Jeff Booth
· 3d
Like gold - if you build derivative games on top of bitcoin (inflationary money) and people use it, and try to get higher interest rates in it to keep up with prices going up, many people will choose ...
Thank you. Very thought provoking and appreciated. Sorry for the delayed response.
Your thinking is next level. Mine is not. So I am learning and appreciate your patience. My understanding...
Derivatives on gold effectively increase the supply, putting downward pressure on price through rehypothication. In other words, paper gold and physical gold are treated as (near) perfect substitutes. I think this describes the situation?
I am not sure that investors in treasury company preferreds are treating them as substitutes to bitcoin. I think they are betting bitcoin's price will go up "enough" over time (and Strategy's holdings and ability to attract capital will remain sufficient) to keep the dividends coming, and ideally keep the preferred price near par.
Conversely, investors in Strategy common are largely betting bitcoin goes up a lot. Around Saylor's assumption of a 30% CAGR. With leverage provided by the converts and preferred, the common is a leveraged bet on bitcoin.
Strategy is not (yet) lending out its bitcoin. Its shares are not perfect substitues. So I dont see rehypothication from their activities. Instead, I see Strategy bringing capital to the network by facilitating an more granular alignment of risk appetite for various investors. That is the value that Saylor is creating. He is building Bitcoin's yield curve.
But, again, I dont see the value coming from rehypothication or increased supply from substitutes. I dont see a centralization of control from these activities. So I am not sure we will need a fork. Or the medium of exchange use case to solve the problem, etc.
But, again, I fully appreciate your thinking is beyond mine in many ways. Just thought I would be transparent, if it helps align our communities view of the situation and risks?