MicroStrategy, the business intelligence firm led by Michael Saylor, has executed another massive Bitcoin acquisition, purchasing 34,164 BTC for approximately $2.54 billion at an average price of $74,395. This brings the company's total holdings to 815,061 BTC, acquired for a total of about $61.56 billion at an average price of $75,527 per Bitcoin as of April 19. The purchase is reported to be the third-largest single BTC acquisition to date.
The announcement has ignited a fierce debate among prominent financial figures regarding the sustainability of Bitcoin's current price levels. Noted Bitcoin critic and gold advocate Peter Schiff took to social media platform X to argue that the market's strength is artificial. He claimed Bitcoin's latest support comes from "aggressive buying rather than organic strength," warning that "a collapse is inevitable." Schiff elaborated, "The bigger you build the pyramid, the bigger the losses when it does."
Echoing concerns about market distortion, early Uber investor and venture capitalist Jason Calacanis questioned whether Bitcoin's price is being propped up by MicroStrategy's accumulation strategy. Calacanis directed a query to the AI bot Grok, asking what Bitcoin's price would be without the over $61 billion Saylor has injected into the market since 2020. The AI's analysis suggested the price could be $10,000 to $20,000 lower than its current level of approximately $75,525.
Calacanis has long criticized MicroStrategy's "convoluted" capital structure, which uses an at-the-market (ATM) equity offering program to fund Bitcoin purchases, arguing it creates an "artificial floor." He has previously stated he would not touch MSTR stock "with a 10-foot pole" and warned against any potential "Bitcoin bailouts" if the company's debt-heavy strategy fails.
However, some market participants have pushed back against this narrative. Critics of Calacanis's view argue that his assumption is flawed, positing that the investors funding MicroStrategy's purchases would likely buy Bitcoin directly if the corporate vehicle did not exist, thereby still providing market demand without the perceived custody risk.
