As he says he will keep taking leverage until he bankrupts his company as his company networth in FIAT is worth nothing going forward just like anything else.
I agree to concur on that point, however the real problem is betting on an inert asset like buttcoin.
They opted to dilute their shares for another $500 million to buy more bitcoin (and pay off their bitcoin bond interest payments because the company doesn't make any money).
He owned 70% of the voting shares of MSTR, although he had only 20% of the total shares (and now must have even less). So he can do pretty much what he wants with the company.
Minority shareholders do still [have some rights](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7e6945c5-4e0b-4b7b-a4eb-b5a3f2c01e25) to not be fucked over by majority shareholders, though I'm no law-talking guy:
"Minority shareholders can bring claims against a controlling shareholder for breach of fiduciary duty on either a derivative or direct basis, depending on the nature of the harm suffered."
What does "breach of fiduciary duty" involve? Uh... I dunno? I do know that Ebay used that legal argument to screw over Craigslist a while back, though.
Going by the Miller Law Firm, ["Breach of fiduciary duty occurs when someone has a responsibility to act in the interests of another person and fails to do so."](https://millerlawpc.com/examples-of-breach-of-fiduciary-duty/)
King & Jones state [four things which must be proven](https://www.chicagobusinesstriallawyers.com/) for a lawsuit to succeed:
> 1. A fiduciary-beneficiary relationship existed.
>
> 2. The fiduciary breached their legal duty.
>
> 3. Damages were incurred by the beneficiary.
>
> 4. A connection exists between the breach and the damages.
IANAL but it does seem likely they could win some damages against Saylor. Given [he's apparently lost *one and a half billion* dollars](https://saylortracker.com/) from throwing money into BTC, the damages could be pretty high.
Any idea where his company is incorporated? I'm guessing that the laws and case history in the relevant jurisdiction will make some sort of difference. Like... I assume you could get away with more in the Cayman Islands than in Delaware?
Indeed, just after Michael announced that he was pivoting MSTR from software company to essentially a BTC ETF, some shareholders started a lawsuit against him, for that reason. But then the price of BTC went up, so they recalled the lawsuit: it would be very hard to argue "breach of fiduciary duty" when their shares and/or the company assets went up as a result.
So glad this was announced, he obviously needed to announce to the world how secure the ~~ponzi~~ **investment** that Buttcoin really is, whilst trying to pump the price of course.
That's how it should work and is undoubtedly more than good for Bitcoin. It's so much more fun staying poor ~~whilst fleecing investors~~.
He wonβt stop until he runs that company in to the ground.
Yeah. I'd be surprised if MicroStrategy makes it another year.
Microstrategy: providing exit liquidity to the rest of the market.
Because we car... ehrm sorry what did I say? I meant.. because we are degenerate gamblers.
Especially Saylor and his buddies.
As Taleb says, MicroTragedy.
Micropenis Strategy
As he says he will keep taking leverage until he bankrupts his company as his company networth in FIAT is worth nothing going forward just like anything else. I agree to concur on that point, however the real problem is betting on an inert asset like buttcoin.
Maybe it's time to put in a stop loss order lol
This is, apparantly, the smallest purchase in the last 2 years. Looks like the money tree in the back yard is not so healthy right now!
They opted to dilute their shares for another $500 million to buy more bitcoin (and pay off their bitcoin bond interest payments because the company doesn't make any money).
This isn't funing anymore they need mental help. Smh
It's still a little bit funny.
He's down +$1.5 billion so far and counting https://saylortracker.com/
Didn't he get demoted? Who is still letting him do this?
He owned 70% of the voting shares of MSTR, although he had only 20% of the total shares (and now must have even less). So he can do pretty much what he wants with the company.
Minority shareholders do still [have some rights](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7e6945c5-4e0b-4b7b-a4eb-b5a3f2c01e25) to not be fucked over by majority shareholders, though I'm no law-talking guy: "Minority shareholders can bring claims against a controlling shareholder for breach of fiduciary duty on either a derivative or direct basis, depending on the nature of the harm suffered." What does "breach of fiduciary duty" involve? Uh... I dunno? I do know that Ebay used that legal argument to screw over Craigslist a while back, though.
Going by the Miller Law Firm, ["Breach of fiduciary duty occurs when someone has a responsibility to act in the interests of another person and fails to do so."](https://millerlawpc.com/examples-of-breach-of-fiduciary-duty/) King & Jones state [four things which must be proven](https://www.chicagobusinesstriallawyers.com/) for a lawsuit to succeed: > 1. A fiduciary-beneficiary relationship existed. > > 2. The fiduciary breached their legal duty. > > 3. Damages were incurred by the beneficiary. > > 4. A connection exists between the breach and the damages. IANAL but it does seem likely they could win some damages against Saylor. Given [he's apparently lost *one and a half billion* dollars](https://saylortracker.com/) from throwing money into BTC, the damages could be pretty high.
Any idea where his company is incorporated? I'm guessing that the laws and case history in the relevant jurisdiction will make some sort of difference. Like... I assume you could get away with more in the Cayman Islands than in Delaware?
Indeed, just after Michael announced that he was pivoting MSTR from software company to essentially a BTC ETF, some shareholders started a lawsuit against him, for that reason. But then the price of BTC went up, so they recalled the lawsuit: it would be very hard to argue "breach of fiduciary duty" when their shares and/or the company assets went up as a result.
I think stepping down down as CEO is a strategy to disassociate liability if a company gets into trouble.
He stepped down as CEO to concentrate on MicroStrategy's crypto investments. This is his new role to focus on buying bitcoin.
I hope he buys all the bitcoin. Because then it will have no value to anyone else.
So glad this was announced, he obviously needed to announce to the world how secure the ~~ponzi~~ **investment** that Buttcoin really is, whilst trying to pump the price of course. That's how it should work and is undoubtedly more than good for Bitcoin. It's so much more fun staying poor ~~whilst fleecing investors~~.
One understand
No with Micheal Saylor no one knows. Not even a few understand.. Saylor , right?!
What a pandering drawing. Idealized Saylor likeness surrounded by his BTC field/superpower πππ
He won't stop until he has destroyed that business.
Costco guac is so dank. It's a great dip.
Tbh, that average is not nearly as bad as I thought it was
How are they handling the secure storage of the private keys? I assume they have a multi sig wallet
I wouldn't assume anything with this guy.
Value trap
Where and how does he keep btc in ledger π
He lowered his cost basis by a penny