So, I am more of a techie (and with a decent knowledge of Austrian economics, which drew me to Bitcoin), not a financial analyst or investment guru, analysing account statements and balance sheets.

But recently, came upon this valid critique of Microstrategy. It is from someone who calls himself a crypto marketer, not another FUD spreading Buttcoiner shilling for the central banks.

The concern seems reasonable, that Saylor seems destined to be the Sam Bankman of this cycle. Also, whether this debt driven growth is healthy for Bitcoin, which may crash harder. But, just wondering, is the popularity of so called treasury companies a reflection of regulatory handcuffs that distort the present capital market?

Left to my own devices, I would not, in a thousand years, buy any Strategy, IBIT or any treasury company security. I would buy Bitcoin, and hold it in my Trezor, no matter whatever ratios are peddled by some financial wizards.

But, I also read, there are numerous funds, which, for regulatory reasons, can not by BTC. So, for them, Strategy is a proxy to gain Bitcoin price exposure within the compliance framework they are constrained to.

Does it mean Strategy is not fuelling a bubble, but merely acting as a conduit to channel those capital into BTC that would otherwise stay destined to rot in muni-bonds and treasury bills?

Is my interpretation correct? Share your thoughts.