Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) added another $100 million worth of Bitcoin to its balance sheet last week, extending a buying campaign that has made the company the world’s largest corporate holder of digital assets, while sharpening the debate over what its common shareholders actually own.
On June 15, company chairman Michael Saylor said: said Strategy purchased 1,587 BTC at an average price of $63,024 per token, bringing its total holdings to 846,842 BTC.
That position is equivalent to more than 4% of Bitcoin’s fixed supply limit of 21 million, a level that has turned Strategy from a software company into one of the most followed Bitcoin financing instruments on the market.
However, the latest purchase comes at a more difficult time for the company’s stock story. Bitcoin has fallen sharply from recent highs, Strategy’s stock has come under increasing pressure, and the company’s preferred per-share metric for tracking Bitcoin ownership has moved lower following the transaction.
That drop has reopened a question that Strategy has tracked through several rounds of capital raising: Is the company still increasing value for common shareholders, or 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 Drops
According to the SEC submitStrategy funded the latest purchase through the sale of Class A common stock.
The company said it sold 1.7 million MSTR shares last week for about $209 million. It used about $100 million to buy Bitcoin and allocated another $100 million to its dollar reserve, increasing that reserve to about $1.1 billion.
The company still has $25.75 billion of MSTR stock available for sale under its at-the-market program. It has also expanded its capital markets platform with an additional $21 billion of common stock, $21 billion of STRC preferred stock and $2.1 billion of STRK preferred stock.
The scale of these programs has made each new transaction a test for how investors should measure dilution.
Strategy’s BTC return, which tracks the change in Bitcoin ownership per assumed diluted share, fell from 13.0% on June 1 to 12.8% on June 8. It dropped again to 12.5% after the last purchase. The drop 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 of the problem. Strategy bought more Bitcoin, but common shareholders appear to own less Bitcoin per share, as measured by the company’s proprietary Bitcoin-per-share framework.
Matthew Kratter, a Bitcoin attorney and frequent strategy critic, argued that the drop in BTC yield showed that the transaction was dilutive. He wrote on X:
“Congratulations Saylor and Strategy for Re-Diluting MSTR Shareholders This Weekend! Bitcoin per share has fallen again, and the people at Saylor are too stupid to understand what is happening to them.”
Saylor defends Strategy against dilution arguments
Saylor has rejected the view that the final trade should be judged solely by BTC Yield, argue which captures the Bitcoin per share measure but does not take into account the cash strategy added to the balance sheet.
Its defense rests on a broader framework built around common equity Bitcoin (CEBE) exposure.
Under this 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 stock, while CEBE BPS is the more conservative risk metric because it adjusts for senior claims. According to him, BTC Yield measures execution on the BPS side of the equation, but does not fully capture the remaining share value of the company.
That distinction becomes more important as Strategy’s capital structure becomes more layered. If obligations are short-term or expensive, CEBE becomes more important because these claims can quickly weigh on common shareholders.
However, when liabilities last longer and Bitcoin increases in value faster than the company’s borrowing costs, Saylor argues that BPS better reflects the upside available for common stock.
In view of this, he described the gap between BPS and CEBE BPS as ‘reinforcement’. Without debt or preferred stock, the two measures would be the same, and a Bitcoin Treasury company would monitor Bitcoin itself more closely. As liabilities increase, metrics diverge, creating both the potential for outperformance and the risk of underperformance.
For Saylor, this means that Strategy’s liabilities should not be treated as a single risk category. Short-term, high-cost commitments can turn leverage into a drag, while long-term, low-cost financing can increase common equity capital if Bitcoin’s annual return exceeds the company’s cost of capital.
In that context, the latest transaction may look dilutive under a Bitcoin-per-share metric, while still appearing positive when cash reserves and senior claims are factored in.
Based on this, Saylor argued that a well-capitalized Bitcoin Treasury company can outperform Bitcoin over time, provided the asset appreciates in value faster than the cost of financing the structure.
Market analysts remain divided about the balance sheet
Despite Saylor’s detailed defense of capital structure, institutional analysts remain sharply divided on whether strategy creates or destroys value.
Quinn Thompson, head of investments at Lekker Capital, criticized the continued issuance of shares, arguing that Strategy should strengthen its balance sheet instead of using new capital to buy more Bitcoin.
Thompson said MSTR executes regular trades at approximately 0.8 times net asset value, after taking into account debt and preferred stock obligations.
He wrote:
“They are selling MSTR stock worth 80 cents on the dollar to buy $1 bills.”
According to him, the question is not whether issuing common shares can improve the capital structure for creditors. At issue is whether common shareholders benefit from a negative cash flow company relying on the capital markets to pay down debt and preferred stock obligations while continuing to buy Bitcoin.
Nic Puckrin, CEO of Coin Bureau, made a similar point: proverb Strategy has few clean options left if the common stocks trade below the value of their Bitcoin holdings.
According to him, issuing more shares of Bitcoin could be dilutive per share, while issuing more preferred shares would increase future cash obligations. At the same time, selling Bitcoin could damage market confidence, while suspending dividends could drive away preferred holders.
However, Dylan LeClair, director of Bitcoin strategy at Metaplanet, reversed that position. He argued that once the debt and preferred stock are subtracted, the common stock can still trade at a premium because Strategy’s enterprise value is greater than Bitcoin’s intrinsic value.
From that perspective, the issuance of common shares can be positive for the capital structure. LeClair said this move could increase US dollar net asset value per share and reduce leverage, even if it puts some pressure on Bitcoin per share.
Adam Livingston, an independent market analyst, also supported Saylor’s broader framework. He argued that the last transaction made a positive contribution as Strategy’s new Bitcoin and increased cash reserve were both withdrawn.
By Livingston’s calculation, the purchase of 1,587 BTC and the increase in the reserve by about $100 million added about 3,146 BTC equivalent to the common residue. That increased the common equity Bitcoin exposure from 145,142 satoshis per share to 145,319 satoshis per share.
He said:
“Only BTC looked dilutive. BTC plus cash contributed.”
His argument reflects Saylor’s broader case: Common shareholders don’t just own the latest Bitcoin purchase. They own the remaining claim on Strategy’s entire balance sheet after debt, preferred stock and other senior claims are taken into account.
MSTR’s tougher test is investor confidence
The dispute reflects a broader shift in the way investors assess Strategy. During Bitcoin rallies, the company’s model was easier to defend: raise capital, buy Bitcoin and trade at a premium to the value of its assets.
However, the current market is less forgiving. Bitcoin’s decline has compressed that premium, while preferred dividends, debt and future financing needs have become a bigger part of the investment scenario.
That’s why today’s $100 million purchase has attracted attention beyond its size. BTC rates fell, strengthening the dilution argument. Cash reserves rose, supporting Saylor’s claim that Strategy’s broader residual value was improving.
The next test is whether investors continue to accept that framework. Strategy can continue to buy Bitcoin as long as the capital markets remain open. The more difficult question is whether common shareholders will continue to view the strategy positively as their direct Bitcoin claim per share diminishes.