Ross Gerber, CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management, is sounding the alarm. In his view, Michael Saylor‘s leveraged accumulation strategy represents a systemic threat to Bitcoin.

Behind the criticism lies a precise financial mechanism: if Strategy‘s debt structure were to unwind, the resulting selling pressure on the market could be violent. Gerber sums up the scenario in a single word: “nuke.”

But Strategy is pushing back with solid arguments. The debate cuts to the heart of the bullish thesis on Bitcoin — and it deserves to be taken seriously.

Why Gerber Sees Strategy as a Ticking Time Bomb for Bitcoin

Ross Gerber’s criticism is not aimed at Bitcoin as an asset, but at the financing mechanics of Strategy. Michael Saylor’s company raises capital by issuing shares — diluting its shareholders — in order to buy BTC. The result: MSTR stock currently trades at roughly 1.61x the value of its Bitcoin holdings, a premium that Gerber considers unsustainable.

“The fact that they can sell shares at an inflated valuation and then buy Bitcoin with the proceeds is catastrophic arithmetic for the investor. Why would you pay $200 for $100 worth of Bitcoin?” he said in a note relayed by Benzinga. The argument is straightforward: the retail investor buying MSTR is paying a double premium — on the stock itself and on the underlying BTC.

The systemic risk, however, is more subtle. Gerber believes that in the event of a severe Bitcoin correction — drawdowns of 70% to 80% are historically well-documented in this market — Strategy‘s debt structure could force asset sales. This forced deleveraging would mechanically amplify the decline in BTC, creating a self-reinforcing downward spiral. It is a classic cascade liquidation scenario, played out at the scale of a publicly listed company holding 629,376 BTC — representing more than $72 billion in exposure.

Strategy Responds: Why the Preferred Stock Structure Changes Everything

In response to these criticisms, Strategy puts forward a structural argument: its pivot toward perpetual preferred stock eliminates the risk of repayment at a fixed maturity date. Unlike a traditional bond, these instruments carry no maturity date — which theoretically removes the trigger for a forced liquidation, even in an 80% crash scenario.

This is an important distinction. The risk of a margin call or forced repayment — which sits at the core of Gerber’s warning — would be neutralized by this financial architecture. Strategy claims it can hold its BTC positions regardless of short-term volatility, a thesis that markets appear to partially validate, even as MSTR stock has underperformed Bitcoin in recent months despite the addition of 430 BTC for approximately $51.4 million.

The debate remains open. MSTR’s underperformance relative to spot BTC raises questions about the vehicle’s relevance for institutional investors, especially now that spot Bitcoin ETFs offer direct exposure without any valuation premium. In this context, Gerber’s thesis resonates beyond simple criticism: it points to a structural vulnerability that the market has not yet been forced to test through a genuine, prolonged bear market.

Bitcoin Under Pressure on Another Front: Miners Are Migrating to AI

Gerber raises a second point of concern — less covered in the media but equally structural: the migration of major miners toward artificial intelligence and high-performance computing. Riot Platforms has just provided the most striking example, signing a 20-year lease worth approximately $9 billion with Anthropic for 191 MW of computing capacity in Texas.

This shift is not trivial for the Bitcoin network. The global hashrate has already fallen 21% from its 2025 peak, according to available on-chain data. A decline in the hashrate reduces network security in the short term and can weigh on institutional investor sentiment, particularly among those who factor mining robustness into their investment thesis.

The convergence of these two dynamics — Strategy‘s financial leverage and the potential weakening of the hashrate — paints a risk picture that the current bull market tends to downplay. Gerber, for his part, chooses to name them clearly, even if it means swimming against the tide of the dominant bullish consensus.