https://youtu.be/dYA9vYa0iwQ

580k by 2030 gang here.

So far you thesis is playing out well. I have been in preffered stocks for a long time and over 15 year periods you marginally beat T-Bills and have a lot more volatility. I suspect these will be the same despite the high yield. I don't think a 25% drawdown on a stock that pays 11.5% is a big deal, but I agree that people were led to believe this is like a money market fund and I would bet they are devastated.

In my studies on the history of money and banking the Belle Epoc was dominated by consoles very similar to the preferred offerings of Strategy. The only difference is that governments were paying a small yield on gold backed bank credit. This was an ideal inheritance and was particularly noted in Jane Austen novels.

My sincere question is "why is this a bad thing?" Hal Finney mentioned custodians and bitcoin banks as near preference both for spending, storing and issuing credit :

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the 'high-powered money' that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash."

Bitcoin is an Electronic Cash System. It cannot be rehypothecated within the system and those who layer on top do so with additional risks and rewards. Bitcoin at the base layer, even if a custodian holds a large percentage for intermediaries, cannot be broken within the system of peer to peer connected nodes.

Why should we hold a hard line view that is against Finney's understanding of an inevitable future? Why should we not embrace savings alongside investment? Sound savings building sound investment sounds like the capitalism most are after in this space.

Michael Saylor - "We will never sell the bitcoin"

Phong Lee whispers in his ear - "If we never sell it then the preferred offerings can never rise above junk status and exclusively selling MSTR when mNAV is below 1.22 is dillutive"

Michael Saylor - "We will sell less bitcoin than we buy"

Matt,

Your content is always spot on when dissecting frauds/scams/spams. However, I will have to disagree with this assessment of Strategy, it's calculation of mNAV and its securities offerings.

To be clear, I do not conflate stocks with bitcoin. I do not think that Strategy has eliminated the risk from bitcoin exposure. In fact, I think the opposite. Strategy is a company that exposes investors to different kinds of custodial risk, whereas bitcoin only has a few. Bitcoin mostly has volatility and a small chance technical mishaps and cultural irrelevance.

Coinbase holding a lot of bitcoin is not a threat to bitcoin the same way OGs or billionaires are not a threat.

mNAV should be based on enterprise value because 100% of all the bitcoin belong to MSTR common stock holders.

Capitalists buy stocks. Capitalists hold sound money. Capitalists often include land in their personal and business operations.

I understand that public equities have been mostly corrupted, and that is one of the major reasons for Satoshi's creation to be released during the heart of the GFC. Most Capitalists include sound money in their portfolio ... it is not an exclusive obligation aa a bitcoiner nor as a capitalist.

Is this a Hoskinson moment?

Bitcoin is money for those who wish to use it as such. I use it as a peer to peer electronic cash system. It was birthed in the heart of the GFC where bailouts socialized losses and privatized profits. Satoshi as a free market thinker created a bank account with zero inflation that is as complex as running a BitTorrent client.

It happens to be a great way to save your money for the future because scarcity does matter for savings, and permissionless transactions matter for freedom.

As a free market thinker, I see nothing wrong with what Saylor is doing. He is trying to restore the financing mechanism that built the railroads of the US during the Industrial Revolution and was destroyed by taxes and inflation in the 20th century. He has created a custodial bitcoin onramp for people/institutions who never ran BitTorrent let alone their own private keys with Bitcoin... and they never will.

I do, I have, and I will because repeating the GFC is not fair to those who wish not to participate in fiat socialism.

Saylor has never taken TARP funds for a promised bonus, and has no intention of breaking the protocol with spam. Bitcoin is a fantastic cash system powered by a cash that can't be debated.

The user interface mimics a bank account which gold does not do and transactions can settle globally in a matter of minutes and with permanent finality in under 1 hour. As a peer to peer electronic cash system we need to get back to the basics and appreciate it for what it is trying to accomplish.

💯

I fully agree that in order for bitcoin to succeed it must be spent. Imagine if Lazlo never spent his bitcoin. Perhaps it would never have taken off. The US Dollar has value in the Eurodollar/Petrodollar system because it is spent into the global trade networks. If we spend bitcoin into the system, there will be more users and more will ultimately be held. Hoarding alone as a store of value will hit a wall when speculation dries up.

That being said...where can I spend my bitcoin? Not a lot has changed since Lazlo.

This what happens to you when you shitcoin

All true. But MSTR and preferred offerings are not bitcoin. They are certainly not bitcoin in self custody. The point that I am trying to make is people are free to take equity risk. There are many layers of risk with Equities such as currency risk, poor management risk, lousy business model risk, leverage risk, and a host of other risks baked in. Bitcoin just needs to keep existing g and be relevant.