The Hunt brothers' attempt to corner the silver market in the 1980s and Michael Saylor/MicroStrategy's Bitcoin strategy share some surface similarities but differ in intent, execution, and outcomes. Given that I've seen a few people passively compare the two... a thread:

Hunt Brothers & Silver: In the late 1970s, the Hunt brothers tried to dominate the silver market by hoarding 100M+ ounces. Prices soared to $50/oz but collapsed in 1980 after new regulations and liquidity issues, leading to their financial ruin.

Michael Saylor & Bitcoin: Michael Saylor and @MicroStrategy have acquired over 331,200 Bitcoin (~1.5% of supply). This isn’t a manipulation attempt but a treasury strategy, treating BTC as a store of value superior to cash.

The Hunts aimed to corner and manipulate the silver market for profit, causing extreme volatility. Saylor's strategy is transparent, long-term, and rooted in corporate treasury management.

The Hunts destabilized the silver market, ending in chaos and regulation. Saylor's BTC buying has added institutional credibility to Bitcoin and hasn’t destabilized the market.

Why Saylor/MicroStrategy Won’t Face Hunt-Level Issues: Bitcoin is much larger & more liquid than silver in 1980. MSTR isn’t overleveraged. Their strategy is fully transparent and regulatory-compliant. BTC’s decentralized nature resists market manipulation.

To summarize: The Hunt brothers manipulated silver, ending in collapse. Michael Saylor/MicroStrategy embraced Bitcoin transparently, aligning with its long-term value. One was reckless speculation; the other is strategic investment.

A few people responded saying MSTR is a Ponzi scheme. It's best to define the characteristics of the two rather than throw around buzzwords that you cant define correctly:

I should probably add that this isn't investment advice of any kind... there are many reasons why it could go wrong for MSTR, some of which are obvious, but that's probably another thread.