专访Michael Saylor：我是说了要卖币，但绝不会是净卖

Source: David Lin 

Compiled by Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina); Translator: Azuma (@azuma_eth)

Editor's Note: During last Monday's earnings call, Strategy mentioned for the first time that it was "prepared to sell Bitcoin to pay dividends if necessary," a statement that immediately sparked intense debate in the market about the company "abandoning its faith."

In response, Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor recently provided an in-depth explanation of the underlying logic behind this decision during an appearance on David Lin's podcast, emphasizing that he only said they "will sell," not that they would be a "net seller." Saylor also mentioned that Strategy is leveraging Bitcoin's extremely high appreciation properties as "digital capital" to achieve arbitrage by issuing digital credit instruments (such as STRC), thereby ensuring continuous net growth of its holdings. The following is the full transcript of the podcast (with edits), compiled by Odaily Planet Daily.

Podcast Interview

David Lin (Host A): It is a great honor to co-host this exciting interview with Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor. Co-hosting with me is Bonnie Chang. We'll start with Strategy's recent announcement and Michael Saylor's posts on social media. Bonnie, let's begin.

Bonnie Chang (Host B): You made an announcement last week that shocked everyone.

Michael Saylor: Uh, you're probably referring to our statement on the earnings call — that we are prepared to sell Bitcoin if necessary to pay STRC dividends.

Bonnie Chang: I believe it was a well-considered decision. What was the thinking behind it?

Michael Saylor: The most important point is that we want the market to understand that Bitcoin's capital gains can be used to fund credit dividends. When we sell $1 million worth of STRC credit products, we turn around and buy $1 million worth of Bitcoin. Our expectation for Bitcoin is an annual appreciation of about 30%, and in reality, it has been appreciating closer to 40% per year. We can strip out the first 11% of this capital gain and pay it out as dividends.

The market has been confused about what we would use to pay dividends. For most of our history, we paid dividends by selling common stock (MSTR equity). MSTR equity is a derivative of Bitcoin and usually trades at a premium to Bitcoin. So, we were selling Bitcoin derivatives at the time, but some people worried we might not be able to sell equity in the future.

Then came some short-seller arguments saying we must sell equity; others said the company would never sell its Bitcoin. These arguments evolved into — "Well, if they're not going to sell Bitcoin, then Bitcoin must have no value, and they can never sell it. If they can't sell it, then we can't count Bitcoin as a balance sheet asset."

If you own something worth $65 billion, and people want to value it at zero, that's not good, right? We don't want credit rating agencies to think the company has zero assets. We want them to think we have $65 billion in assets. Also, some "haters" online keep complaining that this is a Ponzi scheme because we fund preferred stock dividends by selling equity.

What we want to do is strengthen this business model — selling credit to invest in Bitcoin; over time, the investment appreciates faster than the dividends accumulate; then we realize the capital gains and pay the dividends.

We believe the best way to illustrate this is to make it clear that "the company never needs to sell common stock." We can simply sell highly appreciated Bitcoin to pay dividends. This is essentially using capital gains to pay credit dividends.

I think this is like a real estate development company. They raise funds by issuing credit instruments, buy land at $10,000 per acre, develop it to make it worth $100,000 per acre, and then realize that capital appreciation. You can sell the land at $100,000 per acre, lease it after full development, or take out a new mortgage. No one questions a real estate development company making capital investments through credit income. We are doing the same thing with Bitcoin, and we want to ensure the market understands this.

I became famous for saying, "Never sell your Bitcoin," which is why the internet exploded when they heard we were going to sell. But if I were more precise, it should be "Never be a net seller of Bitcoin." It's just that "never be a net seller" doesn't sound as catchy or roll off the tongue as easily.

I think during these periods, even if we sell 1 Bitcoin, we will buy another 10 to 20. So, what you're actually talking about is a situation of "buying 10, selling 1, net buying 9." Once people understand that, it shouldn't be a problem, but right now, it's a controversial topic.

Bonnie Chang: Can you explain how you can sell 1 Bitcoin while buying 10?

Michael Saylor: Sure. Strategy's main Bitcoin accumulation engine is STRC. We sold $3.2 billion worth of STRC in April, so we bought $3.2 billion worth of Bitcoin. The dividend was around $80 to $90 million. So, in this month where we raised $3 billion, we only need to use $80 or $90 million to pay dividends — essentially, you are buying 30 Bitcoins while selling 1.

Our "break-even rate" is approximately 2.3%. This means if our issued credit debt equals 2.3% of our Bitcoin holdings, then even if we sell Bitcoin to pay dividends, we will always be a net buyer of Bitcoin. Another point is that if Bitcoin appreciates by 2.3% annually, we can permanently pay dividends and continue creating value without needing to sell any common stock.

In the first four months of this year, we have sold about $5 billion worth of STRC. At this rate, the issuance rate for the year will be 15% to 20%. As long as the company is growing, it will buy more Bitcoin than it sells. I expect to be a net buyer of Bitcoin every month and every quarter in the future.

Bonnie Chang: I have another question. Many investors have a near-religious belief in "never selling Bitcoin." Do you think they should still follow this advice?

Michael Saylor: Yes, I think you should aim to be a "net accumulator" of Bitcoin. When I say "never sell your Bitcoin," I mean that if you spend it to buy something, make sure you replenish it while spending it.

There are many crypto or Bitcoin believers who say they want to buy things with Bitcoin. I would say, fill the gap after consumption. Don't be a net seller of Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is capital. At the end of each year, you should have more Bitcoin than at the beginning.

For example, if Google invests $1 billion in building a data center and makes $10 billion from it, they net $9 billion. This doesn't cause the dollar market to crash, right? No one would exclaim, "Google sold dollars to buy a data center." The dollar would be fine, and it wouldn't shake Google's business model. They spent $1 billion to invest in the business; it's normal and rational. Sometimes you spend money to make more money.

So, if you spend 1 Bitcoin to earn 10 Bitcoins, I think it's good for Bitcoin and good for the company... When the equity capital market is less liquid than the Bitcoin market, we want to be able to use that market.

Whenever a company deprives itself of options, saying "we will never do something," whatever it is, they end up regretting it. For example, if we said we "will never, ever buy back our own stock, only sell stock," then shorts would sell our stock aggressively, driving it down to $1. When the stock price has a huge discount to net asset value (NAV), if we could buy back, those shorts would lose a lot. By exploiting their irrationality, we can make a lot of money.

So, what we really expressed on the earnings call was — we will exchange STRC for MSTR, BTC for MSTR, pay dividends with BTC or MSTR, and do whatever is in the best interest of the company. But over time, we expect to be a net accumulator of Bitcoin. This doesn't change how we trade assets daily. Whether we sell credit bonds, equity, or Bitcoin capital will depend on market conditions and pricing errors.

Another thing we said yesterday was that we are prepared to buy back our bonds. Currently, our corporate bonds are trading cheap, undervalued, so it makes sense to buy them back, not sell. We won't sell undervalued assets; we buy undervalued assets and arbitrage any opaque inefficiencies. If the market knows we will do this, it will ensure all these assets get a fair valuation. This is beneficial for investors in all these instruments, and ultimately, it is our fiduciary duty.

David Lin: One of your biggest critics, Peter Schiff, wrote this morning: "Yesterday, Saylor admitted that MSTR (MicroStrategy) would sell Bitcoin if needed to pay STRC dividends. I think this commitment is meant to prolong the so-called Ponzi scheme. But I guess when the time comes, he will choose to suspend dividends and let STRC crash, rather than let Bitcoin crash." What is your response to that?

Michael Saylor: Peter thinks Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. Peter doesn't really like anything in this space. Bitcoin is "digital capital," and we buy this capital by selling equity and credit instruments, thereby creating a digital financial company. I think Bitcoin will endure because it represents global economic wealth in tokenized form with full property rights.

We built a credit instrument on top of this, STRC, which simply strips out volatility, reduces risk, and extracts or "distills" yield from digital capital. If you don't acknowledge Bitcoin as legitimate, you will never acknowledge any derivatives built on top of it as legitimate. But for those who believe Bitcoin can store economic wealth in tokenized form, what we are doing is very straightforward.

STRC adopts an overcollateralization model: for every $5 of Bitcoin, we sell $1 of credit bonds, and that $1 credit bond has a defined yield. Many people believe Bitcoin is a legitimate asset but just can't stand its volatility. They don't want to put their kids' tuition money, due in 12 weeks, into Bitcoin. So, for them, digital credit makes a lot of sense because the principal is protected, it's more stable. Additionally, they can get 3 to 4 times the yield of money market funds through STRC. This is precisely the trait that makes Bitcoin superior to other capital assets, allowing us to pay this high dividend yield.

David Lin: Here's a theory I want to ask you about, and then I'll hand it back to Bonnie. Some traders have noticed that whenever STRC pays a dividend, the ex-dividend price is below par for a period (maybe a day or two). Once it reaches par, that's when Strategy buys Bitcoin. So, they start "front-running" by buying Bitcoin before STRC reaches par, betting that you and Strategy will buy Bitcoin at par. Can you comment on this?

Michael Saylor: What happens around the dividend date is that there is enormous demand for STRC because there's about 90 cents of dividends due after the record date. So, billions and tens of billions of STRC trade hands before the record date. The day after the record date, its price drops by 60 or 70 cents, and then gradually recovers to par over the next week or two.

So, that's normal. Those people are arbitrageurs. Their idea is to capture roughly a 42% annualized yield by having capital tied up for about 12 days a year. They have their own calculations. This is fine, and it's good for us because it creates liquidity and engagement. This situation will continue.

As for the second idea, can you "front-run" the Bitcoin market? The Bitcoin derivatives market sees $50 billion in daily volume. So, I don't think anyone has enough capital to move that market.

In my view, Bitcoin is somewhat like "tech capital squared." The factors driving the Bitcoin market are trade wars, hot wars, foreign policy, national situations, and the situation with Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, and then currency wars — like whether we expect SOFR to drop to 200 basis points, or if the yield curve is being distorted. You can see we are currently in a fairly tight monetary environment, so these macro factors are the primary drivers of Bitcoin.

I can tell you a fact: we once bought $100 million worth of Bitcoin in an hour, and it didn't move the price; we bought $200 million worth in an hour, and it didn't move the price; we bought $200 or $300 million and stopped, and the price actually went up.

So, nobody has enough power to drive Bitcoin's price action... Well, maybe if you plan to inject $30 billion into the market in one afternoon. But I've spent a lot of money. We have bought more Bitcoin than anyone I know, probably having purchased around $62 billion worth. I believe it's a global market with its own momentum.

So, those claims that we can influence the price are actually flattering us, but I don't think so.

Bonnie Chang: Why do you say the price doesn't move when you buy so much Bitcoin?

Michael Saylor: Because the market liquidity is incredibly deep. Let's say I buy $1 billion today. Even so, that's just 1/50th of the $50 billion volume.

If you ask traders, they'll say the spot market's daily volume is sometimes $20 billion, and the derivatives market can be as high as $80 billion. In such a deep market, what is $100 million? That's what makes it special. Over the weekend, if you want to take a $1 billion position with 20x leverage, you can do it in the Bitcoin market; if you want to get a $1 billion credit line in an hour, you can do it in the Bitcoin market.

I do think macro factors drive Bitcoin, and sometimes Bitcoin has its own life force. Micro factors drive it too – I mean industry factors like the formation of digital credit, bank credit formation, and investor sentiment towards Bitcoin assets. All these drive the market. But I think Bitcoin is bigger than all of us, and that's why we have confidence in it – because no single participant can prop it up or hold it back.

David Lin: If the Strait of Hormuz remains closed for the foreseeable future, several forces will intertwine. First, some say inflationary pressures will persist; second, the Fed might eventually need to cut rates because they are trapped by high inflation. So, what ultimately happens to liquidity? If the Fed remains trapped, what happens to Bitcoin?

Michael Saylor: I think when you face tight monetary policy, highly strained global trade, and high geopolitical tensions due to foreign policy or war (whether in Ukraine or Iran), all of these are somewhat constraining and act as headwinds. I think when these factors reverse, they will become tailwinds.

But regardless, Bitcoin will grind up. This is because the annual organic supply from miners is only about $10 to $12 billion, or just 450 Bitcoins per day. You can do the math yourself. Then, every time we raise another $10 billion in capital, we buy the entire year's supply. So, if a bank creates $10 billion in credit, that's "one turn of the wheel"; if we sell $10 billion in STRC digital credit, that's "a second turn of the wheel"; when $10 billion flows into IBIT (BlackRock's Bitcoin spot ETF), that's "a third turn of the wheel."

So, capital flows, digital credit, digital capital packaging tools, and bank credit are all driving the market fundamentals, and they are all positive. Regardless of macro factors, you will see continuous adoption. The macro wind just determines whether, when we should grind up 30%, a tailwind catapults us to 50%, or a headwind slows our pace somewhat.

David Lin: Has your logic regarding Bitcoin changed?

Michael Saylor: No changes. But I would say it's now clear that Bitcoin is "digital capital," and one thing has become very clear over the past 12 months – one of Bitcoin's killer apps is digital credit.

Many people are wondering, what is the killer app for a $1.5 trillion asset class with hundreds of billions in daily trading volume? The answer is its use as collateral for credit. Since digital capital is the best-performing capital asset (and it is, outperforming the S&P 500 by two to three times), it logically follows that we can create the best-performing credit assets on top of this capital asset base.

What we have seen over the past year is that STRC is the most liquid credit instrument, the most liquid preferred stock