Economist Slams Strategy’s Bitcoin Gambit Despite $8 Billion Profit – Here’s His Case
On December 29, 2025, Michael Saylor’s company Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) revealed yet another sizeable addition to its already massive Bitcoin treasury. The firm disclosed that it had bought 1,229 BTC for roughly $109 million, paying an average of about $88,568 per coin.
For years, Strategy has been the poster child of corporate Bitcoin accumulation, regularly announcing nine-figure purchases and positioning BTC as its primary reserve asset. Each new buy has typically been met with enthusiasm from crypto investors, who see the company as a high-conviction ally in the long-term Bitcoin thesis.
But not everyone is applauding. Prominent economist Peter Schiff, a long-time critic of Bitcoin and vocal gold advocate, has sharply criticized Strategy’s approach, arguing that the results are far less impressive than they appear at first glance – even with more than $8 billion in unrealized profit on the books.
Schiff: 5 Years of Buying for Just 3% a Year
Shortly after Strategy’s latest announcement hit social media, Schiff posted his assessment of the company’s performance. His core argument is straightforward: considering the huge capital deployed, the returns do not justify the risk.
According to public data, Strategy has spent approximately $50.44 billion accumulating Bitcoin over a five-year period. At current prices, this position is up about 16%. Schiff translates that into a simple metric – an average return of roughly 3% per year – which he dismisses as underwhelming for such an aggressive, high-volatility bet.
From Schiff’s perspective, a 16% gain on $50+ billion, after half a decade of relentless buying, is hardly a victory. He suggests that almost any other asset would have delivered a better risk‑adjusted outcome. His criticism is sharpened by the fact that in the same period, traditional safe-haven assets like gold and silver have broken to new all-time highs, while Bitcoin has struggled to maintain momentum after its own peak.
Strategy’s Bitcoin Mountain: 3.2% of Total Supply
Despite the criticism, Strategy’s position in the Bitcoin ecosystem is enormous and unprecedented for a publicly traded company. The firm currently holds 672,497 BTC, equivalent to about 3.202% of the entire Bitcoin supply that will ever exist.
The average acquisition price of this stash stands near $74,997 per Bitcoin, considering all historical purchases up to the most recent one. With today’s market levels delivering a 16% unrealized gain, Strategy’s books show more than $8 billion in paper profit.
That figure, however, is down sharply from its peak. When Bitcoin briefly surged above $126,000 in October 2025, Strategy’s unrealized profit swelled to around $22 billion. Since then, BTC’s pullback has shaved tens of billions off the top of the company’s theoretical gains, underscoring the extreme volatility of this approach.
Why a 16% Profit Still Draws Fire
To many crypto investors, an $8 billion profit sounds like an unqualified success. Schiff’s critique is not about the absolute dollar figure; it’s about opportunity cost and risk.
First, he points out that other assets – notably gold and silver – have quietly put in record performances, setting new all-time highs this year with much lower volatility and regulatory uncertainty. In that context, committing over $50 billion to a single, highly speculative digital asset looks reckless, especially when the resulting performance can be matched or surpassed by safer, diversified portfolios.
Second, the concentration risk is enormous. Strategy has not just allocated a slice of its balance sheet to Bitcoin; it has effectively transformed itself into a leveraged Bitcoin holding company. If BTC were to endure a prolonged bear market or face a severe regulatory shock, the impact on Strategy’s share price, access to capital, and long-term viability could be profound.
Volatility, Timing, and the Nature of “Unrealized” Gains
Another point implied by Schiff’s argument is the difference between paper profits and realized returns. The $8 billion gain Strategy currently enjoys is entirely unrealized. To turn that into cash, the company would have to sell a substantial portion of its holdings – and doing so could itself pressure the market, potentially reducing the price it actually receives.
Moreover, the journey to this 16% net gain has been anything but smooth. Strategy’s Bitcoin strategy has seen periods where the company was sitting on massive unrealized losses, particularly during deep market drawdowns. For shareholders, that means stomach‑churning volatility, uncertainty, and constant exposure to macro and regulatory headlines that can whipsaw BTC prices.
In traditional finance, such concentration in a single volatile asset would typically be viewed as speculative at best and irresponsible at worst. Schiff is tapping into that conventional risk framework to argue that “success” should be measured not just by the current snapshot of profit, but by the stability, predictability, and risk profile of the path taken to get there.
Supporters’ Counterpoint: A Long-Term Monetary Bet
Despite Schiff’s harsh assessment, many supporters of Strategy’s approach argue that the company is not trying to optimize five-year returns in the conventional sense. Instead, they see Saylor’s strategy as a long-term monetary bet: exchanging rapidly inflating fiat reserves for what they believe is a superior, digitally scarce store of value.
From this vantage point, volatility is the price of admission to a potential multi-decade paradigm shift. Proponents note that Bitcoin’s fixed supply, censorship resistance, and global accessibility create a fundamentally different monetary asset than gold or sovereign currencies. In their view, judging the strategy based solely on a narrow five‑year ROI misses the larger thesis: protection against currency debasement and participation in the upside of a developing monetary network.
They also argue that if Bitcoin continues to grow in adoption, market size, and institutional acceptance, Strategy’s outsized exposure could pay off dramatically over a 10–20 year horizon, far beyond the modest 16% currently on the books.
The Role of Corporate Branding and Market Perception
Another often overlooked dimension is how this Bitcoin-centric approach reshapes Strategy’s identity in the marketplace. Originally known as a business intelligence and software firm, the company is now widely perceived as a proxy for Bitcoin exposure in public equity markets.
This has both benefits and drawbacks. On the positive side, the company has attracted a new category of investor: those who want Bitcoin upside but prefer to hold regulated equity rather than digital coins directly. This has, at times, supported higher trading volumes and a valuation premium compared to traditional software peers.
On the negative side, the underlying operating business can be overshadowed by crypto market sentiment. Strategy’s fundamentals, product pipeline, and client relationships may matter less to investors than the daily BTC price chart. This can detach the stock’s performance from operational reality and tie it almost entirely to Bitcoin cycles – a risky position for any corporate management team.
Is “Any Other Asset” Really Better?
Schiff’s claim that Strategy “would’ve been better off with any other asset” is deliberately provocative, but it raises a genuine analytical question: how does Strategy’s performance compare to realistic alternative strategies?
A diversified basket of equities, bonds, and commodities over the same five-year period might indeed show higher annualized returns with lower volatility. Assets like the leading stock indices, major tech stocks, and even certain real estate markets have seen robust growth, often with more predictable drawdowns than Bitcoin.
However, “any other asset” is a stretch. Some sectors have underperformed, experienced structural decline, or been hit by regulatory or technological disruption. The real debate is not about absolute best-versus-worst, but about whether a more balanced approach – combining Bitcoin with other asset classes – could have delivered a better risk‑adjusted profile for Strategy’s investors.
What This Means for Other Corporations Considering Bitcoin
Strategy’s experience, and the criticism it attracts, is highly relevant for other companies evaluating whether to put Bitcoin on their balance sheets. The key lessons are nuanced:
– Bitcoin can meaningfully enhance returns, but it also dramatically increases volatility and headline risk.
– Large, concentrated bets transform not only financial performance but also corporate identity and investor base.
– Unrealized profits can evaporate quickly in a downturn, and liquidity considerations matter if a company ever needs to de‑risk.
– Public scrutiny from traditional finance voices, like Schiff, will only intensify as allocations grow.
For most corporations, a measured allocation – rather than an all‑in approach – may be more palatable to boards, regulators, and shareholders. Strategy’s radical stance is likely to remain an outlier, serving as a live experiment in what happens when a listed company aligns its entire treasury strategy with Bitcoin.
The Broader Macro Backdrop
Underlying this debate is a broader macroeconomic context: persistent concerns about inflation, mounting sovereign debt, and central bank interventions. Bitcoin advocates argue that these conditions strengthen the case for a hard‑capped digital asset, while skeptics like Schiff maintain that precious metals or diversified portfolios provide safer hedges without the existential regulatory and technological risks.
As interest rates, inflation prints, and geopolitical tensions shift, the relative performance of Bitcoin versus gold, bonds, and equities will continue to fuel arguments on both sides. Strategy’s balance sheet, magnified by its exposure, effectively becomes a high-profile scoreboard for this macro contest.
Strategy’s Next Chapter: Doubling Down or Diversifying?
Looking ahead, the central question is whether Strategy will continue on its path of relentless Bitcoin accumulation or gradually evolve towards a more diversified treasury. So far, every new purchase suggests management remains firmly committed to the original thesis.
If Bitcoin embarks on another powerful bull cycle and establishes higher, more stable price ranges, Schiff’s criticism may appear shortsighted in hindsight. But if BTC stagnates or enters a prolonged downturn while traditional assets climb, his warnings about opportunity cost and risk concentration will gain further weight.
For now, Strategy stands as a high-stakes case study: a company that has turned its balance sheet into a Bitcoin bet large enough to move the narrative for both corporate finance and digital assets. Whether this bold experiment is eventually remembered as visionary or reckless will depend less on today’s 16% gain – and much more on how Bitcoin behaves in the tumultuous years still to come.