Strategy bought $100 million more Bitcoin but critics say MSTR shareholders now own less of it

Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) added another $100 million of Bitcoin to its balance sheet last week, extending a buying campaign that has made the company the world’s largest corporate holder of the digital asset while sharpening a debate over what its common shareholders actually own.

On June 15, Michael Saylor, the company’s chairman, said Strategy bought 1,587 BTC at an average price of $63,024 per token, which lifted its total holdings to 846,842 BTC.

That position is equal to more than 4% of Bitcoin’s fixed 21 million supply cap, a level that has turned Strategy from a software company into one of the market’s most closely watched Bitcoin financing vehicles.

However, the latest purchase landed at a more difficult moment for the company’s equity story. Bitcoin has fallen sharply from recent highs, Strategy’s stock has come under increased pressure, and the company’s preferred per-share metric for tracking Bitcoin ownership moved lower following the transaction.

That decline has reopened a question that has followed Strategy through several rounds of capital raising: Is the company still increasing value for common shareholders, or is it asking them to accept a smaller claim on its Bitcoin stack in exchange for a larger and more complex balance sheet?

Bitcoin stack grows, BTC yield falls

According to the SEC filing, Strategy financed the latest purchase through sales of its Class A common stock.

The company said it sold 1.7 million MSTR shares last week for about $209 million. It used roughly $100 million to buy Bitcoin and allocated another $100 million to its dollar reserve, lifting that reserve to about $1.1 billion.

The company still has $25.75 billion of MSTR shares available for sale under its at-the-market program. It has also expanded its capital markets platform to include up to another $21 billion of common stock, $21 billion of STRC preferred stock, and $2.1 billion of STRK preferred stock.

The scale of those programs has made each new transaction a test of how investors should measure dilution.

Strategy’s BTC Yield, which tracks the change in Bitcoin holdings per assumed diluted share, slipped from 13.0% on June 1 to 12.8% on June 8. It fell again to 12.5% after the latest purchase. The decline came even as Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings rose from 843,706 BTC to 846,842 BTC over the same period.

For critics, that is the core issue. Strategy bought more Bitcoin, but common shareholders appear to own less Bitcoin per share when measured using the company’s own Bitcoin-per-share framework.

Matthew Kratter, a Bitcoin advocate and frequent Strategy critic, argued that the drop in BTC Yield showed the transaction was dilutive. He wrote on X:

“Congratulations to Saylor and Strategy for diluting MSTR shareholders once again over the weekend! Bitcoin per share dropped yet again, and the Saylor simps are too st#pid to understand what’s happening to them.”

Saylor defends Strategy against dilution arguments

Saylor has rejected the view that the latest transaction should be judged only by BTC Yield, arguing that the metric captures Bitcoin per share but does not account for the cash Strategy added to its balance sheet.

His defense rests on a broader framework built around common equity Bitcoin exposure (CEBE).

Under that approach, investors distinguish between Bitcoin per share before senior claims and Bitcoin exposure available to common shareholders after accounting for debt, preferred stock, and cash reserves.

Saylor has described BPS as the growth metric for common equity, while CEBE BPS is the more conservative risk measure because it adjusts for senior claims. BTC Yield, in his view, measures execution on the BPS side of the equation but does not fully capture the company’s residual equity value.

That distinction matters more as Strategy’s capital structure becomes more layered. If obligations are short-dated or expensive, CEBE becomes more important because those claims can quickly weigh on common shareholders.

However, when liabilities are longer dated, and Bitcoin appreciates faster than the company’s financing costs, Saylor argues that BPS better reflects the upside available to common equity.

In view of this, he described the gap between BPS and CEBE BPS as “amplification.” Without debt or preferred stock, the two measures would be the same, and a Bitcoin treasury company would more closely track Bitcoin itself. As liabilities increase, the measures diverge, creating both the possibility of outperformance and the risk of underperformance.

For Saylor, that means Strategy’s liabilities should not be treated as a single risk category. Short-duration, high-cost obligations can turn leverage into a drag, while long-duration, low-cost financing can increase common equity upside if Bitcoin’s annual return exceeds the company’s cost of capital.

In that framework, the latest transaction can look dilutive under a Bitcoin-per-share measure while still appearing accretive when cash reserves and senior claims are included.

On this basis, Saylor argued that a well-capitalized Bitcoin treasury company can outperform Bitcoin over time, provided the asset appreciates faster than the cost of financing the structure.

Market analysts remain split over the balance sheet

Despite Saylor’s detailed defense of the capital structure, institutional analysts remain sharply divided on whether Strategy is creating or destroying value.

Quinn Thompson, chief investment officer at Lekker Capital, criticized the continued equity issuance, arguing that Strategy should strengthen its balance sheet rather than use new capital to buy more Bitcoin.

Thompson said MSTR common trades at about 0.8 times net asset value after accounting for debt and preferred equity liabilities.