Decoding Strategy’s Latest Financial Report: After a $12.4 Billion Loss, How Long Can the Bitcoin Flywheel Keep Spinning?
Source: TechFlow (Shenchao)
Strategy is becoming the first publicly traded company in global capital markets whose survival hinges entirely on the price of a decentralized asset.
On February 5, the company reported a figure that would send any traditional enterprise into immediate collapse: a $12.4 billion net loss for the quarter.
Yet what truly matters is not the $12.4 billion itself—but what it reveals: Strategy is no longer a company that can be measured by “profit” or “loss.”
The earnings report shows an operating loss of $17.4 billion, with gross margin slipping from 71.7% year-on-year to 66.1%. Nearly all of this $17.4 billion operating loss stems from a single source: unrealized impairment losses triggered by Bitcoin’s price decline in Q4.
In plain terms: Bitcoin’s closing price on December 31 was lower than its closing price on September 30.
2025 marks the first full year Strategy applies fair value accounting—a rule under which every heartbeat of Bitcoin’s price directly flows onto the income statement. In Q3, Bitcoin rose, yielding $8.42 per share in profit—everyone celebrated. In Q4, Bitcoin fell, and losses flooded in.
Reading Strategy’s financial statements feels more like reviewing a quarterly health checkup for Bitcoin’s price—not an operational performance report for a business.
And therein lies the real problem.
Two Ledgers, Two 2025s
After reading Strategy’s Q4 earnings report, I realized there’s a fundamental reading barrier:
No matter which standard you apply, the numbers in its financial statements are inherently misleading.
First, consider the company’s own metric. Strategy invented a measure called “BTC Yield,” tracking how many Bitcoins each MSTR share represents—and how that number has grown.
For the full year 2025, BTC Yield stands at 22.8%—a seemingly impressive figure.
But this metric counts only Bitcoin quantity—not price. If the company raised equity when Bitcoin traded at $100,000 and bought coins at $80,000, BTC Yield remains positive—even though shareholders’ actual wealth has shrunk.
Similarly, the reported $8.9 billion “BTC USD gain” suffers from the same flaw.
This figure is calculated using Bitcoin’s year-end price of approximately $89,000. On the day the report was released, Bitcoin had already fallen below $65,000. That December 31 snapshot is now outdated—introducing material lag.
Now consider U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)—the mandatory accounting framework for all U.S.-listed companies.
Under GAAP, Q4’s loss was $12.4 billion, and the full-year loss totaled $4.2 billion. The numbers are alarming—but equally unreliable.
2025 is Strategy’s first year applying fair value accounting to its Bitcoin holdings. Simply put: At each quarter-end, Bitcoin’s market price is observed. A rise is booked as profit; a fall, as loss—regardless of whether any coins were sold.
In Q3, Bitcoin rose to $114,000—generating massive paper gains. In Q4, it fell back to $89,000—triggering a $17.4 billion paper loss. Not a single dollar actually left the company.
So the true state of this report is this:
Strategy’s proprietary metrics ignore price risk, while GAAP’s massive losses exaggerate real danger. Once you grasp this, Strategy’s 2025 execution becomes clear.
It acquired roughly 225,000 Bitcoins over the year—holding 3.4% of global circulating supply. It launched five series of preferred stock products and held $2.3 billion in cash—the highest ever. As a capital-market maneuver, 2025 was textbook-perfect.
Yet all these achievements point to one outcome: Strategy is even more dependent on Bitcoin’s price trajectory than it was a year ago.
Thus, the more Strategy accomplished in 2025, the stronger Bitcoin’s rally must be in 2026 to justify it. Right now, however, Bitcoin’s persistent decline clearly falls short of Strategy’s expectations.
$25.3 Billion Spent on Bitcoin—Yet an $888 Million Annual Bill
In 2025, Strategy raised $25.3 billion—making it the largest equity issuer in the U.S. for the second consecutive year.
A company generating just $120 million in quarterly software revenue raised capital equivalent to over 200 times its software revenue. Almost all of it went straight into Bitcoin purchases.
How did it raise the money?
In the past, it was simple: issue shares for cash. In 2025, Strategy added a new step—launching five series of preferred stock products. These effectively repackage Bitcoin as fixed-income financial instruments, targeting institutional investors seeking stable returns.
Bitcoin itself yields no interest—but Strategy engineered a product line offering fixed yields ranging from 8% to 11.25%.
What’s the cost?
As of year-end, interest obligations from these preferred shares plus debt total approximately $888 million annually—fixed, non-negotiable expenses. Strategy’s full-year software revenue was $477 million—less than half the required outlay.
Management’s response? In Q4, it set aside a $2.25 billion cash reserve—claiming it covers two-and-a-half years of payments.
But this cash itself came from dilutive equity issuances at depressed prices. During the earnings call, Saylor admitted that several weeks of early-year share issuance actually reduced the number of Bitcoins per share—diluting shareholder holdings.
He stated he does not intend to repeat such actions—“unless it’s to defend the company’s credit.” And “defending credit” means paying that $888 million bill.
This is the core structural weakness of Strategy’s capital model:
Raising funds to buy Bitcoin requires maintaining a stock premium; maintaining that premium requires strong BTC Yield; and strong BTC Yield requires continuous Bitcoin purchases.
When Bitcoin rises, the cycle reinforces itself. When it falls, every link reverses. Now, an additional $888 million in fixed annual costs must be serviced—regardless of Bitcoin’s price movement.
$9 Billion in Unrealized Losses—Yet No Immediate Crisis
As of the February 5 earnings release, Bitcoin had fallen to ~$64,000. Strategy’s average acquisition cost stands at $76,052.
Its 713,502 Bitcoins cost $54.26 billion in total and have a current market value of ~$45.7 billion. This marks the first time since Strategy began buying Bitcoin in 2020 that its entire position carries an unrealized loss.
Just four months earlier, Bitcoin traded near its all-time high of ~$126,000—when this same holding generated over $30 billion in unrealized gains.
Still, unrealized losses do not equal crisis.
Strategy faces no forced liquidation mechanisms—unlike leveraged long positions wiped out on crypto exchanges. With $2.25 billion in cash on hand and $888 million in annual fixed costs, it can survive two-and-a-half to three years without raising new capital.
Yet “surviving without fundraising” is precisely the scenario Strategy can least afford.
As noted earlier, this machine runs only on continuous capital raises to buy Bitcoin. If that stops, BTC Yield drops to zero—and Strategy devolves into a passive Bitcoin fund with no management fee but burdened by high dividend obligations.
Passive funds don’t trade at premiums. Investors can simply buy spot ETFs—lower-fee, more transparent alternatives.
Hence, Strategy’s bankruptcy risk is far smaller than the risk of its “flywheel” stalling.
When could that flywheel be forced to stop? There’s a hard deadline.
Strategy holds ~$8.2 billion in convertible bonds, with a weighted average maturity of 4.4 years. The earliest put option window for investors opens in Q3 2027. If Bitcoin remains depressed then, bondholders may demand early redemption.
In the worst case, Strategy may need to sell large amounts of Bitcoin—or scramble for funds—at precisely the worst possible market moment.
That window is still about 18 months away.
Whether the $2.25 billion cash reserve lasts until then isn’t the question. The real question is: What happens after that—if Bitcoin hasn’t recovered above Strategy’s cost basis?
The Price of Faith
The previous section argued Strategy won’t die anytime soon. Yet markets clearly disagree.
MSTR has plunged from its November 2024 peak of $457 to ~$107 today—a drop exceeding 76%. Over the same period, Bitcoin fell from $126,000 to $65,000—a 48% decline.
MSTR’s share price decline is 1.6x Bitcoin’s—its premium evaporating rapidly.
Nonetheless, Saylor shows no signs of retrenchment.
On the earnings call, he acknowledged the cash reserve may be used to cover convertible bond redemptions and dividend payments—but reiterated there are no plans to sell Bitcoin.
As long as Bitcoin rises, this capital machine reinforces itself—even appearing perpetual. But if Bitcoin stagnates or declines long-term, Strategy will face capital markets’ most basic judgment for the first time:
Historically, no financial structure has ever defied gravity indefinitely through sheer force of will. Will Strategy be different?
You may also like

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.