Strategy's Michael Saylor Says "Bitcoin Has Won." Does That Make It a Buy?

Key Points

Michael Saylor's company holds a lot of Bitcoin.

Part of his analysis of the asset today is that its biggest obstacles are in the past.

That doesn't mean every argument he makes for buying it is correct.

• 10 stocks we like better than Bitcoin ›

On April 4, Strategy's (NASDAQ: MSTR) executive chairman and well-known Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) evangelist Michael Saylor stridently declared on social media that "Bitcoin has won. Global consensus is that BTC is digital capital. The four-year cycle is dead. Price is now driven by capital flows."

But Saylor didn't mention that his company holds about 766,970 BTC at an average purchasing cost of $75,644, while the asset itself is trading near $69,000. That puts the majority of Strategy's purchases underwater. So is Saylor simply trying to get investors to bid up the price of the coin to get his holdings back in the green, or is he getting at a complex of factors that really do make the coin worth buying despite his paper losses?

Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »

These claims aren't hard to test

Let's start by unpacking what Saylor actually said.

Saylor's core argument is that Bitcoin's price is no longer anchored to the traditional four-year halving cycle implied by the coin's protocol and its mining rewards, and is instead governed by institutional capital flows. Those institutional flows come from Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs), corporate treasuries, and investment banks and asset managers offering Bitcoin products. And the institutional players are now willing to offer investors a variety of ways to access exposure to the asset due to its broad acceptance as a scarce store of value.

Some of those claims stand up better than others. It's true that in the financial community Bitcoin is largely recognized as an asset, and at least 195 public companies now hold it on their balance sheets.

The ETFs have attracted more than $56 billion in cumulative net inflows since launching in January 2024. In that period, the coin's price is up by 63%. In March 2026 alone, those funds pulled in $1.3 billion, ending a brutal four-month outflow streak stretching from November through February. But its price was flat in March anyways, so the relationship between inflows and price increases isn't as immediate or direct as Saylor is positing.

As for the four-year cycle, it isn't yet fully disproven as an explanatory framework for the coin's price despite the higher importance of capital flows, and despite what Saylor might wish were true.

Per cycle theory, Bitcoin's halving cycle generates a supply shock which tends to make prices rise slowly in the first year after the date of the halving, then much faster in the second period of 12 to 18 months, eventually going parabolic. After the speculative mania of the parabolic period inevitably ends in a crash or collapse, cycle theory calls for a sharp correction or bear market of approximately one year, in which declines of 80% are usually on the table. To complete the cycle, the coin's price then starts to lazily and then vigorously recover in the year-long lead-up to the next halving, as investors front-run the next supply shock and bid up prices.

In practice, both before and since the most recent halving in April 2024 Bitcoin's price has approximately behaved in the way cycle theory predicts it should, albeit with its post-halving upside compressing a bit.

This asset is still a buy

So does all of the above translate into Saylor being correct about Bitcoin having won against its now-historical legitimacy challenges?

More or less, yes. Bitcoin has "won" because its integration into the financial system means its survival is no longer at stake.

The disconnect between the coin's price and ETF-associated inflows is most likely just a short-term phenomenon related to asset managers having enough Bitcoin on hand to create new ETF shares as needed without purchasing more of the coin on the open market. In other words, capital inflows probably do have an impact on price over the long term even if the noisy short-term data imply otherwise.

Therefore the synthesis here is that Saylor is probably directionally correct about Bitcoin's trajectory even if some aspects of his arguments are overstated.

The right approach here isn't to adopt Saylor's confidence and blindly buy the coin so much as it is to adopt his long time horizon and perhaps his habit of consistently purchasing some BTC at every price. Dollar-cost averaging with a modest allocation as part of a well-balanced crypto portfolio, held for five years or more, will give you ample exposure to both the structural thesis of the halving as well as to the institutional accumulation and capital flows thesis.

The more patient you can make yourself be, the more you'll win when Bitcoin does.

Should you buy stock in Bitcoin right now?

Before you buy stock in Bitcoin, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Bitcoin wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $555,526! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,156,403!

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 968% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 191% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.

**Stock Advisor returns as of April 13, 2026. *

Alex Carchidi has positions in Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.