TL;DR:

Peter Schiff rejected claims that Strategy’s recent 32 BTC sale mainly caused Bitcoin’s move below $62,000.
He argued the larger issue is years of aggressive accumulation by Strategy and copycat corporate treasury firms.
Schiff said Strategy’s more than 840,000 BTC helped fuel rallies, but that same influence may now magnify downside fears whenever Saylor sells, slows buying or changes tone during renewed market volatility episodes and pullbacks.

Peter Schiff has rejected the idea that Bitcoin’s latest slide below $62,000 was mainly caused by Strategy’s recent sale of 32 BTC. The longtime Bitcoin critic argued instead that the larger force sits in plain sight: years of aggressive accumulation by Michael Saylor’s company. The sharper claim is that buying pressure can become selling pressure, especially when one corporate treasury becomes so closely tied to market psychology that every move is treated as a signal.

Many blame @Saylor’s sale of 32 Bitcoin for pushing the price below $62,000. But it was $MSTR buying over 840K Bitcoin, along with all the Bitcoin treasury copycats that followed his lead, that drove the price this high in the first place. What Saylor giveth, Saylor taketh away.

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) June 5, 2026

Strategy’s accumulation becomes Schiff’s target

Schiff’s criticism turns the usual bullish narrative around. Strategy’s huge Bitcoin purchases have often been credited with supporting rallies by creating sustained demand, but Schiff said the same dynamic now helps explain volatility on the way down. The company’s holdings of more than 840,000 BTC made it a defining corporate buyer, and its influence has inspired other treasury firms to copy the playbook. The uncomfortable point is concentration dressed as conviction, because a market that celebrates one buyer may later fear what happens if that buyer slows, sells or simply changes tone.

The recent 32 BTC sale became a flashpoint because some traders linked it to Bitcoin’s break below $62,000. Schiff dismissed that narrow explanation, saying the small sale was not the real issue. In his view, the bigger problem is that Strategy’s accumulation itself helped push Bitcoin higher, making the market vulnerable to the same actor’s next decision. Schiff framed Saylor as giving and taking back support, a deliberately pointed claim that casts Bitcoin’s price action as dependent on a corporate treasury strategy rather than decentralized demand alone.

That interpretation is contentious, but it lands during a fragile moment for crypto markets. If Strategy’s buying helped shape expectations, then even modest sales, treasury adjustments or silence can feel larger than the numbers suggest. The real debate is whether Bitcoin’s market is broad enough to absorb its biggest corporate believers, or whether their visibility now magnifies every downturn. Schiff’s argument does not prove Strategy caused the dip, but it exposes an awkward dependency narrative: Bitcoin’s rise was cheered when corporate accumulation looked unstoppable, while its decline now invites questions about whether that same accumulation made sentiment more brittle. That leaves traders separating familiar Schiff skepticism from a real market structure question.