Michael Saylor's recent pushback against Bitcoin treasury critics came across more defensive than usual, which itself tells a story. During a podcast interview, he dismissed questions about sustainability as "ignorant" when asked whether 200+ companies can all borrow to buy Bitcoin indefinitely.
The numbers behind the tension are stark. Strategy generated $125M in operating cash flow through Q3 2025, almost entirely from legacy software. During the same period, they raised over $50 billion through equity and convertibles and spent nearly all of it on Bitcoin. That's 99%+ of capital from issuance, not operations. Meanwhile, 40% of the top 100 $BTC treasuries are trading below net asset value, and over 60% hold Bitcoin at prices above current levels.
Saylor's argument is that Bitcoin adoption is inevitable, like electricity. But electricity adoption didn't require perpetual dilution or convertible note rollovers. The comparison works conceptually but breaks down operationally. What's actually being tested isn't whether Bitcoin is valuable—it's whether "issue equity to buy Bitcoin" scales as a standalone business model when market conditions tighten and premiums to NAV compress.
The real vulnerability isn't Bitcoin's price. It's whether enough new capital keeps flowing into these structures to sustain the flywheel.
