In a single week — between April 13 and 19 — Michael Saylor stacked 34,164 bitcoins on Strategy's balance sheet at an average price of US$ 74,395 per coin. Total cost: US$ 2.54 billion. It is the third largest purchase in the company's history, the largest weekly accumulation since November 2024, and the operation that finally made the former MicroStrategy surpass BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust and become, unequivocally, the corporate entity with the most bitcoin in the world.
The current total in treasury: 815,061 BTC. At US$ 78 thousand — closing price on April 22 — that is worth approximately US$ 63.6 billion. In four years, Saylor transformed a declining BI company into the world's largest bitcoin fund using a mechanism that mixes market capital, debt instruments, and an almost religious narrative about monetary scarcity.
The question that matters in 2026 is no longer if Saylor will stop buying — it is clear that he will not. The question is: is the reflexive cycle he built a sign of bitcoin strength, or accumulating systemic risk?
The raw numbers
Before the analysis, the facts:
- 34,164 BTC purchased between April 13 and 19, 2026.
- US$ 2.54 billion in capital deployed, at an average price of US$ 74,395 per bitcoin.
- 3rd largest purchase in Strategy's history by number of coins.
- Largest weekly accumulation since November 2024.
- 815,061 BTC in total treasury — equivalent to approximately 3.9% of all bitcoin that will exist when the protocol reaches 21 million.
- Strategy surpasses BlackRock IBIT (which holds approximately 590 thousand BTC in custody for investors) as largest unified holder of bitcoin among publicly listed entities.
The market context in which this occurs is equally remarkable: spot bitcoin ETFs registered nearly US$ 1 billion in inflows in the week, BTC hit US$ 78.1 thousand on April 22, and Morgan Stanley just entered the ETF battle with an aggressive fee and 16,000 consultants. The institutional demand, which seemed tired in February, returned with force.
How Strategy financed it: STRC and the engineering of the preferred perpetual
The technical detail rarely discussed is how, exactly, Strategy raised the US$ 2.54 billion. Most of it — US$ 2.18 billion — came from the issuance of so-called STRC, a perpetual preferred security that pays a fixed dividend and functions as a continuous capital raising instrument. The remaining US$ 366 million came from direct sales of Class A shares in the market, via an ATM (At-The-Market) program.
The STRC deserves attention. Unlike a debenture that has a defined maturity, it is perpetual — it does not mature. Unlike ordinary shares, it pays a fixed dividend. The effect is that Strategy created an instrument that mimics an open-ended bitcoin fund with leverage: institutional investors who want BTC exposure with some interest carry buy STRC, and the capital goes straight to coin accumulation. Saylor publicly described the model as "a permanent capital bridge between traditional Wall Street and bitcoin".
It is elegant. It is also reflexive. And that is exactly where things get interesting.
The reflexive cycle: how it works, and how it breaks
Strategy's mechanism operates in four steps:
- BTC rises — from macro demand, ETF, natural flow.
- Strategy's NAV per share rises more than proportionally, because the company carries implicit leverage.
- MSTR shares and instruments like STRC appreciate, attracting more new capital.
- Strategy uses that new capital to buy more BTC, pushing the price up — and the cycle restarts.
It is pure reflexivity, in the sense George Soros would use the term. What sustains the next round is the expectation that the previous one continues working. While bitcoin rises and the market finances Strategy at reasonable cost, the motor spins. All good.
The question is the inverse scenario. If BTC corrects sharply — say, drops 30% to the US$ 55 thousand zone — three things happen in sequence:
- Strategy's NAV falls, and the premium of MSTR over NAV (which historically fluctuates between 1.5x and 3x) tends to compress.
- The ability to raise new capital via STRC or Class A becomes more expensive, with investors demanding higher yield to carry an instrument linked to a falling asset.
- If the decline is prolonged, Strategy may need to service debt without the ability to raise capital — and historically the market fears that, in an extreme scenario, part of the BTC treasury would have to be liquidated.
Saylor vehemently refutes that this will happen. Strategy's official policy is "never sell". But policy is policy until it becomes accounting or regulatory requirement. In 2022, during the trough after the previous peak, Strategy came dangerously close to this scenario and had to aggressively restructure debt. Came out the other side and doubled down. The model proved resilience. Does not mean it is immune.
Strategy surpasses BlackRock: what does this really mean
The symbolic fact — Strategy surpassing IBIT as the largest corporate holder — is worth more as marketing than as financial metric. IBIT is an ETF, with bitcoin custodied in the name of end investors. Strategy is an operational company whose treasury is bitcoin. They are different vehicles.
But the narrative effect is real. For the first time since ETF approval in January 2024, the company most active in buying BTC is again an operational corporation, not a passive financial product. For the institutional investor who entered IBIT for regulatory convenience, the signal is ambiguous: either Strategy is right about the cycle (and IBIT is late), or Strategy is overexposed (and IBIT is the healthy path).
Saylor himself seems to have perceived the ambiguity. His statements in interviews over the past ten days emphasize that Strategy "does not compete with IBIT — complements it". It is language from someone who knows that the step taken has political implication within the bitcoin universe itself.
Signal for the market vs. signal for the investor
For the price of bitcoin, the US$ 2.54 billion purchase in one week is structural. It removes liquidity from the spot market, signals continuous institutional demand, and provides narrative cover for capital allocators with less conviction. It is one of the reasons — along with record ETF inflows and geopolitical tension — why BTC rose from US$ 67 thousand at the end of March to US$ 78 thousand on April 22.
For the MSTR investor, the reading is more nuanced. The stock carries a premium over NAV, so buying MSTR instead of BTC directly means paying more in exchange for leveraged exposure. In a rising market, this amplifies gains. In a falling market, it amplifies losses — and the premium can evaporate before bitcoin recovers.
For the macro institutional investor, Strategy today is less of a "tech stock" and more of an almost pure instrument of bitcoin exposure with built-in reflexive mechanics. Those who understand this, trade it. Those who do not understand will discover the hard way in a potential bear market.
Implication for the 2026 cycle
Three macro effects that the operation reinforces:
- Corporate concentration of bitcoin accelerates. In 2024, it was a narrative. In 2026, it is a metric. Strategy plus BlackRock IBIT plus Fidelity FBTC plus a handful of other holders already control more than 8% of circulating supply. This reduces net BTC on exchanges and alters price discovery dynamics.
- Systemic risk rises along with the price. The more Strategy buys, the larger the "event" if it ever needs to sell. The market prices this in partially, but tends to underestimate tails.
- Other corporate treasuries should replicate the model. American Bitcoin accumulated 7,000 BTC but became a penny stock — a sign that the Strategy model is not trivial to replicate. But in 2026 more companies should try.
The regulatory context has also changed. Goldman Sachs published a note saying regulation is driving the next wave of institutional crypto adoption — exactly the opposite of what was feared in 2023. When the rule becomes clear, patient capital enters. Strategy is the most aggressive vehicle for this entry.
The ON3X perspective
Three readings to wrap up.
One: Saylor is an indicator, not a portfolio model. Tracking what Strategy does is useful to read the pulse of institutional capital. Replicating the strategy in a personal portfolio or smaller company is risky, because you do not have access to the same perpetual capital-raising instruments he does. Those who want bitcoin exposure with a long timeframe have a simpler path: buy and custody bitcoin directly, or via a regulated ETF.
Two: the 2026 cycle is already structurally different from 2021. The 2021 bitcoin was driven mostly by retail and Asian flows. The 2026 bitcoin has ETFs, corporate treasuries, macro allocators and — recently — Brazilian companies starting to use stablecoins via a regulated channel. Volatility did not end, but the nature of the demand base changed.
Three: the next crisis will test Strategy. At some point in the next 24 months, bitcoin will correct 30%, 40%, perhaps more. When that happens, the Saylor model will be stressed in a real way, not an academic one. If it survives, it proves a complete resilience test. If it does not survive intact, the forced selling event becomes one of the most discussed in crypto market history.
For now, the motor is spinning. The 815,061 BTC remain in cold storage machines. And Saylor continues, with the patience of someone who knows the next halving is just two years away, buying.