{"id":30500,"date":"2026-06-28T11:03:12","date_gmt":"2026-06-28T10:03:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/2026\/06\/28\/grayscale-strategy-sell-bitcoin-mstr-investor-confidence\/"},"modified":"2026-06-28T11:03:16","modified_gmt":"2026-06-28T10:03:16","slug":"grayscale-strategy-sell-bitcoin-mstr-investor-confidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/crypto-news\/grayscale-strategy-sell-bitcoin-mstr-investor-confidence\/","title":{"rendered":"Strategy Should Sell $3 Billion in Bitcoin to Restore Investor Confidence, Says Grayscale"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Strategy<\/strong>‘s capital structure is facing an unexpected public challenge \u2014 and it’s coming from a major player within the crypto industry itself. Zach Pandl<\/strong>, Head of Research at Grayscale<\/strong>, has publicly recommended that Michael Saylor<\/strong>‘s firm sell a significant portion of its Bitcoin<\/strong> reserves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His argument: a sale in the region of $3 billion<\/strong> could be enough to restore market confidence in MSTR<\/strong> and STRC<\/strong> shares, both of which are currently under pressure. It’s a stance that stands in sharp contrast to the “accumulate at all costs”<\/strong> doctrine that Strategy<\/strong> has championed since 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Behind this recommendation lies a precise reading of market dynamics \u2014 and a warning about the structural risks that the firm’s Bitcoin-first strategy<\/strong> is placing on its own shareholders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Grayscale Is Sounding the Alarm on Strategy’s Capital Structure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In a post published on X<\/strong>, Zach Pandl<\/strong> outlined two distinct scenarios for the future of Strategy<\/strong>. The first is the status quo: continue accumulating Bitcoin<\/a><\/strong> by relying on bond issuances and equity raises. The second, which he considers healthier for investors, involves a partial sale of BTC reserves<\/strong> to pay down a portion of the debt and stabilize the balance sheet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tension at the heart of this debate is structural. Strategy<\/strong> currently holds more than 500,000 BTC<\/strong>, acquired at average prices well below current levels. But this accumulation has come at the cost of rising debt and shareholder dilution through repeated equity issuances. The result: MSTR<\/strong> and STRC<\/strong> are trading at a premium that is becoming increasingly difficult to justify relative to the net asset value (NAV)<\/strong> of the Bitcoin holdings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Pandl<\/strong>, a targeted BTC<\/strong> sale would allow Strategy<\/strong> to demonstrate its ability to actively manage its balance sheet \u2014 rather than passively absorbing the swings of the crypto market. This signal of financial discipline could, in his view, restore credibility to both listed securities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MSTR and STRC: A Market Premium Undermined by Bitcoin Volatility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"Bitcoin<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The core problem for investors in MSTR<\/strong> and STRC<\/strong> is the near-total correlation of these stocks with Bitcoin<\/strong>‘s price action. When BTC<\/strong> corrects, Strategy<\/strong> shares amplify the decline due to the leverage inherent in their structure. This dynamic creates an asymmetric volatility profile<\/strong> that deters traditional institutional investors, who are generally unwilling to take on this kind of risk\/reward exposure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The historical premium of MSTR<\/strong> relative to its Bitcoin NAV<\/strong> \u2014 which at times exceeded 100% during periods of market euphoria \u2014 has gradually compressed. Markets appear to be reassessing the relevance of the model as interest rates remain elevated and the cost of capital rises. In this context, Pandl<\/strong>‘s recommendation makes considerable sense: selling Bitcoin to deleverage the balance sheet<\/a><\/strong> would send a strong signal to both bond and equity markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is worth noting that Strategy<\/strong> has not yet publicly responded to this recommendation. Michael Saylor<\/strong>, the architect of the accumulation strategy, has always defended a never sell<\/em> position on Bitcoin<\/strong>. Any pivot, even a partial one, would represent a major shift in doctrine \u2014 and a decisive test of the market’s confidence in the firm’s long-term vision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What This Controversy Reveals About the Limits of the “Bitcoin Treasury” Model<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Grayscale<\/strong>‘s intervention in this debate highlights a broader tension running through the industry: how far can a publicly listed company go in its Bitcoin<\/strong> exposure strategy without compromising its fiduciary obligations to shareholders? Strategy<\/strong> pioneered a model that several other companies \u2014 including Metaplanet<\/strong> in Japan and a number of more recent North American firms \u2014 have sought to replicate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this model rests on a strong assumption: that Bitcoin<\/strong> will continue to appreciate over time. If BTC<\/strong> enters a prolonged consolidation phase or a bear market<\/a><\/strong>, companies that have financed their accumulation through debt will find themselves exposed to significant refinancing risk<\/strong>. This is precisely the scenario that Pandl<\/strong> appears to be anticipating in his analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question raised by this episode goes beyond Strategy<\/strong> itself: it challenges the long-term viability of the “Bitcoin treasury”<\/strong> model as a corporate strategy, and the ability of markets to correctly price this type of BTC<\/strong> exposure vehicle in an uncertain macroeconomic environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Related articles :<\/h3>\n\n\n\n