Peter Schiff is seizing on Bitcoin’s February selloff to renew his long-running attack on Strategy, after the company slipped roughly $630 million underwater on its Bitcoin holdings.
The decline erased about $47 billion in unrealized gains that Strategy had built up just four months earlier, as Bitcoin fell below the firm’s $76,037 average cost basis. Bitcoin’s roughly 15% drop in the first four days of February pushed Strategy’s position into the red for the first time since Michael Saylor began accumulating the asset in August 2020.
Schiff, a vocal gold advocate and one of Bitcoin’s most persistent critics, argued that Strategy’s aggressive accumulation helped drive Bitcoin’s explosive rise—and that the reversal is now underway. Writing on X, he claimed Bitcoin “won’t bottom until Strategy sells its last satoshi,” suggesting that the company’s slowing purchases are now acting as a drag on prices.
The criticism strikes at the heart of Strategy’s business model. The company relies on issuing equity above net asset value to raise capital and buy more Bitcoin. A prolonged period with Bitcoin trading below Strategy’s cost basis threatens that flywheel.
Saylor, however, remains defiant.
As prices slid, he reiterated his stance on social media: “The Rules of Bitcoin: 1. Buy Bitcoin. 2. Don’t Sell the Bitcoin.”
Speaking at the Bitcoin MENA conference in December, Saylor framed Strategy not as a concentrated risk but as a vehicle for mass adoption. He said around 15 million beneficiaries already have indirect Bitcoin exposure through Strategy securities via pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, and retail accounts—adding that 15% of Strategy shares are held in Charles Schwab retail accounts alone.
Strategy claims it has delivered Bitcoin exposure to roughly 50 million people so far, with a long-term goal of reaching 100 million. Saylor also argued that Strategy’s accumulation added $1.8 trillion to Bitcoin’s total market value, with most gains flowing to holders outside corporate ownership.
Addressing concerns that Strategy controls about 3% of Bitcoin’s total supply, Saylor dismissed concentration risks, saying ownership is effectively distributed across millions of end investors. He has even suggested that at much higher prices and ownership levels, trillions of dollars in value would ultimately transfer to non-corporate holders worldwide.
The philosophical divide remains stark. Schiff views Strategy as a destabilizing force whose buying inflated a bubble now deflating. Saylor sees corporate participation as essential—arguing that without it, Bitcoin would still trade near $10,000, while with it, the asset could one day reach trillion- and even hundred-trillion-dollar valuations.
For now, Schiff is enjoying the drawdown. Whether this is a temporary reset—or the first real stress test of Strategy’s Bitcoin-first model—is the question markets are now wrestling with.
