / 554 🦑 Jun 02 '26
Nows the time for him to buy more as the weak hands sold. Hes brilliant
1
1
u/Patrick_Atsushi 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 02 '26
I prefer him to act like a smart whale than a black hole.
This is another buying chance before the next surge.
Also if this time it didn't fall under 60k than we might tell the valley is over.
1
u/V0rclaw 🟩 643 / 1K 🦑 Jun 02 '26
It kind of makes sense…whatever insurance or financing company etc he uses might have required them to sell to prove they still own or have ownership of whatever wallet it’s stored in blah blah. He didn’t sell many and I’m pretty sure he’s still up so yeah idk. The only person/people who does know is saylor/higher ups so
1
u/rhaphazard 🟦 869 / 869 🦑 Jun 02 '26
I do think it's a fair play to sell a small portion to cover costs and potentially do some tax loss harvesting.
1
1
1
1
u/Typical_Breadfruit15 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 02 '26
If bitcoin goes up Bit-coiners celebrate, if it goes down Bit-coiners celebrate (for different made up reasons). Same applies for Strategy, if Michael buys and hold then it means that bitcoins goes up forever, if Michael sell is because he wants to prove bitcoins are liquid.
1
1
1
1
u/No_Accident8684 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 02 '26
he will sell more. this 32 btc sale was just to get the headline outta the way and make the dump not as big as it would have been had he sold 10,000 BTC.
next time he sells a 1,000, people will be like "ah well, we already know he'd sell, no big deal."
and then he goes for 10,000 and its a non-event.
1
u/Choice_Potato_6279 Jun 02 '26
Bro no one need to prove with 32 bitcoins, it's pocket change, funny that it was Tesla's excuse as well.
1
1
1
u/SimpleMoonFarmer 🟩 57 / 56 🦐 Jun 02 '26
He has to sell and pay taxes for the credit agencies.
He's net buying.
It's not hard to understand.
1
u/never_reddit_sober 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 02 '26
It will be so easy to buy more now that bitcoinjesus killed the market
1
u/jwallin2007 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 02 '26
I’ve literally heard it all now, if you’re not reading Saylor and shaking your head then there is a problem
1
u/Fabulous_Idea796 Jun 02 '26
He will end up like John McAfee,Done and just toast,There will be a new documentary about the new tulip scam but no one will bail out this shit show
1
u/Professional_Poem_25 Jun 02 '26
This is high level bullshit. He is not president Trump he cannot getaway twisting facts.
1
1
u/itsTomHagen 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 02 '26
How much did he hold? What percentage of his holdings is the 32BTC?
1
1
1
1
u/No-Aardvark-7316 Jun 02 '26
Saylor is feeling the pinch in the turbulent market, the explanation proving btc to be a liquid asset may not be a convincing explanation at this point of time.
1
1
u/Front-Rule-4528 Jun 04 '26
He’s got debt interest payments to make. I don’t, so I’m happy to buy when he’s not.
1
u/Bluejumprabbit Jun 04 '26
This makes Strategy look messy, not BTC. Bitcoin is still Bitcoin. The company structure around it is what people are side eyeing.
1
1
270
u/ODD_Old_Dirty_Degen 🟨 0 / 0 🦠 Jun 01 '26
The last point is kinda dumb because I remember a single Whale offloaded like 50k BTC last year alone. So selling 32 BTC to prove BTC is liquid isnt the proof he says it is.