Coin hoarding logic outweighs centralization concerns; Bernstein believes $71k is already the bottom

Saylor’s “Prosperity” Narrative Faces Centralization Doubts

Michael Saylor tweeted that Bitcoin is a “language of prosperity,” consistent with his usual style, but the timing is noteworthy: Strategy is still aggressively buying, the tweet received about 72,000 views and 3,000 likes; meanwhile, BTC is trading sideways around $71,000, with a daily volume of approximately $40.4 billion. More concrete data shows: on March 25, exchanges net outflowed 4,669 BTC. The coins are flowing out, not in—this usually indicates accumulation rather than panic selling.

Simon Dixon directly countered, saying Strategy now holds 760,000 BTC (about 3% of the total supply), which poses a centralization risk. The concern is valid. But on the same day, Bernstein released a research report, setting $71k as the bottom of this cycle and a target of $150k within the year. They are more focused on Strategy’s STRC performance; the concentration risk doesn’t seem to be a primary concern.

My view: Centralization debates do exist, but currently, price action isn’t driven by them. Net outflows dominate, MVRV is at 1.299, indicating a relatively low valuation zone, and claims of manipulation seem more like off-chain noise.

• On-chain data is more direct: Two consecutive days of negative net inflow (March 24: -1,917 BTC; the next day: -4,669 BTC) suggest holders are moving coins to cold wallets. Although SOPR at 0.983 indicates some short-term profit-taking, the overall picture aligns more with the “prosperity” narrative.
• Dissemination is useful, but capital is more critical: Tweets can spread the “wealth/prosperity” rhetoric to retail investors, but the real support for buying pressure comes from the ongoing infusion of funds via the $42 billion ATM issuance plan.
• Scarcity logic favors the bulls: Circulating supply is about 20 million coins, approaching the 21 million cap. NVT at 28.3, considering scarcity and demand diffusion, the supply-demand structure favors the bulls, making centralization concerns more of a post-hoc discussion at this stage.

Volatility and Bottom-Fishing Game

Saylor previously said that through the MSTR and STRC structures, volatility was engineered down from 71% to 2%, which is interesting, but the market may overestimate the short-term “manipulation” angle. What’s more overlooked is the ongoing buying itself.

BlockBeats and Chaincatcher amplified Dixon’s concerns—Strategy’s model ties BTC more tightly to traditional finance. Long-term, this can be discussed. But Bernstein pointed out that despite a roughly 20% pullback this year, Strategy has still added 86,000 BTC, buying even during dips.

My judgment: I lean toward betting on upward volatility. Net outflows combined with the ATM plan form a kind of “floor.” Risks like quantum computing and portfolio diversification (discussed by Bloomberg) are long-term topics. I don’t agree with the view that “ETFs will squeeze out Strategy.” Net outflows are still accelerating, and BTC remains highly ranked in terms of attention.

The market is likely a step behind. Retail reacts to tweets, while institutions have already positioned through net outflows. Both engagement and news flow point to the “prosperity” narrative overshadowing the “apocalypse” narrative at this stage.

Conclusion: “Institution-led accumulation + capital backing” is no longer early-stage; it’s mid-to-late. The biggest beneficiaries are long-term holders and institutions/funds. Short-term traders trying to time the market face significantly lower odds of success. If you can withstand the noise and medium-term volatility, the $150k target is achievable.