Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) has built a reputation for making weekly Bitcoin purchases near the local top in recent weeks.
On November 10, CryptoQuant analyst JA Marturn said noted that Michael Saylor’s most recent takeover disclosure followed the same script.
According to an SEC submitStrategy announced that it acquired 487 BTC for $49.9 million between November 3 and 9 at an average price of $102,557 per coin.
While the flagship traded sideways for most of last week, Bitcoin had reached a high above $106,000 on November 3 before falling more than 9% to briefly trade below $100,000. It continues to struggle with the support at $106,400 turned into resistance and the local bottom at $100,000.
However, Saylor’s company was unable to buy at the bottom of the market. Instead, the purchases came at one of the highest prices the top assets traded last week.
This is consistent with the company’s past purchases, which have coincided with short-term peaks, and begs the question of why the company continues to ‘buy the top’.
Although the consistency of this visual pattern gives the impression of a mistimed execution, it only tells part of the story.
Why strategy tends to buy into the power of BTC
The strategy’s purchases tend to cluster around moments of increased liquidity for reasons that have nothing to do with market enthusiasm.
The company’s corporate bonds deploy capital at specific points, such as following stock sales, convertible bond issuances, or internal liquidity events.
These windows rarely correspond to discounted market conditions. Instead, they often open during periods when Bitcoin is trading with deeper order books and lower execution risk.
Market analysts have noted that this structural reality explains why Strategy’s entries often align with local highlights. Large company orders are executed when market depth is greatest, which typically corresponds to rallies rather than downturns.
As a result, takeover applications can create the optical illusion of systematic buying at peaks, even if the timing is determined by liquidity availability and internal controls rather than sentiment.
For Strategy, the marginal price of a given tranche is secondary.
Saylor has consistently framed Bitcoin as a long-term monetary instrument, and the company’s operations follow that doctrine. The goal is stable exposure, not precise timing.
Thus, firm execution timelines are determined by business processes, and consistency of accumulation takes precedence over opportunistic entry.
Long-term performance versus structural risks
In the longer term, the criticism of Strategy’s timing loses some force.
Since Strategy started buying Bitcoin in 2020, its treasury has grown into one of the most profitable allocations of corporate assets in modern history.
The company now owns 641,692 BTC, worth approximately $68 billion, which was purchased at an average price of $106,000, resulting in a total cost base of $67.5 billion. At current prices, that position implies about $20.5 billion in paper profits.
Even more striking, Strategy has generated over $12 billion in Bitcoin profits in YTD 2025, despite the pace of accumulation slowing to a few hundred coins in recent weeks.
This is the paradox at the heart of the Saylor strategy: the entries look bad, but the results are exceptional. It shows the dollar cost average of companies on a structural timeline.
The short-term volatility reinforces the impression that Strategy is buying tops; the multi-cycle reality shows that these “tops” often become very profitable entries over time.
A broader comparison emphasizes this point. Over the past year, Strategy (MSTR) stock has shown 87% volatility, sharply higher than Bitcoin’s 44%, and more volatile than the company’s other digital asset products.
But despite this intensity, cumulative exposure to Bitcoin has turned that volatility into an asymmetrical advantage.
However, the strong returns do not protect the company against structural vulnerabilities. Bar chart facts shows that a $10,000 investment in MSTR during the dotcom peak would be worth $7,207 today, illustrating two decades of volatility independent of Bitcoin strategy.
Additionally, some analysts argue that Strategy’s dependence on the capital markets poses material risks if the cryptocurrency experiences a multi-year recession.
These concerns have increased as the company’s balance sheet has evolved.
Chris Millas, advisor at Mellius Bitcoin, Brazil’s first Bitcoin treasury company, noted that the company had no interest-bearing debt during the last bear market and years before the earliest maturity date of the bonds. So the stock volatility was painful, but had a limited operational impact.
However, this cycle is different. Strategy now has interest-bearing obligations that must be met regardless of market conditions.
Millas argued that a severe decline in MSTR’s share price, which is historically plausible given share price declines of 70-80% in previous cycles, would limit the company’s flexibility and increase the likelihood of dilutive capital issuances.
He said that dilution could in turn put further pressure on shares, creating a feedback loop that increases downside risk.
Strategy faces roughly $689 million in interest payments due in 2026. Without new capital, the company cannot meet that obligation.
Furthermore, recent fundraisings show how financing conditions have changed, with preferred stock yields around 10.5%, above initial expectations of almost 10%. The widening spread indicates that capital is becoming more expensive, complicating the economics of debt-financed Bitcoin accumulation.
As a result, skeptics have pointed out that the model resembles a leveraged carry trade with a limited margin of error. Some have even labeled the process as “Ponzi-like”while stating that the company’s liabilities are growing faster than its operating income.
According to them, this leaves the Strategy dependent on rising Bitcoin prices or continued investor interest in high-yield instruments.
Signal power and narrative strategy
Even with these risks, Strategy’s purchases continue to exert outsized narrative influence. The company files frequent and transparent disclosures, and its visibility allows its acquisitions to function as a form of market signaling.
Thus, Strategy’s buying of strength reinforces the message that Bitcoin is a long-term monetary asset and not a timing-sensitive transaction.
Additionally, the filings help stabilize sentiment by demonstrating stable institutional demand, as several of Strategy’s higher-priced filings in recent weeks have coincided with periods of market hesitation.
This has allowed Strategy to effectively position itself as the most consistent large-scale buyer in the market, and its disclosures serve both operational and symbolic purposes.
This dual role explains why Saylor continues to accumulate through short-term spikes.
For Strategy, the purchase price of any given week is secondary to the multi-year trajectory of both Bitcoin and the company’s identity as the largest business owner.
The optics can be critical, especially during periods of increased volatility. Yet the framework guiding purchases remains consistent: the strategy positions itself not for the next quarter, but for the next decade.
