Strategy Inc. has deployed roughly $58.9 billion into bitcoin across 100+ dated tranches since August 2020. This page takes each of those tranches, date-matched, and re-scores the allocation into physical silver at the prevailing spot price — then marks both portfolios to today.
Cumulative present value of Strategy's bitcoin holdings compared against the same USD, deployed on the same dates, into physical silver at the prevailing spot price. The dashed line is total capital deployed — the hurdle any strategy has to clear to be called a success.
Silver portfolio NAV minus bitcoin portfolio NAV, over time. Positive values mean silver is winning the counterfactual. This is the opportunity cost — or premium — of the treasury thesis, tranche by tranche.
All filing-disclosed transactions, reverse chronological. The silver price column is the interpolated spot on that date; the silver acquired column is what the same USD would have bought.
| Date | BTC | USD (M) | BTC Px | Ag Px | Ag Oz (M) | Σ BTC | Σ Ag (Moz) |
|---|
Silver prices are interpolated from monthly-average public spot references (LBMA, Kitco, Trading Economics, JMBullion historicals). Daily prints on specific tranche dates will differ by a few percent. The thesis does not turn on that precision.
Physical feasibility. The silver counterfactual requires acquiring roughly — million troy ounces, on the order of 2× annual global mine production. No real buyer could have executed this program at quoted spot without moving the market dramatically. The exercise compares paper price returns, not executable returns. A real allocator would have cleared the market upward well before deploying $58B into silver.
Ignored: leverage and convertibles (Strategy financed much of this via ATM equity and senior convertible notes — the MSTR equity has its own volatility premium separate from spot BTC), carry and storage costs for silver at scale, bid-ask spreads on either side, fair-value accounting effects for Strategy, and any premium-over-spot on physical metal.
Prices as of BTC ≈ $—, Ag ≈ $—/oz, —. This is a static snapshot; refresh as needed.
The case for bitcoin-as-treasury rests on a specific claim: that a novel, digitally-native bearer asset will accrue monetary premium faster than any legacy store of value, and that a leveraged public-equity wrapper can harvest that spread. Strategy's filings are the cleanest public test of that thesis we have.
The silver case is older and less photogenic. Silver is the only commodity that has been money in every literate civilization on earth. It is a bearer asset that does not depend on an operating settlement network, cannot be inflated by a committee, and — crucially for the late-2020s — sits in structural supply deficit for the sixth consecutive year, with industrial demand (solar, electronics, AgZn batteries) competing directly with monetary demand for a shrinking above-ground float.
Re-scoring Strategy's exact cash flows against silver is not a prediction; it is a measurement. It isolates the allocation decision from the timing decision, because the timing is held constant. Whatever Strategy's bitcoin purchases happen to be worth today, they are worth that much despite — or because of — the same set of dates the silver counterfactual has to use.
The chart's shape is the point. Through most of 2021 to early 2025, the bitcoin line runs well above silver; the thesis looks vindicated. Then late 2025 and early 2026 happen: the Iran conflict, the Hormuz closure, COMEX delivery stress, and silver's move through $50, $100, and briefly $121. The paper-physical spread that had been quietly widening for years gets resolved upward, in one direction, very quickly.
None of this says bitcoin is bad money or silver is good money. It says that between August 2020 and today, on Strategy's own purchase schedule and marked to this morning's prices, silver delivered materially more fiat per dollar deployed. Whether that holds next week is a separate question. It almost certainly does not hold at every intermediate date — which is exactly why the time series matters more than the scorecard.