Killer example here honestly. Strategy is a massive centralized risk. Especially because the coins are with coinbase and other exchanges and could easily be seized. By buying his productions you are trusting a third party, and hoping:
1- they don’t dilute their existing shareholders
2- they maintain the ability to service their heavy debt and dividend obligations without being forced to sell their Bitcoin reserves.
3- the "premium-to-NAV" (Net Asset Value) remains high enough to allow the company to keep raising cheap capital through equity sales.
4- the regulatory environment does not shift to exclude or restrict corporate Bitcoin treasuries, which could trigger large-scale forced selling from passive index funds.
5- their aggressive "leverage-on-leverage" strategy does not face a catastrophic feedback loop if Bitcoin’s price experiences a sustained, long-term downturn.
This all stems from the false assumption that Bitcoin is “digital credit”. It’s not. It’s money.
It’s really not that complicated but Saylors whole marketing scheme is based on this one false assumption.
1- they don’t dilute their existing shareholders
2- they maintain the ability to service their heavy debt and dividend obligations without being forced to sell their Bitcoin reserves.
3- the "premium-to-NAV" (Net Asset Value) remains high enough to allow the company to keep raising cheap capital through equity sales.
4- the regulatory environment does not shift to exclude or restrict corporate Bitcoin treasuries, which could trigger large-scale forced selling from passive index funds.
5- their aggressive "leverage-on-leverage" strategy does not face a catastrophic feedback loop if Bitcoin’s price experiences a sustained, long-term downturn.
This all stems from the false assumption that Bitcoin is “digital credit”. It’s not. It’s money.
It’s really not that complicated but Saylors whole marketing scheme is based on this one false assumption.