The Bitcoin community has split into two factions as MicroStrategy's recent purchase of 10,000 BTC failed to move the price — OTC liquidity and market structure are under scrutiny.
Andrew Tate's post questioning why MicroStrategy's purchase of ~10,000 BTC did not move the price of Bitcoin has sparked widespread debate in the crypto community. This discussion highlights the lingering concerns among retail traders about how such a large purchase could occur without significantly impacting the market.
Debates in the community reveal misunderstandings about the depth of the OTC Bitcoin market in Thailand.
Andrew Tate's remarks came after MicroStrategy added more than 10,600 BTC — a purchase of nearly one billion USD — which brought the total holdings to over 660,000 coins.
Even though it was a large purchase, the price of Bitcoin barely moved at that time, remaining between 88,000 to 92,000 USD before surging today.
Many participants in the industry point out that large trades are often not conducted through the Spot order book but are executed through Over-the-Counter (OTC) desks, which serve to match buyers and sellers off the main board.
Since these transactions do not go through public market liquidity, they avoid the issues of slippage and do not leave immediate traces on price charts or any price indices.
Therefore, trades worth over one billion USD may be quietly executed among miners, early wallets, liquidity providers, and struggling sellers without triggering a price surge.
Only in cases where OTC inventory cannot meet demand do buyers enter the Spot market — at which point prices will respond, and MicroStrategy's ability to absorb coins privately reflects the depth of Bitcoin liquidity at the current supply level.
Bitcoin price movements depend more on how transactions are executed than on their size.
Several analysts emphasize that MicroStrategy's purchases, although large in size, are only a small part of the supply that is actually moving.
The purchase of 10,000 BTC only accounts for ~0.05% of the circulating supply, and when it is a negotiated block trade rather than an order on the board, the impact is almost imperceptible.
This shows that corporate accumulation can continue even in sideways markets, where individual retail investors may not notice until transaction settlements are completed.
However, some critics argue that MicroStrategy's strategy relies more on creating an image than on actual impact, as some parties comment that the company's promotional announcements are intended to stimulate positive sentiment in the market rather than directly affect prices.
Moreover, the lack of immediate price response further leads to speculation that the headline trades may not have as much influence as investors understand.
This debate occurs during a period of high market sensitivity, especially as the market has just broken through a prolonged stagnant range over the week, bouncing back due to a combination of factors, not directly caused by MicroStrategy but due to whale accumulation, short squeezes, and regulatory news.
This comparison further emphasizes the important conclusion that the clear price movements often reflect the flow of buy orders towards the end, rather than the initial purchases that are the source.
