Nostr notes by 343PG

This is all spot on; I’d just add that companies are not ...

2025-12-11T23:23:52Z

In reply to nevent1q…q3n9
_________________________

This is all spot on; I’d just add that companies are not necessarily the distinct problem here - there are plenty that stack bitcoin with zero leverage. Plenty of individuals get over their skis with leverage also, trying to accelerate their stack. And max pain is often the result and they get sniffed out.

Important to note when Saifedean said this he was talking about ...

2025-12-03T22:01:55Z

In reply to nevent1q…0awx
_________________________

Important to note when Saifedean said this he was talking about on chain Bitcoin. Don’t think it shows him to be a store of value maxi.

Is your issue with $NAKA, or the entire concept in general? ...

2025-09-16T06:22:53Z

In reply to nevent1q…qhjr
_________________________

Is your issue with $NAKA, or the entire concept in general?

Can’t deny the above always felt scammy and laced with insiders with such a huge PIPE proportion.

But then, if you run a business, is it a good idea to hold Bitcoin on the balance sheet?

Corporations will always exist - a hyperbitcoinised world will just place the bar for investing in companies that much higher than in the Fiat world now.

Yes, there will be scams. But the well run will serve to put the rest of the corporate world on notice.

Wrote a piece for the Bitcoin collective on this area last week - would love to hear your thoughts

https://bitcoincollective.co/bitcoin-treasury-companies-ponzi-or-adoption/

Yeah, I think long term most of these companies will fall by the ...

2025-08-16T08:42:44Z

In reply to nevent1q…3np3
_________________________

Yeah, I think long term most of these companies will fall by the wayside and won’t attract investment unless they provide real value in the world. For the time being though, as we are early even just offering exposure to btc in wider markets than previously available is being treated as valuable.

Agreed on 1,2, and 4 especially - a complete red herring if ...

2025-08-16T08:19:24Z

In reply to nevent1q…zhk0
_________________________

Agreed on 1,2, and 4 especially - a complete red herring if countries are running deficits - it’s far more instructive to make Bitcoin ownership as easy as possible for every individual who is not running a deficit themselves.

On Bitcoin Treasury Companies though - I think it pays to think long term. Corporations and potential investment in them will always exist. It’s only natural that investments in these companies pop up as an option (essentially priced in Bitcoin) relative to just saving in Bitcoin. You may end up with more or less Bitcoin than you invest - like any investment - buyer beware of course. But it’s a pretty natural state of things that these will pop up and try and acquire Bitcoin - especially when tapping into other capital pools (fixed income etc) that can’t otherwise access it, as Saylor is doing.

Absolutely. It’s been a text book of how to build up a Bitcoin ...

2025-08-09T22:55:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…hsp0
_________________________

Absolutely. It’s been a text book of how to build up a Bitcoin treasury company - honesty, integrity, transparency, and by the look of it a tonne of hard work.

Yes I’d generally agree - I think one point around this being - ...

2025-08-07T17:57:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…hqa2
_________________________

Yes I’d generally agree - I think one point around this being - at what point of MNAV compression would you stop using the ATM like facility?

Of course it’s a balancing act but I sort of have the view that you increase the stack almost no matter what at this stage. 10k btc has to be the next target.

Thoughts on SWC Bitcoin based convertible debt as announced this ...

2025-08-07T17:28:00Z

Thoughts on SWC Bitcoin based convertible debt as announced this week in the UK..

This is a loan of $21m worth of Bitcoin, so let’s say around 180 btc and increases their stack around 8-9%. It’s at zero interest in Bitcoin terms.

The conversion sits at 5% above the equity price from the lenders point of view, and can be triggered once 50% above from the companies point of view and only after 6 months for this latter option.

Basically, the binary way to look at it is as to whether it converts or not - if it does, the company gets an extra atm at around 200p. If not, the loan just gets paid back with minimal loss in Bitcoin terms.

Why would the lender convert? If the shares have performed better than btc.

Why would the company convert? As long as the effective purchase of bitcoin at the conversion price is accretive to shareholders.

Strikes me there are some edge cases where the lender could lose in btc terms but they are marginal - eg equity goes up 55%, but btc goes up by even more - lender ends up with the shares and not the btc?

Be interesting to see if there are further of these and on slightly better terms for the company - ie ends up being a more accretive atm if converted.

#swc
#btc

Ha ha yes I noticed this earlier. They will go to great lengths ...

2025-05-26T20:34:25Z

In reply to nevent1q…f68g
_________________________

Ha ha yes I noticed this earlier. They will go to great lengths to confuse Bitcoin and Crypto as terms; it’s 100% deliberate.

My mistake😆. Clearly she is onto something..

2025-05-14T16:44:55Z

In reply to nevent1q…330s
_________________________

My mistake😆.

Clearly she is onto something..

295 billion teeth 🦷 in the world (approx) Only 21 million ...

2025-05-14T15:18:55Z

295 billion teeth 🦷 in the world (approx)

Only 21 million Bitcoin.

Gotta love the FT🙄

cc joenakamoto (npub1lr2…dl6a)

Agreed. It’s akin to people saying “never sell your ...

2025-04-16T18:28:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…dwxu
_________________________

Agreed. It’s akin to people saying “never sell your bitcoin” without considering that if you’re on a bitcoin standard, there will be inevitable times in life when you’ll have to spend more than you acquire anyway.

However, in the yield argument they are ignoring the opportunity cost of owning more btc (or mstr, if that way inclined) in the first place.

Lots of fairly inane chat about #msty at the moment. Just bear in ...

2025-04-16T12:29:48Z

Lots of fairly inane chat about #msty at the moment. Just bear in mind what the underlying is, and that in general terms, at
varying times in the market buyers of calls can profit, sometimes sellers of calls, but unlikely both at the same time.

My conclusion is that MSTY holders are likely to end up underperforming #MSTR, and are likely thinking in $ fiat terms.

Just like a trader who buys Bitcoin at 10k, sells at 20k, buys at 30k, sells at 50k, buys at 60k sells at 80k, and probably thinks they are some sort of genius.

#bitcoin https://m.primal.net/QEQe.jpg

2025-04-04T19:24:13Z

#bitcoin

💯

2025-03-18T17:12:41Z

In reply to nevent1q…s4u3
_________________________

💯

Massively degen, yes! But not obviously a scam? As in, he can ...

2025-03-18T16:55:15Z

In reply to nevent1q…peln
_________________________

Massively degen, yes! But not obviously a scam? As in, he can explain where the yield comes from and at least there’s no native token?!

Fantastic work Susie, and spot on.

2025-03-18T15:01:44Z

In reply to nevent1q…6mhg
_________________________

Fantastic work Susie, and spot on.

Found you ;)

2025-03-18T14:58:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…qpre
_________________________

Found you ;)

It’s almost like the past isn’t necessarily a decent guide to ...

2025-03-18T11:46:50Z

In reply to nevent1q…ecg0
_________________________

It’s almost like the past isn’t necessarily a decent guide to the future 🤔

So called “cycles” ending would be a great outcome for Bitcoin generally.

🤣 Firstly, I really do want some of what you’re smoking! ...

2025-03-18T10:56:54Z

In reply to nevent1q…rv59
_________________________

🤣 Firstly, I really do want some of what you’re smoking!

I’m very bullish MSTR, don’t get me wrong. Two big misconceptions here in my opinion. One is they will specifically try and game inclusion into S&P. Absolutely not.

Second is how much mstr move the market. Grossly overestimated I reckon. Sure, if they didn’t exist would Bitcoin be at a lower price? Probably. But all the shareholders would likely have found different ways to Bitcoin exposure rather than MSTR.

As #MSTR announced the first #$STRK preference share at the ...

2025-03-17T20:05:49Z

As #MSTR announced the first #$STRK preference share at the market offering today, some thoughts on how this might play out in the coming months.

Firstly, $11m is extremely small as a way to start. It would take around 1,900 weeks at this level to exhaust the $21bn! But what I suspect will happen is they will continuously ramp this up in the wake of bitcoin price appreciation in the months to come.

Let's consider how they might do this. The current price of STRK is $88.45, so MSTR are offering about a 9% yield in selling into the market at current levels. That price is made up of two components, essentially, the value of the perpetual fixed dividend payment of $8, and the value of potential future conversion to equity at 1/10th of the number of STRK shares held.

Bear in mind if bitcoin price rises, the value of that potential conversion to equity will also rise (eventually, if MSTR traded well above $1,000, STRK might end up trading more like MSTR stock since the $8 dividend would prove so small by comparison).

Just like when selling MSTR shares into the market, there is no free lunch - by selling more STRK ATM, it will depress the STRK price, and all else equal require them to pay a higher yield to the market the more they sell. Selling at $100 is clearly better for MSTR than selling at $88.

What they could do though, is decide that at any level of STRK price above X, say, they will relentlessly issue the ATM in to the market. Let's say this price is $100 (which leads to the originally 8% dividend). As the MSTR share price rises, the increasing value of the equity conversion, and perhaps the increasing security coverage on the dividend payments may help them to sell more and more STRK into the market at this level.

PunterJeff (nprofile…4knj)
BenWerkman (nprofile…7jq0)

Yes it’s a good question, but probably not to be honest. Lots ...

2025-03-16T08:57:36Z

In reply to nevent1q…fmrp
_________________________

Yes it’s a good question, but probably not to be honest. Lots of people predicted the same would happen to MSTR when the US ETFs came along, which turned out to be seriously wrong, so my guess is everyone tends to overthink these impacts.

Yep, I’m in the UK also! Albeit for me what started out as a ...

2025-03-15T11:11:52Z

In reply to nevent1q…2h6g
_________________________

Yep, I’m in the UK also! Albeit for me what started out as a BTC proxy has developed out as something quite different. He’s tapping into insatiable demand for return from the capital markets, and making positive BTC yield per share in doing so.

MSTR introduces counterparty risk - the Coinbase custody risk is ...

2025-03-13T18:15:42Z

In reply to nevent1q…2swv
_________________________

MSTR introduces counterparty risk - the Coinbase custody risk is worth a mention. So I would definitely mention that. Albeit custody has a cost regardless of who you are - even if it’s yourself - so arguably they may have an efficient model.

Of all the negatives I think regulation / tax is one of the largest - change can happen fast in future. cory (nprofile…nc5g) klippsten’s race to avoid the war article is still valid

Oddly, one of the biggest drivers of NAV closer to 1 could be a ...

2025-03-13T18:12:42Z

In reply to nevent1q…xcmg
_________________________

Oddly, one of the biggest drivers of NAV closer to 1 could be a sustained rapid rise in BTC, say to $1m - which might hugely constrain their ability to generate as much btc yield relative to the btc they hold. However in that case, shareholders would probably still sleep at night!

For all the #MSTR 1x MNav people out there. I’m confused.. you ...

2025-02-24T15:02:44Z

For all the #MSTR 1x MNav people out there.

I’m confused.. you want to value MSTR solely based on the bitcoin they hold, but that in itself has gone from 252,220 to 499,096 since the US election in November.

So which figure do you want to use again?!

If he did, the zero discernible impact $2bn+ buying has on the ...

2025-02-23T18:56:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…2s3d
_________________________

If he did, the zero discernible impact $2bn+ buying has on the bitcoin price is remarkable!

Yeah I think that’s it - there are ways of securing your nsec ...

2025-02-23T17:56:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…zld9
_________________________

Yeah I think that’s it - there are ways of securing your nsec and not exposing it etc, but once it’s out in the open that npub might as well be considered like any other imitation account of you.

Beginners question admittedly, but isn’t the point that on ...

2025-02-23T16:37:33Z

In reply to nevent1q…snu0
_________________________

Beginners question admittedly, but isn’t the point that on Nostr if someone got hold of your nsec you’d just start again with a new nsec?

And you’d achieve this via a social layer of trust, showing it to people in person who know you etc, and building up your network from there. And this would fairly rapidly overtake and discredit the former one.

My guess is the motley fool started back in the day with decent ...

2025-02-23T12:40:53Z

In reply to nevent1q…mckx
_________________________

My guess is the motley fool started back in the day with decent intentions, but don’t make enough money from their investing advice subscription services so are pretty much for hire nowadays.

Next few weeks could be wild

2025-02-19T11:57:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…gzeg
_________________________

Next few weeks could be wild

Yes all those “leverage shenanigans”… all so opaque. I wish ...

2025-02-17T17:07:00Z

In reply to nevent1q…yr9u
_________________________

Yes all those “leverage shenanigans”… all so opaque. I wish someone would make a website to keep up with them all.

Oh wait!

strategy.com

A thought on a different lens about #MSTR new preference share ...

2025-02-14T17:44:02Z

A thought on a different lens about #MSTR new preference share offering $STRK, which at the moment yields about 9% p.a in perpetuity.

As #Saylor has said, this offers a lower risk product out to the market with a more limited upside and downside than MSTR equity. In the earnings call Saylor pointed out that their current Bitcoin holdings could pay for around 750 years worth of #STRK dividends at current prices, and even 100 years worth if BTC declined by 75%. There are still tail events where the ability to make these payments comes under doubt.

The question is, at what point will TradFi investors with no particular positive sentiment on Bitcoin sit up and take notice of this 9% yield? Possibly, at the time when they can hedge out these tail events and still obtain a decent spread over US treasuries.

Could it effectively be done now? Would love to hear thoughts on this. Currently, a 2 year put on MSTR with a strike price at $10 can be bought at 0.66, suggesting a max return of about 14x on the premium.

IBIT is an alternative - a 2 year put on #IBIT (current price around 55) with a strike of 15 (i.e. a drawdown of 70%) is priced at 0.74, which is a max return of 19x.

I'm not sure those offer decent enough protection for someone who wants to use puts to insure against absolute loss of capital on the preference shares, since the premium would have to come out of the annual return and still look compelling for someone looking for an annuity type investment outperforming treasuries at little risk.

Final thought - the upside equity conversion also has value and selling covered calls against that could pay to hedge some of the downside risk in dollar terms.

cc Jeff Booth (nprofile…mwnq) preston (nprofile…5gu2) james (nprofile…t0d8) Lawrence Lepard (nprofile…qztu) would love to hear any thoughts and please do spread this question further on Nostr? #asknostr

PS my point is not that I'd do this personally, but if it starts adding up for someone in Tradfi with zero positive view on Bitcoin this would be a sign of inversion of the current financial world and Saylor may be able to issue a huge amount of these..

I know what you mean. You could view STRK as a DCA mechanism into ...

2025-02-14T15:37:35Z

In reply to nevent1q…qlg9
_________________________

I know what you mean. You could view STRK as a DCA mechanism into MSTR also.

Personally I’m not selling MSTR to buy STRK just as I’m not selling Bitcoin to buy MSTR, they are just separate types of allocations.

Probably just about treading water on dollar debasement..

2025-02-14T15:35:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…hyqp
_________________________

Probably just about treading water on dollar debasement..

Thinking out loud here on the new #MSTR #STRK preference share ...

2025-02-14T12:00:36Z

Thinking out loud here on the new #MSTR #STRK preference share offering.

These preference shares pay a fixed $8 dividend based on every $100 nominal per share. The current market price is $90, meaning for someone who buys now they yield approx 9% per year.

They convert to 1/10 of MSTR equity, on the request of the holder only, and not the company. The company has no rights to redeem them unless certain circumstances are met (I think it's something like less than 20% of shares are outstanding).

Hence at the moment with MSTR around $325, noone will convert - your $90 market price would only be worth 325/10 = $32.5. This is why you may see the strike price said to be $1,000 - once the share price gets above this then the value of the shares if converted would be $100, so could start to be worth it versus the market value of the STRK preference shares (currently $90). Bear in mind these will move up and down, so it's non trivial.

What I've been struggling with though - why would anyone ever convert when you can continue to pocket the $8 per $100 nominal a year, and always have the option to convert to an ever rising share price?

The answer I've come down with is two fold. Firstly, you may want to sell the investment, and if the share price keeps rising, conversion to normal shares may maximise the value of your investment on selling. Let's say the share price rises to $2,000 - the equity if converted is then worth $200. With that said, we can't say for sure that's more than the market value of STRK at that point, as the market value of $STRK itself will take into account the value of possible conversion! Markets normally remove artibrage, so it's unlikely you could buy STRK and immediately convert to normal equity and sell for an immediate profit. Or maybe a small incentive would be priced into it, as you're sacrificing optionality? Struggling to get my head around this.

The second potential for conversion relates to the fixed dividend. If the share price is at $2,000, and the market value of $STRK is above $200 (as would be logical), you're no longer realising 8% plus on the current value of your investment - you're being paid effectively 4%. So the incentive may exist to convert/sell, and reinvest that money to achieve a higher income stream than the $8.

Let's say there was a $STRK2 issued by #strategy at that point, that paid $8 per $100 starting price, and converted to 1 in 40 MSTR shares.. by selling $STRK at $200, and buying this instead you could double your income stream - so there's your incentive.

I'm no expert here - would love to hear thoughts on this if anyone has them. If anyone reads this let me know you're out here. NOSTR doesn't generally love Saylor / MSTR, but I'd rather have this conversation on here rather than X.

#asknostr

cc BenWerkman (nprofile…7jq0)
PunterJeff (nprofile…4knj)

Yes, definitely - the moves in Q4 were huge, and we can expect ...

2025-02-09T08:34:48Z

In reply to nevent1q…zpxq
_________________________

Yes, definitely - the moves in Q4 were huge, and we can expect large amounts of converts to be issued pretty soon. The challenge in terms of
valuing them is how long they can carry on this sort of pace for.

Some good thoughts. Since MSTR will always be seeking to add to ...

2025-02-08T18:52:08Z

In reply to nevent1q…kx8k
_________________________

Some good thoughts. Since MSTR will always be seeking to add to their Bitcoin holdings I like to think of the valuation question in Bitcoin terms. I.e. the market is essentially telling us that the present value of all future bitcoin they can get their hands on can double the current bitcoin they hold (per share, being what matters)

Is that valuation bearish? On the basis of the last quarter’s activity alone and how accretive it was, it probably is. However there’s a lot that could slow them down still - we just don’t know whether the market will keep on letting them act accretively for shareholders, and in the longer term (as you mention also) what sort of utility the Bitcoin could have for further earnings to add yet more bitcoin.

Having said all that - the dollar angle for valuation is always going to win out for the foreseeable. And if they are going to become as big as the mag 7 are now, and perhaps eat a chunk of their monetary premium, we may see some much higher earnings multiples applied than right now. Who knows?

It’s pretty hilarious watching them tie themselves in knots ...

2025-02-07T09:50:35Z

In reply to nevent1q…sdas
_________________________

It’s pretty hilarious watching them tie themselves in knots isn’t it.

Never would I dream about tuning into an earnings call in the ...

2025-02-05T16:59:56Z

In reply to nevent1q…nlzk
_________________________

Never would I dream about tuning into an earnings call in the past 😆. But these are only going to grow in interest and viewers, as he’s made them box office.

If anyone needs a good book to read, check out Dava Sobel’s ...

2025-02-05T10:08:05Z

If anyone needs a good book to read, check out Dava Sobel’s Longitude, the story of John Harrison’s lifelong quest to build a timepiece that could operate at sea.

Truly inspiring. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and Harrison was one.

#bookstr
#longitude
#harrison

Welcome! Bear in mind nostr works differently to twitter. Replies ...

2025-02-04T23:13:55Z

In reply to nevent1q…v4sv
_________________________

Welcome! Bear in mind nostr works differently to twitter. Replies to people get more engagement than just tweeting out into the void. And a good way to find more people to follow is by checking out who those that you follow, follow in turn.

Yes this combination is possible. If you hold billions with ...

2025-02-04T22:29:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…25dm
_________________________

Yes this combination is possible. If you hold billions with anyone you’d expect some pretty high assurances, wouldn’t you. But I accept this is speculation, and admittedly as an MSTR shareholder I am trusting them to custody it safely.

I agree with most of this in terms of what happens in the end ...

2025-02-04T22:18:29Z

In reply to nevent1q…9zxa
_________________________

I agree with most of this in terms of what happens in the end when you issue paper Bitcoin, but it’s not quite addressing my point.

MSTR aren’t retail. They are likely using institutional grade multisig in segregated wallets that they can monitor, surely?! They can see their own Bitcoin and know it’s not being lent or rehypothecated elsewhere. But that doesn’t mean they’re going to reveal those addresses to the wider world, or indeed reveal any element is how they custody. If I was in Saylor’s shoes I’d do the same, and give our as little info on it as possible, unless my shareholders started overwhelmingly demanding it.

The good news is, nearly everyone who has played the paper ...

2025-02-04T21:59:41Z

In reply to nevent1q…llfj
_________________________

The good news is, nearly everyone who has played the paper Bitcoin game has been eventually found out. If Coinbase are fractionally reserving Bitcoin, they will be too at some stage.

However, in this example there’s a huge difference between Coinbase doing this elsewhere, and Coinbase doing it with MSTR funds. Just because Saylor/MSTR don’t publish their public addresses, do you really believe that they don’t/can’t monitor their own addresses behind closed doors? I doubt it.

The truth in the MSTR case is likely simpler. Coinbase probably offers the most professional service / lowest risk in terms of institutional custody. Saylor is not stupid, and one day this may change to someone else. I have no time for Coinbase personally, but the ETFs have also cast their vote in this.

The reality is simply that the op sec benefits of not revealing wallets outweigh the proof that MSTR provide to the market that they hold the Bitcoin. Agree that shareholders could pressure this if they feel it necessary.

Anyone reading this - would love to hear thoughts

#mstr
#coinbase

Fantastic note as always @nprofile…7jq0 . Keep going with Nostr ...

2025-02-01T11:15:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…q8kd
_________________________

Fantastic note as always BenWerkman (nprofile…7jq0) . Keep going with Nostr content!

Starting to get my head around the STRK issuance - this and the Jeff Park mini paper were good for this.

As to why anyone would ever sell STRK once the value of 1/10th of the share price is more than the STRK value, I think the only answer is - if as the investor you just want/need to sell at that particular point in time? And if conversion is greater than STRK then conversion is the logical path to realising the greatest value.

If you don't need to sell and realise the value of what you own, then you're just going to sit on the option in perpetuity and collect the 8%? Seems really unpredictable therefore how much of STRK will ever be converted, as it's largely down to the time preference of the holders.

Final question, in terms of potential ATM issuance of this going forwards, what does the world look like where MSTR trades at $1,500 (say) - is STRK still going to be issued but with the price reflective of the equity conversion having much more value within it than at $350? Or is this a mute point and by that point they have STRK2 issued.

#mstr
#asknostr
#strk
PunterJeff (nprofile…4knj)

Today’s market movements make me think of the old #Saylor quote ...

2025-01-27T20:37:41Z

Today’s market movements make me think of the old #Saylor quote -

“Bitcoin is channeling human ingenuity into making it better, and every commodity is channeling human energy into making it worse (as a money)”

To explain this. Consider computer chips a form of commodity. In #Nvidia you have a clear sector leader that the market has been treating as a form of money.

Long term though, all the huge Nvidia valuation says to the rest of the world is - come and innovate and compete for our huge valuation, and have at it. That ingenuity will make Nvidia worse as a form of money. The signs may already be here.

#bitcoin
#money

I get this all the time.. My way of expressing it to them - ...

2025-01-27T14:41:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…kp7v
_________________________

I get this all the time.. My way of expressing it to them -

“You’re not going to move the market … I’m trying to get you on the f*cking lifeboat!”

Just to chip in here - I can imagine a new plan being announced ...

2025-01-27T10:54:09Z

In reply to nevent1q…g9pj
_________________________

Just to chip in here - I can imagine a new plan being announced in the Q3 earnings call a year later than the last one. They seem to like establishing a regular cadence with this stuff and it would make sense for teeing up a plan for the next year, if they have finished by that point. Seems fairly clear they need Bitcoin price to run to get to the 21bn on the debt side.

Interesting isn’t it. I wonder if the issue from the market is ...

2025-01-25T19:06:32Z

In reply to nevent1q…afm6
_________________________

Interesting isn’t it. I wonder if the issue from the market is that Semler have much less runway vs their average entry price for Bitcoin - ie it would be easier for them to go over their skis in a bear?

It’s massively paying off. Comparing stuff to MSTR all time ...

2025-01-25T19:02:25Z

In reply to nevent1q…fjd6
_________________________

It’s massively paying off. Comparing stuff to MSTR all time high is a bit like viewing Bitcoins progress relative to its ATH price - normally misses the bigger picture

With the 2027 notes redeemed there could be room for even more ...

2025-01-25T19:00:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…a0lj
_________________________

With the 2027 notes redeemed there could be room for even more than $5bn convertible debt. I’ve seen $9bn mentioned.

Going to be wild..

Career wise, I always think just focus on improving your skillset ...

2025-01-21T09:13:48Z

In reply to nevent1q…ng0d
_________________________

Career wise, I always think just focus on improving your skillset / breadth of experience / network etc. worry about the money later - if you get the above stuff right it will come soon enough, as your market worth will have gone up.

But it’s quite a different message to the previous types “I ...

2025-01-19T17:15:01Z

In reply to nevent1q…00mj
_________________________

But it’s quite a different message to the previous types “I think we need another dot .. etc”

My guess is - non trading day, possibly a nod to the inauguration. Any MSTR announcement would probably come pre market Tuesday?

Just seen Saylor’s tweet - “things will be different ...

2025-01-19T17:00:10Z

In reply to nevent1q…hmu7
_________________________

Just seen Saylor’s tweet - “things will be different tomorrow” - what do you make of that?

This might be old news to many on here, but I've just ...

2025-01-18T15:04:55Z

This might be old news to many on here, but I've just stumbled upon what looks like the history of the "Vaccines contain microchips" theory. Perhaps naively, I'd always assumed that this was just some fringe crackpot group on the internet that came up with this, and thought no further about it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/08/15/debunked-bill-gates-conspiracy-gets-a-boost-from-rfk-jr-marla-maples/

However in this article the journalist links to RFK and an instagram post -

'This week he [RFK] posted to his Instagram account a photo of Gates with the wild words “The digitalized economy? We get rid of cash and coins. We give you a chip. We put all your money in your chip. If you refuse a vaccine, we turn off the chip and you starve!”'

The article then jumps - "The conspiracy theory that Gates plans to install tracking devices into humans with the coronavirus vaccine his foundation is aiding has been debunked by experts but has still continued to gain traction in some circles since the onset of the pandemic."

Therefore the journalist has baselessly linked RFK comments around digital identity / cash [essentially CBDC type commentary around control, linked to the idea of being essentially coerced via financial control to take a vaccine; surely this could never happen...] with it being a theory that vaccines were in and of themselves some form of tracking device.

Hence, is that where the entire vaccines contain microchips conspiracy came from? Was it directly from this RFK quote being [deliberately] misinterpreted by multiple media sources?
#asknostr
#rfk
#vaccines

It’s a decent read, similar but different to the mandibles in ...

2025-01-11T20:33:41Z

In reply to nevent1q…wa7u
_________________________

It’s a decent read, similar but different to the mandibles in my opinion, but I have failed to recommend it to any friends, mainly on account of it being very very depressing 😕

Thanks Frank - these are good questions. I am an interested ...

2025-01-03T15:48:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…qjug
_________________________

Thanks Frank - these are good questions. I am an interested stakeholder as a MSTR shareholder. Based in the UK, I like many over here have no other Bitcoin related proxies to match MSTR within a pension. This fact has pushed me into a higher MSTR exposure than I’d rather have, relative to Bitcoin, and the risks are somewhat higher in many ways.

Fully agree with your right to push back on narratives, and of course limit the power of the state. It might be most prudent to assume he was pretty connected and act accordingly. An aside, but one thing that reassures me as a current shareholder is MSTR’s recent Bitcoin principles slide and the transparency of that long term plan. Saylor provides all the right signals in this respect, though of course it doesn’t concern the exact areas under debate here.

Enjoyed your article @npub1dnz…x52h and don’t necessarily ...

2025-01-03T14:25:10Z

In reply to nevent1q…yfzc
_________________________

Enjoyed your article FrankCorvaOldAccount (npub1dnz…x52h) and don’t necessarily disagree with where you are coming from, but I think Saylor is pretty smart. He knows the US is a long way from really having to consider Bitcoin as currency, and hence the conversation is a needless distraction whilst the volatility is still this high and Gresham’s law is in full display.

Perhaps he’s a bit disingenuous with some of his framing - but I think we forget how few pro Bitcoin executives of large corporations we ever hear speaking. As a different example have a look at Saylor’s comments on the US election before it happened - there essentially weren’t any.

Hi Chris, you’re probably right - albeit there’s obviously ...

2025-01-01T15:09:54Z

In reply to nevent1q…s2g2
_________________________

Hi Chris, you’re probably right - albeit there’s obviously increased risk with buying any calls, the market is especially programmed to find “max pain” so you just have to make sure to be on the right side of that..!

Out of interest where do you get exposure to MSTR calls in the UK?

I think B) is the relevant one for me. And it’s their ability ...

2024-12-13T04:59:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…7tne
_________________________

I think B) is the relevant one for me. And it’s their ability to continually tap the capital markets and increase this which is compelling. Of course that also inevitably leads to A), but that’s not an explicit target - I reckon watching the q3 earnings call and the Bitcoin principles slide is highly useful here.

Of course the golden question will be - at what level of A) does it all get too bullish and toppy versus simply owning the bitcoin?!

I’d say be careful owning MSTU for extended periods of time - ...

2024-12-13T04:47:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…exnu
_________________________

I’d say be careful owning MSTU for extended periods of time - the slippage could really hurt after an extended period of choppiness up and down. Matthew Kratter covered this well in a recent video.

@npub1zj4…876g ⬆️ it’s not really a debate at this stage, ...

2024-12-10T12:57:46Z

In reply to nevent1q…edq8
_________________________

BenWerkman (npub1zj4…876g) ⬆️ it’s not really a debate at this stage, but be interested to hear your thoughts on this idea - as long as MSTR is a going concern its value vs mNAV can’t logically be deduced as 1 - due to its principles which will lead it to continually trying to acquire more btc if it’s a going concern.

Associated question though has to be where does it all end - I’m not sure anyone really has their heads around that but be good to see it discussed more.

Great to see you on nostr Ben, big fan of all the content you are ...

2024-12-10T12:45:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…zftx
_________________________

Great to see you on nostr Ben, big fan of all the content you are putting out.

Certainly agree with the above, and worth reminding people Saylor established his own true north principles in the last earnings call. The slide is worth a revisit for many of these commentators. And on this, the principles will lead him to acquire more Bitcoin via the atm and increase btc per share - two of the principles. Does this invalidate the prioritising of common stockholders by depressing the share price too much? Crucially - no - as that principle referred to long term value creation for shareholders, not short term. Not a word out of place on that slide!

Ha ha you never know.. would be a delicious irony if they did

2024-12-09T19:18:09Z

In reply to nevent1q…q8dx
_________________________

Ha ha you never know.. would be a delicious irony if they did

“Bitcoin is the best asset in the world! Bitcoin is the best ...

2024-12-05T10:50:08Z

“Bitcoin is the best asset in the world! Bitcoin is the best asset in the world! Naseem Taleb, Nouriel Roubini, Paul Krugman, Warren Buffett, Stephen Diehl, Bruce Elder, Jamie Dimon - we have beaten them all. We have beaten them all. Jemima Kelly - can you hear me. Jemima Kelly. Your boys took a HELL of a beating. Your boys took a HELL of a beating.”

(With apologies to Bjorge Lillelien)

#niche
#football
#commentary
#bitcoin

😆 Reminds me of the excellent Kevin Kelly quote “Don’t ...

2024-12-03T15:51:56Z

In reply to nevent1q…gdyr
_________________________

😆 Reminds me of the excellent Kevin Kelly quote “Don’t worry about what people are thinking about you. They are NOT thinking about you.”

I guess some people are just obsessed with the history of ...

2024-11-29T18:41:03Z

In reply to nevent1q…0juw
_________________________

I guess some people are just obsessed with the history of grayscale and seeing MSTR as a type of bitcoin ETF.

Does it matter? Only in the sense that the markets evaluation of it makes an impact as to how much btc MSTR can buy.

Never knew it was him who said this, but appears so yes

2024-11-29T17:28:24Z

In reply to nevent1q…qga2
_________________________

Never knew it was him who said this, but appears so yes

Here's a question - what have a) Craig Wright, and b) the ...

2024-11-29T17:16:39Z

Here's a question - what have a) Craig Wright, and b) the MSTR mNAV value, got in common? Some (unoriginal) thoughts about what MSTR's market value might end up as, relative to the net asset value of their bitcoin.

The idea of mNAV (multiple of net asset value) being 1 for MSTR is appealing in one sense to value them. Start valuing them based on the value of the bitcoin on their balance sheet.

Immediately though there are strong arguments for mNAV ending up higher or lower than 1. For it to end up lower - if MSTR somehow end up insolvent and being wound up, to ever get there for whatever reason that is, they would have to start having to sell some of the bitcoin they have == less than mNAV 1.

For higher - this is easy - at any point in time that MSTR are a going concern, they are not only the value of their balance sheet bitcoin, perhaps adjusted for debt, but then also their ability to add to this number over time, be that through equity or debt issuance, or by allocating profits from the original business intelligence software business. Consider - they will probably not ever stop trying to acquire bitcoin, as long as they can.

At the moment, clearly the market sees them as a going concern and that mNAV is far higher than 1. The frightening genius of the proposition is that this entire valuation is reflexive - the more the market thinks that MSTR can generate more Bitcoin to add to the balance sheet, the higher the share price, and in actual reality the more MSTR can issue convertible debt and equity that actually do add more Bitcoin to the balance sheet and add to btc per share. This effect goes second order - even the mNAV now is arguably based upon what does the market expect the range of values for mNAV to be in 10 years time.

So back to the beginning - what do MSTR mNAV and Craig Wright have in common? Well, it's said that Satoshi could be anyone, except Craig S Wright, given that he's the only person in the world where a court case has gone to great lengths to prove he's not Satoshi. Similarly, the MSTR mNAV can be any number you care to argue for.. but it can't logically be 1.

#mstr
#microstrategy
#bitcoin

Yes… my absolute pet hate here also is companies punishing ...

2024-11-22T14:31:56Z

In reply to nevent1q…fen7
_________________________

Yes… my absolute pet hate here also is companies punishing loyalty rather than rewarding it (see introductory offers for the current and opposite theme that we all have to suffer)

Just occurred to me - the symbolism of Trump and entourage making ...

2024-11-20T06:54:23Z

Just occurred to me - the symbolism of Trump and entourage making a visit to the UFC at the weekend - essentially an evolving discovery of fighting in a free market which discovers over time which techniques work and which don’t.

When on the same weekend far more people probably watched Jake Paul “boxing” Mike Tyson in some vapid, plastic, sports entertainment money making exercise.

allen (npub1sfh…ymqt) does this mean Trump has read the introduction to Bitcoin is Venice 🤯🤣. After carefully weighing it up, I’m saying definitely.

#ufc
#trump
#bitcoinisvenice

Agreed - happiness is the journey not the destination. You’re a ...

2024-11-18T20:36:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…ygr0
_________________________

Agreed - happiness is the journey not the destination. You’re a spurs fan, right, we all understand this 😂

Latest article is out; posting this only on Nostr so please share ...

2024-11-07T21:25:37Z

Latest article is out; posting this only on Nostr so please share on.

Reflections on the recent MSTR earnings call. saylor (npub15dq…lm5m) at the absolute top of his game. Next few years are going to be wild.

https://bitcoincollective.co/%e2%81%a0we-need-to-talk-about-microstrategy/

#microstrategy
#mstr
#saylor
#bitcoin
PunterJeff (npub18aj…dmq0) npub1tc07vyyqny6wfuj3m8k0t52ut6ndzljghcxvvqk5u5k56eypgchqpqgdxh (npub1tc0…gdxh) true north reference was fantastic to see

MSTR is simply a company seeking to grow their bitcoin in their ...

2024-09-28T17:34:57Z

In reply to nevent1q…gq6k
_________________________

MSTR is simply a company seeking to grow their bitcoin in their treasury. They represent an investment in equity - nothing special, except they are early. In future I hope lots of other companies will present a similar proposition - but the opportunity cost of these choices will always be holding the btc. Companies will definitely have to demonstrate a positive risk adjusted proposition for individuals to invest.

Amazing work on this Susie. It may feel like banging your head ...

2024-09-21T13:11:03Z

In reply to nevent1q…alme
_________________________

Amazing work on this Susie.

It may feel like banging your head against a brick wall sometimes, but I think complaints like this do make a difference over time. The journalist in question will have likely had to come back to it and do further work internally to justify and defend their content, alongside others. Whilst the complaint may not be upheld, they may be more careful in their stance next time around.

It was ever thus. All weapons throughout history are just forms ...

2024-09-18T09:42:02Z

In reply to nevent1q…tmwm
_________________________

It was ever thus. All weapons throughout history are just forms of technology.

You look like a good looking lad (through the fire and all) - ...

2024-09-06T20:16:10Z

In reply to nevent1q…2th9
_________________________

You look like a good looking lad (through the fire and all) - I’m sure you’ll figure it out..

It was good while it lasted

2024-09-06T20:11:40Z

In reply to nevent1q…0d5u
_________________________

It was good while it lasted

Fine, but add a small surcharge. Covers the cost of your time ...

2024-08-20T11:59:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…424j
_________________________

Fine, but add a small surcharge. Covers the cost of your time & the expense of converting it into sats!

One of my favourite quotes is that 99% of success in life is just ...

2024-08-14T21:22:03Z

One of my favourite quotes is that 99% of success in life is just showing up.

It’s only just occurred to me that Bitcoin - of course - fits this rule.

Every ten minutes or so, Bitcoin shows up.

Hey Louis can’t see the note you’re replying to but guessing ...

2024-07-20T11:51:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…qjae
_________________________

Hey Louis can’t see the note you’re replying to but guessing around Bitcoin annuities? Personally I think it’s a slight red herring - sometimes centralised parties are inevitable and it’s probably the case they need to be for pooling life expectancy. Insurers have played this role pretty well for both annuities and life insurance for years- I don’t think it’s the main issue out there.

Thanks - That’s really interesting! It does bring to mind the ...

2024-07-18T19:20:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…ptal
_________________________

Thanks - That’s really interesting! It does bring to mind the question of what businesses exist for in the first place

Giving away sats is hard! Will change to minimum 400 sats to ...

2024-07-18T09:40:56Z

Giving away sats is hard! Will
change to minimum 400 sats to anyone who reposts original below or would like to comment on the article.

quoting
note193w…5ffz
**Going to try something new for this new article. I have a budget of 10,000 sats to allocate across anyone who reads and posts a comment / feedback, and just for anyone who reposts (not "likes"..) on Nostr! 100 sats minimum zap, and will also redistribute any zaps received in full also **

This is an article reviewing Simon Sinek's book, The Infinite Game. You can also view it at https://bitcoincollective.co/bitcoin-and-the-infinite-game/

Simon Sinek asks in his book “The Infinite Game” why more companies don’t operate with an infinite rather than a finite mindset. One main reason he misses, of course, is the money. The good news is there’s a new infinite game in town.

In “The Infinite Game”, Simon Sinek argues that great leaders set up their organisations to succeed beyond their own lifetimes. By recognising and positioning their business with an infinite rather than a finite mindset, they can engender greater trust throughout their employees and also build more resilience into their business. Their companies can also remain true to themselves and their mission, whatever that may be.

Sinek outlines that unfortunately we have entered an age of general subservience from leaders to their shareholders, and a slavery to the balance sheet and short term, “finite”, accounting and strategy. This generally leads to a decline of loyalty and engagement amongst customers and an increase in insecurity and anxiety amongst employees.

There’s plenty to agree with here in general terms. With that said, Sinek fails to identify one of the largest causes of the issues he identifies, which is the money. The book lays the blame on a watershed article from 1970 in which Milton Friedman laid out that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.” This is noted in the book as a turning point from the original ideas of Adam Smith, for whom the consumer was king, but I couldn’t help but wonder if anything else happened in the early 70s, such as Nixon cancelling the convertibility of dollars into gold in 1971. (see also – https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/).

Sinek bemoans the short term nature of companies since that point, but doesn’t consider how the nature of money has shaped this; surely a much more omnipresent and powerful factor than the writings of Milton Friedman. For the average bitcoiner this may be relatively self evident, but let’s consider the motives of the leadership under a system in which the underlying money cannot hold it’s value and in which credit is artificially priced. Incentives abound – one to laden the company with debt (which all else will likely diminish in real terms over time versus company assets and earnings), acquire other businesses and grow as big as possible in the process. Other options such as share buybacks also reflect short term incentives. Shareholders are going to place their own high short term demands on companies in a world where it is hard to outrun monetary debasement.

What of new businesses? When a new private entity is formed, the business plan is written, agreement on its viability is formed, strategy is set, tactics are agreed and then the first question posed by external stakeholders or posed to the majority shareholders is ‘what is your exit strategy’. Small successful businesses are expected to have a 3-5 year plan, private equity is usually a 3-5 year plan, and the successful larger companies with a longer trajectory also tend to swallow up the smaller successful companies (easier access to debt). With such incentives, it’s no wonder that we tend to see certain outcomes. There are obvious agency problems the larger a company gets, and they are more likely to fail to adhere to an infinite game principle. Smaller companies are forever at risk of getting swallowed up by larger ones.

So how does Bitcoin come into this? In my view, in two ways:

1. Bitcoin is an infinite game within itself

This is one of the subtle but crucial differences that splits Bitcoin sceptics and bitcoiners, and then dominates their onward arguments. If interpreted as a finite game, Bitcoin is for gambling, for speculation, it will have an end, and will be defined by winners and losers. Just the other day, this article framed it as such with the following line –

“Whether Bitcoin is rising or falling, or who is buying or not buying it, nothing alters a basic fact: that Bitcoin is a classic zero-sum game. Large numbers of people can make vast paper fortunes by bidding up the price, but they cannot all realise those fortunes, because if everyone sells out the price collapses to zero. In that situation, those who were quick to sell would become rich at the expense of those who were slow to sell.”

Herein lies the problem for this criticism. As far as I can possibly ascertain right now, Bitcoin doesn’t end. Plenty might treat it as a finite game (and dismiss it as a ponzi, or try and trade it), but that treatment is a one way journey, and once you see Bitcoin as an infinite game there is little going back.

Going back to the book, let’s consider the “just cause” that Sinek says all businesses should have. According to Sinek, a just cause defines “the world we hope to live in and will commit to help build. It is the just cause that we are working to advance that gives our work and lives meaning. We know a cause is just when we commit to it with the confidence that others will carry on our legacy.” There are criteria listed too – a just cause must be “inclusive, service orientated, resilient, and idealistic.” Bitcoin surely fulfils these. On the ideology point, Michael Saylor articulated this well when dismissing altcoins in comparison to Bitcoin on the What Is Money podcast –

“If you really want a crypto to be successful over 100 years, the technology is only a part of it, right? It’s the ideology paired with the technology. And you’re gonna have to have an ideology that is so pure and so straightforward that people will fight to the death to defend the ideology. And that’s why I’m probably not gonna sacrifice my life for the 13th iteration on smart contracts. It’s not that important. On the other hand, if you tell me that we’re about to suck all of the economic energy out of the civilization and plunge ourselves into the Dark Ages, then I think I’ll fight for it. That’s worth fighting for.”

Michael Saylor – What is Money Show Episode 8

2. Bitcoin on balance sheets

Any business embracing Bitcoin on its balance sheet will automatically be closer to playing an infinite game itself, and let’s consider why. For starters, any shareholders will likely be holding equity with one opportunity cost being a holding of an equivalent amount of Bitcoin instead. This in itself will give them a low time preference mindset, which should transfer onto the company. Secondly, the act of having Bitcoin on the balance sheet provides a very simple yet iron clad discipline upon the company. One goal in broad terms is to grow that Bitcoin balance sheet over time, and they can only achieve that by being profitable. If they are not, they will find that Bitcoin balance dwindling over time instead. Though conventional businesses do broadly have the same need to be profitable, the Bitcoin example is quite different from a business with requirements to service debt, which may carry much shorter term deadlines for payment. In conclusion, companies looking to grow their Bitcoin holdings on a balance sheet are far more likely to buy into an infinite game mindset.

There are examples of infinite minded leaders out there, of course. Elon Musk is perhaps the most relevant in the present day, given Tesla and SpaceX have lofty long term ideals far removed from satisfying shareholders. Steve Jobs is another obvious one, and Sinek quotes an anecdote about sharing a cab with a senior Apple executive and telling him that the latest Microsoft Zune product (mp3 player at the time) was so much better than the iPod touch. The executive smiled politely and was unfazed – tellingly, Apple weren’t worried about competitors in the short term due to their infinite mindset in making great & innovative products. Fast forward to today and there is evidence that Apple aren’t playing the infinite game that they used to. Take for example the recent news that Apple is plugging in Open AI into the iPhone. This doesn’t feel like the same ethos of a company who famously told us to “Think different” under Steve Jobs.

In conclusion, there’s plenty of decent ideas in the text and he articulates the issues well. However, due to failing to identify probably the main cause of the problem, Sinek doesn’t quite nail the call to arms for leaders to embrace an infinite game. Add in Bitcoin though, and the time preference of companies and their shareholders would vastly decrease and an infinite game mindset would come naturally.

One final thought – Sinek opens by looking back to the Vietnam war. Despite their vastly superior army and losing far fewer men, the US still lost the war. The reason being – it was an example of a finite mindset (thinking there would be a simple beginning and end) coming up against an infinite game and an enemy with an infinite mindset. The USA had comparatively infinite resources, infinite money, but a finite purpose & ideology when it came to the war. By contrast the Vietnamese, as one of their foreign ministry specialists was quoted as saying, were fighting for their independence and had already been doing so for thousands of years.

As far as Bitcoin is concerned, it might be said that companies who adopt a Bitcoin strategy are playing an infinite game with a non-debt based money of finite supply, and the competition are playing a finite game with an infinite supply of debt-based money.

This is a guest blog by Bitcoin Actuary / BitcoinActuary@BitcoinNostr.com. Thanks go to @btconlyscott for early comments/suggestions on this article.

Not quite the ideal feedback to an article, but I’d zap if ...

2024-07-16T21:56:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…5atv
_________________________

Not quite the ideal feedback to an article, but I’d zap if wallet was set up!

**Going to try something new for this new article. I have a ...

2024-07-16T18:39:44Z

**Going to try something new for this new article. I have a budget of 10,000 sats to allocate across anyone who reads and posts a comment / feedback, and just for anyone who reposts (not "likes"..) on Nostr! 100 sats minimum zap, and will also redistribute any zaps received in full also **

This is an article reviewing Simon Sinek's book, The Infinite Game. You can also view it at https://bitcoincollective.co/bitcoin-and-the-infinite-game/

Simon Sinek asks in his book “The Infinite Game” why more companies don’t operate with an infinite rather than a finite mindset. One main reason he misses, of course, is the money. The good news is there’s a new infinite game in town.

In “The Infinite Game”, Simon Sinek argues that great leaders set up their organisations to succeed beyond their own lifetimes. By recognising and positioning their business with an infinite rather than a finite mindset, they can engender greater trust throughout their employees and also build more resilience into their business. Their companies can also remain true to themselves and their mission, whatever that may be.

Sinek outlines that unfortunately we have entered an age of general subservience from leaders to their shareholders, and a slavery to the balance sheet and short term, “finite”, accounting and strategy. This generally leads to a decline of loyalty and engagement amongst customers and an increase in insecurity and anxiety amongst employees.

There’s plenty to agree with here in general terms. With that said, Sinek fails to identify one of the largest causes of the issues he identifies, which is the money. The book lays the blame on a watershed article from 1970 in which Milton Friedman laid out that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.” This is noted in the book as a turning point from the original ideas of Adam Smith, for whom the consumer was king, but I couldn’t help but wonder if anything else happened in the early 70s, such as Nixon cancelling the convertibility of dollars into gold in 1971. (see also – https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/).

Sinek bemoans the short term nature of companies since that point, but doesn’t consider how the nature of money has shaped this; surely a much more omnipresent and powerful factor than the writings of Milton Friedman. For the average bitcoiner this may be relatively self evident, but let’s consider the motives of the leadership under a system in which the underlying money cannot hold it’s value and in which credit is artificially priced. Incentives abound – one to laden the company with debt (which all else will likely diminish in real terms over time versus company assets and earnings), acquire other businesses and grow as big as possible in the process. Other options such as share buybacks also reflect short term incentives. Shareholders are going to place their own high short term demands on companies in a world where it is hard to outrun monetary debasement.

What of new businesses? When a new private entity is formed, the business plan is written, agreement on its viability is formed, strategy is set, tactics are agreed and then the first question posed by external stakeholders or posed to the majority shareholders is ‘what is your exit strategy’. Small successful businesses are expected to have a 3-5 year plan, private equity is usually a 3-5 year plan, and the successful larger companies with a longer trajectory also tend to swallow up the smaller successful companies (easier access to debt). With such incentives, it’s no wonder that we tend to see certain outcomes. There are obvious agency problems the larger a company gets, and they are more likely to fail to adhere to an infinite game principle. Smaller companies are forever at risk of getting swallowed up by larger ones.

So how does Bitcoin come into this? In my view, in two ways:

1. Bitcoin is an infinite game within itself

This is one of the subtle but crucial differences that splits Bitcoin sceptics and bitcoiners, and then dominates their onward arguments. If interpreted as a finite game, Bitcoin is for gambling, for speculation, it will have an end, and will be defined by winners and losers. Just the other day, this article framed it as such with the following line –

“Whether Bitcoin is rising or falling, or who is buying or not buying it, nothing alters a basic fact: that Bitcoin is a classic zero-sum game. Large numbers of people can make vast paper fortunes by bidding up the price, but they cannot all realise those fortunes, because if everyone sells out the price collapses to zero. In that situation, those who were quick to sell would become rich at the expense of those who were slow to sell.”

Herein lies the problem for this criticism. As far as I can possibly ascertain right now, Bitcoin doesn’t end. Plenty might treat it as a finite game (and dismiss it as a ponzi, or try and trade it), but that treatment is a one way journey, and once you see Bitcoin as an infinite game there is little going back.

Going back to the book, let’s consider the “just cause” that Sinek says all businesses should have. According to Sinek, a just cause defines “the world we hope to live in and will commit to help build. It is the just cause that we are working to advance that gives our work and lives meaning. We know a cause is just when we commit to it with the confidence that others will carry on our legacy.” There are criteria listed too – a just cause must be “inclusive, service orientated, resilient, and idealistic.” Bitcoin surely fulfils these. On the ideology point, Michael Saylor articulated this well when dismissing altcoins in comparison to Bitcoin on the What Is Money podcast –

“If you really want a crypto to be successful over 100 years, the technology is only a part of it, right? It’s the ideology paired with the technology. And you’re gonna have to have an ideology that is so pure and so straightforward that people will fight to the death to defend the ideology. And that’s why I’m probably not gonna sacrifice my life for the 13th iteration on smart contracts. It’s not that important. On the other hand, if you tell me that we’re about to suck all of the economic energy out of the civilization and plunge ourselves into the Dark Ages, then I think I’ll fight for it. That’s worth fighting for.”

Michael Saylor – What is Money Show Episode 8

2. Bitcoin on balance sheets

Any business embracing Bitcoin on its balance sheet will automatically be closer to playing an infinite game itself, and let’s consider why. For starters, any shareholders will likely be holding equity with one opportunity cost being a holding of an equivalent amount of Bitcoin instead. This in itself will give them a low time preference mindset, which should transfer onto the company. Secondly, the act of having Bitcoin on the balance sheet provides a very simple yet iron clad discipline upon the company. One goal in broad terms is to grow that Bitcoin balance sheet over time, and they can only achieve that by being profitable. If they are not, they will find that Bitcoin balance dwindling over time instead. Though conventional businesses do broadly have the same need to be profitable, the Bitcoin example is quite different from a business with requirements to service debt, which may carry much shorter term deadlines for payment. In conclusion, companies looking to grow their Bitcoin holdings on a balance sheet are far more likely to buy into an infinite game mindset.

There are examples of infinite minded leaders out there, of course. Elon Musk is perhaps the most relevant in the present day, given Tesla and SpaceX have lofty long term ideals far removed from satisfying shareholders. Steve Jobs is another obvious one, and Sinek quotes an anecdote about sharing a cab with a senior Apple executive and telling him that the latest Microsoft Zune product (mp3 player at the time) was so much better than the iPod touch. The executive smiled politely and was unfazed – tellingly, Apple weren’t worried about competitors in the short term due to their infinite mindset in making great & innovative products. Fast forward to today and there is evidence that Apple aren’t playing the infinite game that they used to. Take for example the recent news that Apple is plugging in Open AI into the iPhone. This doesn’t feel like the same ethos of a company who famously told us to “Think different” under Steve Jobs.

In conclusion, there’s plenty of decent ideas in the text and he articulates the issues well. However, due to failing to identify probably the main cause of the problem, Sinek doesn’t quite nail the call to arms for leaders to embrace an infinite game. Add in Bitcoin though, and the time preference of companies and their shareholders would vastly decrease and an infinite game mindset would come naturally.

One final thought – Sinek opens by looking back to the Vietnam war. Despite their vastly superior army and losing far fewer men, the US still lost the war. The reason being – it was an example of a finite mindset (thinking there would be a simple beginning and end) coming up against an infinite game and an enemy with an infinite mindset. The USA had comparatively infinite resources, infinite money, but a finite purpose & ideology when it came to the war. By contrast the Vietnamese, as one of their foreign ministry specialists was quoted as saying, were fighting for their independence and had already been doing so for thousands of years.

As far as Bitcoin is concerned, it might be said that companies who adopt a Bitcoin strategy are playing an infinite game with a non-debt based money of finite supply, and the competition are playing a finite game with an infinite supply of debt-based money.

This is a guest blog by Bitcoin Actuary / BitcoinActuary@BitcoinNostr.com. Thanks go to @btconlyscott for early comments/suggestions on this article.

What’s behind it, in your view? Strikes me here the simplest ...

2024-07-14T22:20:33Z

In reply to nevent1q…qdrc
_________________________

What’s behind it, in your view? Strikes me here the simplest answer of an attacker acting alone may be most likely, but realistically surely it’s too early to call in any direction

😂 I’d wager the bureaucratic cost of dealing with the extra ...

2024-07-13T18:05:14Z

In reply to nevent1q…s2ww
_________________________

😂 I’d wager the bureaucratic cost of dealing with the extra “donations” outweighs the value of them..

Let me guess, are plebs sending small amounts of sats to those ...

2024-07-13T17:55:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…pqnh
_________________________

Let me guess, are plebs sending small amounts of sats to those addresses now?!

Ha ha, yes..!

2024-07-09T16:06:24Z

In reply to nevent1q…dwcm
_________________________

Ha ha, yes..!

Excellent post. I think within this lies the answer to the ...

2024-07-08T16:32:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…j4sa
_________________________

Excellent post. I think within this lies the answer to the argument that continued Bitcoin adoption could somehow bring the global economy crashing down. The bottom line is there are already trillions worth of other assets being used as stores of value, especially in real estate.

Saw something along these lines a while back and have never ...

2024-07-07T14:17:41Z

Saw something along these lines a while back and have never managed to find it again, so here’s my memory of it!
#bitcoin

My view - both of these guys have some interesting macro stuff to ...

2024-07-06T13:54:53Z

In reply to nevent1q…9gj9
_________________________

My view - both of these guys have some interesting macro stuff to say, Luke Gromen especially, but incentives matter. Both of them essentially get paid for not being a Bitcoin maxi, like all investment professionals.

Why? There’s not much of a career in it - and never will be - as the strategy never changes, until everyone starts to switch from saving in Bitcoin to investing again in equities that can return a positive outcome vs Bitcoin.

Until that point, Saylor got it right - there’s no such thing as diversification when the solution you’re after is the answer to an engineering problem.

Clickbait, pure and simple

2024-07-04T07:02:33Z

In reply to nevent1q…tps4
_________________________

Clickbait, pure and simple

It’s that time of year again.. anyone on nostr going to ...

2024-06-22T11:24:34Z

It’s that time of year again.. anyone on nostr going to Glastonbury?

#asknostr #glasto #glastonbury

quoting
note1mk5…3g0t
Article - Why Glastonbury festival should embrace Bitcoin -

https://habla.news/u/BitcoinActuary@BitcoinNostr.com/1715355931927

#glasto #glastonbury #bitcoin

Seeing more likely scammer type accounts / activity across Nostr. ...

2024-06-14T11:49:32Z

Seeing more likely scammer type accounts / activity across Nostr. This is an indicator of success of some sorts.

Will be fascinating to see how they fare over time. My hope is that the inherent costs of setting them up / paying for meaningful interaction with real users is higher than the friction for users / relays etc to simply ignore them. Something that Twitter could have enacted but failed (deliberately?) to do so.

The chart I’d love to see is the combination of these two items ...

2024-06-14T11:11:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…vty8
_________________________

The chart I’d love to see is the combination of these two items - ie the dollar value of Bitcoin left on exchanges.

By way of example, this is presumably higher now than in Feb due to the run up in dollar price.

The FT had 15 articles linked to the Bitcoin tag throughout the ...

2024-06-14T11:04:19Z

The FT had 15 articles linked to the Bitcoin tag throughout the whole of May. In June.. none.

la la la la la la la la la la la la clearly nothing to see here!

#ft #bitcoin

“No. Thanks a lot for watching, and I’ll see you in the next ...

2024-06-03T14:34:53Z

In reply to nevent1q…h7vp
_________________________

“No. Thanks a lot for watching, and I’ll see you in the next video”

GBTC complicates a little as there was $20bn+ to begin with? ...

2024-05-31T07:34:26Z

In reply to nevent1q…rdqs
_________________________

GBTC complicates a little as there was $20bn+ to begin with? Probably needs excluding (and assume GBTC outflows have flown in to others) if we want to see only new money but impressive none the less