When BTC’s Biggest Buyer Becomes a Seller, Who Is Catching the 3,588 BTC Strategy Just Dumped?

Compiled & Edited by: Odaily TechFlow

Hosts / Guests: Austin Campbell, Zero Knowledge Group; Ram Ahluwalia, Lumida Wealth CEO; Chris Perkins, Franklin Crypto

Podcast Source: Bits + Bips (by Unchained)

Original Title: Strategy Sells Bitcoin Again to Cover Dividends

Air Date: July 7, 2026

Key Takeaways

This episode of the Bits + Bips roundtable is set against the backdrop of Michael Saylor's Strategy selling Bitcoin for the second time in a month — 3,588 BTC, cashing out approximately $216 million to pay preferred stock dividends. The three regular guests (also co-hosts) Austin Campbell, Ram Ahluwalia, and Chris Perkins dissect this structural turning point from their respective professional perspectives: When the largest BTC buyer becomes a regular seller, the mNAV premium disappears, preferred shares fall below par value, and the "print equity to buy Bitcoin" cycle breaks, what cards does Strategy have left?

Austin opened with a comment from a hedge fund friend — "Saylor holds 5% of Bitcoin, maybe this thing will only truly take off after he blows up" — highlighting the brutal logic of the crypto market: when someone becomes the protagonist, their collapse can ironically be the catalyst. Ram analyzed the dilemma from a macro trader's perspective: selling BTC destroys the narrative, while issuing new shares dilutes MSTR. He also mentioned hearing Saylor speak twice in London, noting that Saylor is fiercely defending the preferred stock dividend to rebuild confidence. Chris, drawing on his investment banking background, pointed out that the foundation of financial engineering has been shaken now that the mNAV premium has vanished.

But the discussion went far beyond Strategy. The trio deeply explored the capital structure issues of tokens versus equity — why there are no successful cases of "token + equity coexistence," the Pokémon card analogy, and the judgment that 99% of tokens will eventually go to zero. The stablecoin war was another major topic: Tether abandoning Europe's MiCA market, the "utility problem" of stablecoins (can you buy a cup of coffee with a stablecoin?), the governance black hole of the OUSD coalition of 140, and Robinhood entering the government money market. The latter half extended to the strategic significance of bank stablecoins — Scott Bessent's theory of a "Eurodollar market repatriation," JPMorgan potentially becoming the first trillion-dollar bank, the impending obsolescence of non-US bank dollar deposit businesses — and a valuation breakdown of the Securitize IPO. Finally, the three touched on the AI/semiconductor capital suction effect and the return to fundamentals in the crypto market.

Highlights of Key Opinions

On Strategy selling BTC and the "Three-Body Problem"

• "A friend who does global macro told me it's hard to see the next wave of institutional adoption from pensions, sovereign wealth funds, and central banks because Saylor is sitting on 5% of Bitcoin. His exact words were: 'Maybe the best thing is for that guy to blow up, and then this thing will actually take off.'"
• "Whenever someone becomes the star of the show in crypto, their demise is imminent. Strategy has been the star for a while now."
• "The crypto narrative is currently stuck on this MicroStrategy. Strategy isn't crypto, and crypto isn't Strategy, but we're all stuck here. It's like when Bloomberg only talked about the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) every day — the market eventually moved on."
• "His actions today speak clearly — he's protecting the dividend, hoping to bring back confidence."

On the mNAV Disappearance and the Breakdown of Financial Engineering

• "They have two paths: issue common stock and dilute MSTR, or sell Bitcoin and suffer narrative damage."
• "When the mNAV premium disappeared, the 'print stock to buy Bitcoin' cycle broke. You can't issue more at will because the market isn't giving you a premium anymore."
• "BTC actually rose during the sell-off week — Josh Mandel and Pete Rizzo both noticed. It behaved like a buyback. But the bears would say: the premium is dead, BTC hasn't truly rallied yet, and it's now a seller."

On Tokens vs. Equity

• "We already have Delaware corporate law and centuries of capital structure. You can slice cash flows into different tiers of debt, and what's left is equity. There's no third thing called a 'token' that you can force into this stack."
• "If you have common equity, a token probably needs to function like preferred stock or debt to have independent meaning. If it's just another form of equity, you might as well just tokenize your equity."
• "Pokémon cards are a good analogy — the company issuing the cards and the cards themselves are two different things. You can tokenize a product without necessarily tokenizing the equity."
• "Looking at the next ten years, 90% of the current top 500 tokens will disappear. I think it'll be 99%."
• "Druckenmiller said during the internet bubble: 'I've already learned that lesson. I don't need to learn it again.'"

On the Stablecoin War

• "Stablecoins are the new net interest income. Everyone wants to grab that interest. Tether makes so much money doing the most basic product — how can I do the same?"
• "Currently, the biggest challenge for all stablecoins is utility. You can transfer them, but what can you actually do with a stablecoin? Can you buy a cup of coffee with it?"
• "Tether's stance is clear: they call it football, not soccer. They're not going to play by Europe's rules. BNP Paribas can't afford to not do business in France, but Tether can simply abandon a market."
• "OUSD is a 'plan with a plan.' 140 members with completely different economic goals, and the details haven't been filled in yet. The hardest part — governance — was skipped. They pushed the technology out first."

On Bank Stablecoins and Market Landscape

• "Stablecoins are essentially the repatriation of the Eurodollar market. If JPMorgan or Bank of America issues a stablecoin, they can earn NIM from a Thai merchant or a Chinese supplier."
• "JPMorgan could become the first trillion-dollar market cap bank. They're already above $900 billion, spending $13-16 billion annually on technology."
• "The biggest losers might be non-US banks offering USD deposit accounts. If I can buy a stablecoin directly, why would I go through a local bank with terrible exchange rates and fees?"
• "Securitize's current trading is more like a call option — you're betting there's a 10% chance it's worth $18 billion, and a 90% chance it's worthless."
• "Last quarter, every S&P 500 sector underperformed the market, except semiconductors. Capital is being siphoned by AI."

"Maybe This Thing Will Only Truly Take Off After He Blows Up"

Austin Campbell: Before we officially begin, I want to share a conversation. I was chatting with a friend who does global macro, one of the best traders I know. I asked him what he thought about Bitcoin. He said it's hard to see the next wave of institutional adoption — pensions, sovereign wealth funds, central banks — happening with Saylor holding 5% of Bitcoin and having such a large presence as a single individual. His exact quote was: "Maybe the best thing is for that guy to blow up, and then this thing will actually take off, and everyone else will pile in." Whenever someone becomes the star of the show in crypto, their demise is imminent. Strategy has been the star for a while now. I can't help but think that, in a sense, they've become a headwind for Bitcoin's rise — and that itself creates their own problems.

National Security, Export Controls, and the Crypto Industry

Austin Campbell: Before we dive into the main topic, I want to raise a broader issue. The government is now trying to control crypto from a new angle — not by stopping the release of code, but by controlling who can use it. They want to use export control laws to restrict access to things that have already been published under the First Amendment. This is essentially picking winners and losers without a proper legal basis or due process.

National security is certainly important, but we can't just say "national security" and close our eyes without asking "why?". We can't tell people "use stablecoins, use crypto rails to build your financial life," and then in a split second cut it all off based on national security or export controls. The crypto industry isn't angry enough about this. This is our fight.

Strategy Sells Again: 3,588 BTC, $216 Million

Austin Campbell: Moving on to the main topic. Strategy sold 3,588 Bitcoin, cashing out approximately $216 million. This is the largest sale so far, following a smaller sale of 32 coins to pay preferred stock dividends. The question is clear: after the MSTR premium disappeared, will selling Bitcoin to cover dividends become the norm? Is Strategy still an accumulator, or has it become a regular seller?

Let's start with the facts. They broke a years-long streak of not selling, first offloading 32 coins, and then another 3,588 a month later. As of July 5th, Strategy holds 843,775 Bitcoin, with $2.55 billion in USD reserves and a cost basis of $75,700 per coin — well above the current trading price of just over $60,000. MSTR fell below 1 for the first time on June 27th, hitting 99 cents, before recovering somewhat. STRC bottomed at $74.57 and was back around $90 before our show. The dividend yield was raised by 50 basis points to 12%. The new authorization framework allows for the sale of up to $1.25 billion worth of Bitcoin, plus a STRC preferred buyback program.

Chris, you have an investment banking background; Ram, you do a lot of investing. Saylor has shifted from issuing MSTR stock to selling Bitcoin off the balance sheet. What does this tell you?

The Dilemma: Sell Bitcoin or Dilute Stock

Ram Ahluwalia: Two paths. Issue common stock — dilutes MSTR, stock price goes down. Or sell Bitcoin — damages the narrative. Last week we mentioned the possibility of a short squeeze rally for MSTR, which we saw in the news. More constructively, STRC and STRF have started moving towards par value in the last few days. They need to push it back to par. If they succeed, they get some breathing room. If not, it's a problem. I still see this as a trading asset, susceptible to a violent short squeeze rally, and we might be in the middle of one right now. I also want to see the dates of their Bitcoin sales compared to the announcement dates — if BTC held up or even rose during the sell-off, that's quite encouraging.

Last week I was in London. I went to a Goldman Sachs event first — packed, massively oversold, the amount of institutional buildout was undeniable. Then I went to a Robinhood event, and the DeFi stuff they're doing is pretty impressive. Before that, I heard Saylor speak twice. He focused heavily on defending and protecting the preferred stock dividend, trying to convince the audience of his commitment to Bitcoin. He's trying to navigate this three-body problem.

Austin Campbell: This also cuts to the divide between bulls and bears. The bulls would say: mNAV is back to 1.09, STRC is recovering, BTC actually went up during the week of the sell-off — Josh Mandel and Pete Rizzo both noticed, it behaved like a buyback. The bears would say: the premium is dead, BTC hasn't really rallied yet, and it's now a seller. Roland and Peter Schiff have both pointed this out. My question is: even if the preferred shares have recovered a lot, and Saylor can sit tight for a while, if BTC doesn't go up, won't we be back in the same spot a year from now?

Ram Ahluwalia: My guess is that fast-money traders came in to buy the dip when volume crashed last week. That's hot money, not long-term holders. They'll likely sell into strength to take profits.

Chris Perkins: From an investment banking perspective, when the mNAV premium disappeared, the "print stock to buy Bitcoin" cycle broke. You can't issue freely anymore because the market isn't giving you a premium. So you have to look at the asset side. Selling Bitcoin is accounting-wise feasible — cost basis of $75,700, market price around $60k, a book loss but cash is raised. The problem is that the action itself tells the market: you no longer believe in your own thesis unconditionally.

The "Three-Body Problem": The Strategy-Bitcoin-Crypto Narrative Lock

Chris Perkins: Unfortunately, we're stuck. The crypto narrative is currently locked onto this MicroStrategy. Strategy isn't crypto, and crypto isn't Strategy, but we're all stuck here, and it feels like we need to digest this before we can move forward. It reminds me of when you'd open Bloomberg and it was all PIGS — Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain — every single day. The market eventually moved on.

I'm ready to turn the page on this. What's somewhat encouraging is that BTC has shown considerable resilience today. There are also some positive tail risks — like Trump expressing a liking for crypto on the day the Trump account went live. I'm looking forward to us no longer focusing on this three-body problem and getting back to fundamentals and the details of other projects. Crypto is Bitcoin, Bitcoin is crypto, so Strategy is crypto — I want to break this equation.

There's also a related debate emerging: does value flow to the token or to the equity? You see this in both private and public markets. Some people dismissively say "all the value is in the equity, everything else is nonsense." I think it's much more complex than that.

Tokens vs. Equity: No Third Type of Capital

Austin Campbell: I think both can work, but the difficulty is having both simultaneously — unless you very carefully define their respective rights. We already have Delaware corporate law and centuries of capital structure. You can slice cash flows into different tiers of debt, and what's left after paying employees and creditors is called equity. There's no third thing called a "token" that you can force into this stack. You can make a token play the role of equity or debt, but making it a new concept alongside debt and equity — that's