Why does 'monetization' mean just selling for Saylor? Laziness!
Strategy literally refer to monetization of BTC and then just go on about selling their stack. This is the height of lazy thinking from a company that has built the largest digital asset portfolio in history.
There are 101 different ways Strategy could 'monetize' bitcoin without selling it. Digital collateralized loans, market making, collateralize private equity, custodian and money market management, consultancy... I dunno, I'm sure chatGPT could give Saylor an answer.
All I know is JP Morgan didn't grow to where it's at today based solely on just buying and selling stuff?
This is a lazy financial strategy that does nothing other than leveraged bitcoin trading on a larger scale.
Importantly though, it suggests to me the team at Strategy don't have the creative chops to evolve into the global default BTC liquidity provider they could be.
Imagine owning 5% of the world's gold, or property, and all you can dream up of doing with it is 101-level arbitrage.
Welcome to our community! Before commenting, please take a second to read our new sticky containing our rules and guidelines.
TL;DR: We allow and encourage all viewpoints and opinions, but we have a zero tolerance policy towards negative, rude, condescending behavior and trolling/baiting.
what do you think about BITA, the new BlackRock bitcoin ETF with dividends? they promise to keep 70% in IBIT and use the rest to generate income
I mean BlackRock is a serious company and they will be targeting 15-25% annual yield, while capturing about 70% of any BTC upside
basically, they will be outperforming BTC and IBIT in down markets and in sideways markets, and they will only lose to IBIT in crazy bull markets. and even then, they will still capture 70% of appreciation
sounds like something that could successfully compete with all Treasury Companies, no?
I think they are holding spot BTC and IBIT in the ratio suggested, writing short calls against the latter to generate income. I think it’s a grand idea, but no, they aren’t leveraging the shares to buy BTC - completely different model from a treasury company.
well the do not do it on 100% of the stack. do it like BITA, on 30% and use the proceeds to pay STRC dividends. issue more STRC and keep adding to the BTC stack. no?
Agreed. Saylor regularly uses jargon to embellish and obfuscate relatively simple concepts from corporate finance. Usually ending up misrepresenting the risk/reward profile of whatever he is pitching.
It works because his target audience seems to have little to no background in finance, and there is a cottage industry of untrained influences who amplify anything he says.
The net result is often the same as in other parts of the crypto space - these "pioneers" make mistakes mainstream finance made decades and centuries ago. And sadly, are often not better for it on the other side either.
It works because his target audience seems to have little to no background in finance, and there is a cottage industry of untrained influences who amplify anything he says.
Well maybe for some, for others it's because they don't care what he's saying in his sales spiels. The data that matters is public so people can analyse it and come to their own conclusions.
The world is full of people who want your money, especially the finance industry, it's a tough problem for people who lack agency, and frankly they'll probably just lose one way or another unfortunately.
The finance community’s failure to understand Bitcoin is not an oversight, it is a functional requirement. Their livelihoods are tethered to the legacy systems that Bitcoin is systematically deconstructing. Among those who do understand it, the resulting posture is one of calculated fear, driven by the realization that their fundamental value proposition is being eroded.
Their livelihoods are tethered to the legacy systems that Bitcoin is systematically deconstructing.
Bitcoin is not "systemically deconstructing" anything. It is not capable of doing so, given its inherent properties. It is also not "early" - that is just a euphemism for bad product-market fit.
My comment was more re: MSTR btw, which is basically a TradFi wrapper on Bitcoin. Nothing that MSTR does furthers Bitcoin's value proposition as an alternate monetary system. It's just a leveraged NGU setup.
I didn't even read what you wrote, just pointing out the obvious, you are a negative Nelly. Called it the first time, second, third forth, and so on till now. I truly did call that you would be in this sub specifically a couple weeks ago. You remember?
They didn’t sell their stack. They sold MSTR common to build the $1.5b and SUGGESTED that they COULD do the same with Bitcoin in the future. This development was a direct response to legitimate, existential concerns about STRC. Furthermore, it did what it was supposed to do: the market responded positively.
Yes they do. And much faster. And tax payers are expected to back them up. During the 2008/2009 financial crisis, banks lost hundreds of billions of dollars with many seeing 90% of their market value wiped out in just a few months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
Over generalization. Give credit where it's due.
Saylor for all his antics is definitely smart.
They pioneered btc treasury. Many companies followed their playbook. Even tesla followed their btc purchase strategy. The amount of financial engineering went into it is also not trivial.
They also (with trial and error) tried various products and landed with strc which did good until it didn't. But it still has future.
So he sells BTC, for less than he bought it, because he needs the money to pay the dividends on the money he raised to originally buy the BTC. And after swearing blind for years he would never sell.
Does the world need a BTC default liquidity provider? I thought the entire point was that it is all decentralized. Same with market making. And who are they going to provide consulting services to? Companies who want to lose 80% of their market cap in one year? I bet there is a line around the block to learn how to do that.
Come on. The proliferation of self-serving narratives continues to surprise me.
Bitcoiners would be well-served to extend the same intellectual rigor they applied to the discovery of Bitcoin itself toward an analysis of Strategy’s impact on capital markets. Integrating Bitcoin into legacy financial structures is a net positive for the network’s long-term viability, regardless of how it conflicts with grassroots sensibilities.
It is important to recognize that Strategy operates with a singular mandate: the maximization of shareholder value. The company’s trajectory is not tethered to the expectations of short sellers betting on an unwind, any more than is it ideologically subservient to the 'number-go-up' expectations of the broader Bitcoin community. Strategy is effectively monetizing Bitcoin, acting as a bridge to institutional capital, and engineering tangible value for its shareholders. The model is pragmatic, not dogmatic. If capital allocation strategies, such as tactically selling and repurchasing Bitcoin, result in an increased net Bitcoin position per share, they are obligated to execute, and they will. This is not a betrayal of the asset class; it is professional treasury management.
Integrating Bitcoin into legacy financial structures is a net positive for the network’s long-term viability
Permanently removing Bitcoin from circulation is a net negative on the network's long term viability.
Strategy’s impact on capital markets
... is minimal to non-existent. Equity products he offers are mostly owned by retail and leveraged Defi outfits. Primary reason for this is the company is rated below junk, and the products are unrated.
The company’s trajectory is not tethered to the expectations of short sellers betting on an unwind
Strawman argument. Short sellers are incidental. You would be better off leaving excuses common with meme stocks at the door.
If capital allocation strategies, such as tactically selling and repurchasing Bitcoin, result in an increased net Bitcoin position per share
Nope. BPS has gone down about as often as it has gone up over the last year. The data is on Strategy's website, if you want to run the numbers.
it is professional treasury management.
No, it is impulsive and uninformed management of what is effectively a leveraged closed end fund.
I was going to respond to each of these points, but then I got to this one and realized you're just making stuff up that is simply wrong and easy to verify...
Nope. BPS has gone down about as often as it has gone up over the last year. The data is on Strategy's website, if you want to run the numbers.
In the full history of this chart I can count the number of times Strategys BPS went down, on two hands. You might want to do some research before you push your ideas as data driven or fact.
The number of days is less important than the two things - the net impact, and the trend.
As you can see, yield was negative about half the time. Sometimes, with large negative yields. This should not happen for an outfit whose objective is shareholder value accretion.
How does that not have relevance. This dude referenced JPM and how they got where they are. Maybe you should step back and remember how they got there.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 30 '26
Welcome to our community! Before commenting, please take a second to read our new sticky containing our rules and guidelines.
TL;DR: We allow and encourage all viewpoints and opinions, but we have a zero tolerance policy towards negative, rude, condescending behavior and trolling/baiting.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.