Thought it might be a good idea to tackle some misunderstandings about auctions used in MacroStrategy
I want to clarify so everyone has an accurate picture.
1. “MSTR lowers the floor” - this is factually incorrect
Every MSTR auction is paired: a sale and a buy. The sale temporarily releases inventory, and the corresponding buy takes tokens off the market for some amount of time, often longer as auctions lengthen.
The net effect is reduced circulating supply, which is bullish, not bearish.
MSTR does not create additional sell pressure beyond what already exists in the market. It creates activity and price discovery, not downward pressure.
2. “TW holds tokens longer, therefore better for floors” - not true in practice
TW currently has a 20% markup that can prevent activity for long stretches, which means tokens often can’t be sold for extended periods.
In fast-moving markets this can actually shorten the hold time, because the stale listing simply doesn't adapt.
As MSTR auctions scale up and lengthen in time horizon, they are likely to keep tokens off the market longer than TW’s model, not shorter.
The “impatient whale” analogy simply doesn’t reflect how the mechanism works.
3. “TW supports collections more” - this gets the economics backwards
TW is not returning revenue to NFT communities.
MSTR is.
MSTR channels protocol tax revenue directly back into the NFTs it supports, and it does so with a much lower protocol fee than TW.
TW extracts more and returns less, which is fine, but it’s important to be factual:
MSTR → tax flows back to the collection
TW → higher fees, no tax return to the NFT community
Economically, the MSTR model is strictly more aligned with NFT holders.
4. Auctions keep the flywheel alive - markup systems stall it
The TW markup system works in very specific conditions (fast uptrends). In sideways or gently downtrending markets, which is most of the time, the markup becomes a blocker:
- Listings go stale
- Tokens get “stuck”
- Liquidity dries up
- No one trades
- Floors go down through inactivity
MSTR’s auction model does the opposite: it keeps tokens moving, maintains voluntary participation, and incentivizes real activity.
“Dead tokens” are the enemy of healthy floors and auctions avoid that.
A market with no trading is a dying market.
5. Downtrends aren’t caused by MSTR, they’re caused by fundamentals
If a collection trends down, it’s due to:
- macro sentiment
- demand shifting
- liquidity rotation
- holders choosing to sell
An NFT protocol cannot manufacture price. All MSTR does is make price discovery more efficient, which actually helps holders understand where true demand is.
Suggesting an NFT collection would prefer no buyers, no sellers, no activity just to preserve an artificially inflated floor misunderstands what keeps communities alive.
The healthiest collections have consistent, organic engagement.
Activity is oxygen.
Closing thoughts:
Innovation in NFT liquidity models is good for the ecosystem. TW’s design is great in certain scenarios; MSTR’s design is great in others.
Both can coexist, and both can support collections. But the idea that MSTR is “predatory” or “negative for NFTs” is simply not accurate.
The mechanism:
- creates balanced buy/sell cycles
- removes supply from the market
- channels more value back to NFT communities
- keeps activity and engagement alive
- operates with lower fees and stronger incentives
That’s not predatory. That’s alignment.
MacroStrategy is not a 'buy and hold forever' protocol and was never intended as that. However it does take tokens off the market for a period of time and the net result of that is always to push the floor price up, compared to the protocol not existing.
Anyone who suggests otherwise hasn't thought this through.
If anyone wants to dig deeper into the mechanics, happy to share full details. Transparency is key, and we want communities to feel 100% confident in how these systems work.