A recent market outlook report has garnered quite a bit of attention, mentioning that cryptocurrency concept stocks like MicroStrategy and the performance of listed mining companies may far outperform traditional Nasdaq tech stocks. This conclusion may seem counterintuitive at first glance, but the logic is actually quite clear—these companies have an inherent amplifying effect related to the Bitcoin cycle.

MicroStrategy is arguably the most polarized example. In private discussions, many see it as a ticking time bomb—an over-leveraged Bitcoin proxy that will inevitably collapse if it falls into a prolonged downturn. Ironically, it is precisely this widespread skepticism that makes it worth studying. History shows us that true excess returns never come from mainstream consensus; they often hide in the areas of greatest controversy and disagreement.

But to determine whether MicroStrategy represents a systemic flaw or financial innovation, we need to peel back the surface analysis and understand exactly how this strategy operates.

**Borrowing Money to Buy Bitcoin ≠ Traditional Debt Model**

At first glance, this critique makes sense. When a company borrows money to buy Bitcoin, it faces losses if the price drops below the average cost. In a long-term bear market, failure seems inevitable. But this line of thinking actually contains an implicit assumption—that it is being treated as ordinary debt financing, which warrants a re-examination.