Strategy CEO Highlights Scenarios Where Company Would Sell Bitcoin — Report

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-05-11Última atualização em 2026-05-11

Resumo

Strategy CEO Phong Le outlined potential scenarios for the company to sell portions of its massive Bitcoin holdings, a departure from its "Never Sell" philosophy. In a CNBC interview, Le stated sales could occur to finance dividend payments for its Perpetual Preferred Stock if doing so increases shareholder value, defined as a rise in "Bitcoin per share." He emphasized a data-driven approach, prioritizing math over ideology. Other reasons include when the company's book value is below market value or to capture tax benefits. As the largest corporate holder with 818,334 BTC (~$65 billion), Strategy has significant annual dividend obligations (~$1.5 billion). Le believes the Bitcoin market's high liquidity (~$60B daily volume) can absorb such sales without major price impact. Bitcoin currently trades around $80,840.

Strategy CEO Phong Le has highlighted scenarios in which the company would offload some of its Bitcoin holdings. This explanation follows the treasury firm’s chairman, Michael Saylor, hinting at the possibility of strategically selling portions of its BTC over the past week.

Why Strategy Could Shed Some Of Its Bitcoin Holdings

In an interview with CNBC, Le analyzed the conditions under which Strategy could sell some of its Bitcoin holdings. While this move would be in stark contrast to the firm’s “Never Sell” strategy, the CEO believes a change in philosophy might be necessary given current market conditions.

The CEO mentioned that the company could sell some of its BTC to finance the payment of the 11.5% dividend yield on its Perpetual Preferred Stock (STRC). Le said that Strategy would sell a portion of its BTC to cover the dividend if it increases shareholder value (defined as a rise in the “Bitcoin per share”).

Source: @phongle on X

Le said in the interview:

I believe in math over ideology, and at the point where selling Bitcoin versus selling equity to pay a dividend is better for our Bitcoin per share, and for our common shareholders, we will do it.

Strategy’s CEO further explained that BTC sales are accretive to shareholder value when the company’s book value is below market value, or vice versa. Le also mentioned the option to sell Bitcoin to capture deferred tax gains (and losses, as in its current case).

As of press time, Strategy is the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, with about 818,334 BTC (approximately 4% of the cryptocurrency’s supply) on its books. With more than $1.5 billion in annual dividend obligations, Le suggested that its $65 billion BTC holdings are more than enough to cover these payments.

How Could Strategy’s Sales Affect Bitcoin Price?

As expected, the idea that the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin would sell its holdings to meet obligations has not been well received. However, the Strategy CEO believes that the premier cryptocurrency is liquid enough to withstand any major sales by his firm.

In Le’s own words, selling in the open market to fund a $1.5 billion dividend payment is a drop in the ocean of Bitcoin’s daily trading volume of over $60 billion. While admitting that Strategy is a significant player in the market, Le does not believe his firm’s activity has any major influence on price (considering how liquid the market is).

As of this writing, BTC is valued at around $80,840, reflecting a 0.5% price increase in the past 24 hours.

The price of BTC on the daily timeframe | Source: BTCUSDT chart on TradingView

Perguntas relacionadas

QAccording to the article, what is the primary scenario under which Strategy might sell some of its Bitcoin holdings?

AStrategy might sell some of its Bitcoin to finance the payment of the 11.5% dividend yield on its Perpetual Preferred Stock, but only if doing so increases shareholder value by raising the 'Bitcoin per share' metric.

QWhat are the two conditions mentioned by CEO Phong Le under which selling Bitcoin would be considered accretive to shareholder value?

ASelling Bitcoin would be accretive to shareholder value when the company's book value is below its market value, or conversely, when the market value is below the book value.

QHow does CEO Phong Le justify a potential shift from the company's 'Never Sell' strategy regarding Bitcoin?

APhong Le justifies the potential shift by stating 'I believe in math over ideology,' meaning that a change in philosophy might be necessary given current market conditions if selling Bitcoin benefits shareholders more than selling equity.

QWhat is the approximate size of Strategy's Bitcoin holdings, and how does it compare to the overall Bitcoin supply?

AStrategy holds about 818,334 BTC, which is approximately 4% of Bitcoin's total supply, with a value of approximately $65 billion as referenced in the article.

QHow does CEO Phong Le assess the potential market impact of Strategy selling Bitcoin to cover its dividend obligations?

ALe believes the impact would be minimal, stating that selling to fund a $1.5 billion dividend payment is a 'drop in the ocean' compared to Bitcoin's daily trading volume of over $60 billion, and he does not believe his firm's activity has a major influence on price given the market's liquidity.

Leituras Relacionadas

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight NewsHá 6m

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight NewsHá 6m

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbitHá 23m

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbitHá 23m

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Title: Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate A new technical proposal, BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork), has sparked a fundamental governance debate within the Bitcoin community. It aims to impose new consensus rules for one year to limit non-financial data (like inscriptions and Runes) on-chain, moving beyond simple node and miner policy filters to invalidate currently valid transactions. Supporters argue that default policies have failed due to workarounds, necessitating consensus-layer changes to protect Bitcoin's core monetary function from data spam. Critics, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, contend this dangerously centralizes judgment, undermines permissionlessness, and sets a risky governance precedent. They advocate for market-based solutions like fees or Layer 2s instead. The debate exposes deeper tensions: miners are divided on activation; node operators assert their sovereignty; Bitcoin Core developers influence defaults without direct accountability; and large corporate holders like MicroStrategy now wield narrative influence. Technically, BIP-110 may not fully block data and carries a disclosed consensus bug risk. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a stress test, forcing the community to confront the unresolved question: who legitimately decides what Bitcoin is and how it evolves, amidst competing claims from miners, nodes, developers, and capital holders.

链捕手Há 35m

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

链捕手Há 35m

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

Zcash, a privacy-focused cryptocurrency, has launched a new full node software called Zakura version 1.0.0. Developed by Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe and Dev Ojha, with private ZEC donations, its goal is to enable Zcash to process over 50,000 transactions per second (TPS)—matching the scale of Visa and Mastercard—while maintaining full transaction privacy and verifiability. This addresses a key bottleneck, as Zcash currently handles only about 1 private transaction per second. Zakura is a fork of the Zcash Foundation's Zebra node. It features chain pruning and snapshots, reducing disk usage and allowing new nodes to sync in under two minutes. It also offers compatibility with the legacy `zcashd` client interface. The scalability challenge stems from the large data size of privacy proofs. Bowe's Tachyon project aims to use recursive proofs to reduce consensus-layer data needs from ~500 MB/s to ~100 MB/s. For wallet scalability, Valar Group is researching Private Information Retrieval (PIR) tech to allow wallets to fetch their data privately. Zakura supports fast block propagation and the upcoming "Ironwood" network upgrade (NU6.3), scheduled for activation around July 28th. Ironwood was created to contain a critical inflation bug discovered in the Orchard shielded pool in May 2024. The fix uses "turnstiles" to trap any counterfeit ZEC created during the vulnerability period within the shielded pool, preventing it from entering circulation and restoring supply integrity.

marsbitHá 50m

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

marsbitHá 50m

Trading

Spot
活动图片