Get live statistics and analysis of Jesse Kobernick's profile on X / Twitter

This is, in no small part, why I will hold $MSTR forever.

Can’t tell if we’re going to the moon tomorrow or back to 58k.

Cedar saunas--purchased tax-free through HSA funds--are going to be very popular in the next couple years.

$STRF--yielding 8.6%--still seems more attractive than $STRC--yielding 10.35% yield. STRF being senior in the capital stack (behind only bonds) is very appealing, as is the 1% penalty if $MSTR defers any dividend owed on STRF. If STRC succeeds, and MSTR can run the ATM on it, that both builds the BTC capital base, which helps STRF, and reduces the need to ATM STRF. I'm okay giving up 1.75%/yr for seniority in the capital stock and higher potential price appreciation. I understand why MSTR common holders want their grandmas to buy STRC, but STRF seems like the better investment option.

What is Jeff talking about? It's been less than a week since the SBR was announced. There's been a market-wide sell-off. Maybe we should lower our time preference before insisting that we need "multilateral cooperation" for the SBR to be a success. Also, this statement is just incorrect: "Bitcoin always needs catalysts to go up." Bitcoin goes up because of its fundamental monetary properties that make it better money and particularly a better store of value. The narrative (or "catalysts") are backward looking attempts to explain that price movement. Crypto tokens that lack utility (aside from perhaps sweet "vibes") do need a marketing team to convince uninformed retail buyers to hand over their dollars. Bitcoin is different.

$SATA preferred at $80-90/sh is pretty appealing IMO. 13-15% yield. Senior in a capital stack that has no debt. $100 minimum liquidation preference. Company incentive and stated goal to get the price up to at least $95 via rate adjustments. Given the liq preference and BTC over-collateralization, you don’t really need to have an opinion on the $ASST common to like the preferred, if you think BTC will generally do okay. I also like that they’re setting aside 12 months of dividend obligations in cash.

Interesting how much Saylor is talking about "mNAV" in this call. $MSTR

I’ve never heard this critique before. I’m glad Jim found bitcoin and he’s here to fix it.

People angered by bitcoin treasury companies should read this book: The Company. The book posits that the concept of the modern company--with artificial personhood, tradeable shares, and limited liability--contributed significantly to the west's wealth creation and centuries of dominance. Many countries adopted the UK's concept of a modern company and likewise prospered. It was inevitable that an excellent idea for an individual or family--to buy and hodl bitcoin--would be adopted by companies as well. The company is simply the best vehicle to efficiently organize a large number of people and capital around an idea. There will be bad actors and scammers among bitcoin companies, just as there are with non-bitcoin companies. The response to corporate adoption of bitcoin should not be to shake our fists at the sky. Rather, we should try to educate investors, call out bad actors, and illuminate bad deal terms and risky corporate and governance practices. And of course vote with our money. It's inevitable that many investors will not perform due diligence and will move ever further out the risk curve. The market will then impose pain on some investors who assume significant risk or poorly allocate capital. The system writ large will benefit from the creative destruction of poorly managed bitcoin treasury companies. This brutal process advanced civilization, and I think it will likewise advance bitcoin and its adoption.

BTC treasury companies are going to get demolished if the crux of their plan is to appeal to BTC Twitter via sick memes. Which fund is buying ProCap based on this post? What is the actual strategy besides hoping that mNAV expands? Which SPAC investor is going to refrain from dumping on retail once their shares unlock?

Can’t tell if we’re going to the moon tomorrow or back to 58k.

$STRF--yielding 8.6%--still seems more attractive than $STRC--yielding 10.35% yield. STRF being senior in the capital stack (behind only bonds) is very appealing, as is the 1% penalty if $MSTR defers any dividend owed on STRF. If STRC succeeds, and MSTR can run the ATM on it, that both builds the BTC capital base, which helps STRF, and reduces the need to ATM STRF. I'm okay giving up 1.75%/yr for seniority in the capital stock and higher potential price appreciation. I understand why MSTR common holders want their grandmas to buy STRC, but STRF seems like the better investment option.

Cedar saunas--purchased tax-free through HSA funds--are going to be very popular in the next couple years.

BTC treasury companies are going to get demolished if the crux of their plan is to appeal to BTC Twitter via sick memes. Which fund is buying ProCap based on this post? What is the actual strategy besides hoping that mNAV expands? Which SPAC investor is going to refrain from dumping on retail once their shares unlock?

What is Jeff talking about? It's been less than a week since the SBR was announced. There's been a market-wide sell-off. Maybe we should lower our time preference before insisting that we need "multilateral cooperation" for the SBR to be a success. Also, this statement is just incorrect: "Bitcoin always needs catalysts to go up." Bitcoin goes up because of its fundamental monetary properties that make it better money and particularly a better store of value. The narrative (or "catalysts") are backward looking attempts to explain that price movement. Crypto tokens that lack utility (aside from perhaps sweet "vibes") do need a marketing team to convince uninformed retail buyers to hand over their dollars. Bitcoin is different.

This is, in no small part, why I will hold $MSTR forever.

I keep seeing this sort of hot take on BTC treasury companies without much analysis going into the mechanism that would cause a drawdown in BTC. IMO people are conflating a drawdown in the stock price with a drawdown in BTC. Most of the treasury companies have tiny market caps relative to BTC. The ones that aren't tiny don't have significant leverage, and the leverage they have is structured to prevent the need to suddenly sell. Sure, many treasury companies will underperform and some will fail. But their stock prices can fall 95% from highs, and it could have zero impact on the BTC they hold. In any case, a 49% drawdown from the top is not unusual. Expect it.

I like MetaPlanet, but I think it's misleading to refer to their BTC income generation as a "profitable operating business." They sell cash secured puts. The only way they can sell the puts is to first have cash--and the only meaningful way for them to get cash is to first dilute common holders through the sale of stock. (They say they don't use margin.) This is not an operating business in any ordinary sense of the term. So it's not surprising that the market doesn't value MetaPlanet based on its "operating business."

Having no debt as a BTCTC should not be a point of pride. Anyone can get exposure to non-leveraged BTC without having to bear operational risk or expenses.

People angered by bitcoin treasury companies should read this book: The Company. The book posits that the concept of the modern company--with artificial personhood, tradeable shares, and limited liability--contributed significantly to the west's wealth creation and centuries of dominance. Many countries adopted the UK's concept of a modern company and likewise prospered. It was inevitable that an excellent idea for an individual or family--to buy and hodl bitcoin--would be adopted by companies as well. The company is simply the best vehicle to efficiently organize a large number of people and capital around an idea. There will be bad actors and scammers among bitcoin companies, just as there are with non-bitcoin companies. The response to corporate adoption of bitcoin should not be to shake our fists at the sky. Rather, we should try to educate investors, call out bad actors, and illuminate bad deal terms and risky corporate and governance practices. And of course vote with our money. It's inevitable that many investors will not perform due diligence and will move ever further out the risk curve. The market will then impose pain on some investors who assume significant risk or poorly allocate capital. The system writ large will benefit from the creative destruction of poorly managed bitcoin treasury companies. This brutal process advanced civilization, and I think it will likewise advance bitcoin and its adoption.

A question for $MSTR holders. If mNAV goes below 1x for at least a 3-month period, how you prefer that $MSTR pay the preferred dividends owed: