This headline came up in my news feed recently...

![Screenshot 20220508 at 08.58.30.png](https://images.hive.blog/DQmcpefJiX7Qasx6XiMbaPHb3ZwGddP97QNE4CtZtT4vTVJ/Screenshot%202022-05-08%20at%2008.58.30.png)

Here's [the article](https://fortune.com/2022/05/04/michael-saylor-microstrategy-margin-call-bitcoin/) in full if you want a good example of a biased FUD article, about 400 words long, but with just TWO LINEs which show the headline is extremely misleading FUD. 

The article outlines how Microstrategy have borrowed around $2 billion to buy some BTC at 25% LTV, with a margin call at 50% - that's the basis on which the headline calculates the $21 000 pay-up figure. 

The article gives you the impression that $21K BTC would be disastrous for Microstrategy as they'd have to sell around half their BITCOIN holdings, but if you think about it, it's not that bad at all....

MAINLY because there is also this line towards the end....

>The CFO noted that MicroStrategy still holds “quite a bit” of uncollateralized Bitcoin that it could use to answer any potential margin call, however.

Which means they've got quite a lot of scope to avoid that margin call, and of course they can always sell some BEFORE than $21K figure comes to offset any panic. 

So while the headline isn't outright false - if BTC hits $21K Microstrategy WILL have to sell some BTC, but it might not be the tumble-down crash event the headline kind of suggests. 

### The worst kind of FUD...???


I dunno about you but I get the feeling the authors have hit on this figure of $21K as the kind of bottom-target that BTC might reach, and then set up a story of 'if we get there EVERYONE starts to sell' - thus a death-spiral. 

In reality I think BTC would have to go a lot lower than $21K for Microstrategy and anyone else to sell - so low that it be at the point where no one would be selling! 


Posted Using [LeoFinance <sup>Beta</sup>](https://leofinance.io/hive-167922/@revise.leo/the-crudest-form-of-misleading-fud-headline-the-fudsters-getting-desperate)