Strategy’s latest purchase of 1,550 BTC has triggered a public dispute on X between Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and bitcoin advocate Matthew Kratter over whether the company’s most recent capital raise diluted shareholder value. At the center of the argument is BTC Yield, Strategy’s own metric for tracking changes in bitcoin holdings per assumed diluted share.
Drop in BTC Yield fuels dilution argument
Strategy’s figures show that between June 1 and June 8, BTC Yield slipped from 13.0% to 12.8%. Over the same stretch, the company’s bitcoin holdings increased from 843,706 BTC to 845,256 BTC, while assumed diluted shares outstanding rose from 382.756 million to 384.180 million. Kratter argued that this points to dilution when the deal is measured on a bitcoin-per-share basis.
He also cited the company’s year-to-date BTC Gain, which declined from 87,754 BTC to 86,328 BTC. In his view, the weaker readings across both metrics showed that the financing did not improve bitcoin exposure for each share, even though total holdings moved higher.
Saylor says the metric is too narrow
Saylor rejected that interpretation. He said BTC Yield is a narrow KPI focused only on bitcoin per share and does not capture total shareholder accretion. According to Saylor, the transaction also added about $100 million in U.S. dollar reserves, lifting Strategy’s total USD reserve to $1 billion. On that basis, he argued the deal was accretive once both bitcoin and cash were counted.
The disagreement has effectively split into two ways of reading the same transaction. Viewed strictly through BTC Yield, the latest raise appears dilutive. Measured with cash reserves and broader balance-sheet effects included, Saylor says shareholder value improved.
Critics on X turn to the shifting use of metrics
Other market voices expanded the criticism beyond the numbers themselves. Wazz argued that Strategy was changing the rules to fit what he called financial alchemy, noting that BTC Yield had previously been promoted as the standard accretive metric in buy announcements but was now being described as a narrow KPI. Short seller Quoth the Raven wrote that he had seen many companies move the goalposts when older metrics no longer told the story management wanted, and in some cases replace key performance indicators entirely.
For now, the dispute remains tied to public data rather than a disagreement over the bitcoin purchase itself. The real divide is over which yardstick should be used to judge this kind of financing transaction: bitcoin per share, or a broader asset base that includes both bitcoin and cash.