Michael Saylor Rejects Schiff’s ‘MSTR Crash’ Claims, Citing 36% Annualized Returns in Bitcoin Era

Despite the Easter weekend, the crypto market remains actively traded, and the discussion around it does not stop for a single day. Today it intensified around the viability of the business model of Strategy. A well-known skeptic, Peter Schiff, issued what can be softly described as a recommendation to reduce positions in MSTR shares.

Among his arguments is the claim that Bitcoin’s five-year growth cycle of 12% significantly underperformed not only the technology sector represented by NASDAQ, but also defensive metals such as gold and silver, which delivered triple-digit percentage gains.

Saylor dismisses Schiff’s warning despite $3 billion paper loss

Yes, MSTR shares have risen by 68.5%, but, according to Schiff, this is merely an anomaly of trust, and investors are overpaying for the company’s stock in anticipation of endless Bitcoin growth, which has yet to materialize, given that it is trading at $67,000 while its November 2021 peak stood at $69,420.

This is where the main concern of the well-known crypto skeptic lies: in the event of a prolonged market downturn, the premium at which the shares trade relative to net asset value could turn into a discount, and debt servicing could become extremely difficult.

Notably, Michael Saylor responded to Schiff’s remarks by publishing a chart of asset performance in the era of the Bitcoin standard, starting from August 2020. With this chart, he emphasizes that since adopting Bitcoin as a reserve asset, its annualized return of 36% remains out of reach for gold at 16% and the S&P 500 at 14%.

The situation for Strategy remains tense. The company’s average entry price is around $75,700 per Bitcoin, and the current price implies an unrealized loss of approximately $3 billion.

Still, the conflict between Schiff and Saylor today is not a debate about charts, but a test of a hypothesis: whether a public company can survive and thrive while using an extremely volatile digital asset as its sole foundation, especially if that asset does not deliver explosive growth not just over one or two years, but over a five-year period.