What's a software company acting like a hedge fund? Anyway, they really should change their name from MicroStrategy to "I am married to Crypto"-Strategy.
MicroStrategy is about to sell their stocks to buy Bitcoin
- Thread starter Tokenz
- Start date
But do you at least appreciate that there is a more than 1% chance that bitcoin could hit 1 million by the end of the decade? This would have this one stock be a better performer than perhaps anything else out there. Going forward, there probably aren't that many more stocks that will do a 10x from here, and certainly none of the big names like Goggle or Apple or Facebook or Tesla (barring some sort of huge inflationary environment)
It seems like a very good asymmetrical bet to me for companies with ample cashflow. (although I realize that Microstrategy is all in, and their operations from software aren't that profitable, so at this point, their company is pretty much all bitcoin)
I don’t believe bitcoin will be the dominant technology even if crypto will become mainstream.
But even if it does, as an investor I can take that view through actual bitcoin, I don’t need a company who sells software punting 100x their business on bitcoin. I believe this is a stock scheme. He’s looking to pump his stock price by making his stock attractive to the APES.
this will likely be a cautionary tale taught in harvard business school (and it won’t even be chapter 1)
But even if it does, as an investor I can take that view through actual bitcoin, I don’t need a company who sells software punting 100x their business on bitcoin. I believe this is a stock scheme. He’s looking to pump his stock price by making his stock attractive to the APES.
this will likely be a cautionary tale taught in harvard business school (and it won’t even be chapter 1)
I completely agree with this part. The bitcoin you think you own through the stock my vaporize in an instant. Perhaps because there is no bitcoin ETF in the US, this was the next best thing, so I can see it from that perspective, but then you're missing the whole point of bitcoin. Of course if you're only interesting in trading it, then fine, but the counter party risk is just too large.
I used to wonder about this as well. In many ways, its almost too simple, and unprepared to handle mass adoption at the base layer.
But you know, just like Trump couldn't build a new Twitter, and Elon also had to pretend to purchase it versus starting his own (which would be so much cheaper than spending 44 billion, there is a lot to be said about first mover advantage.
If the idea is to create a blockchain that cannot be hacked or attacked, you need it to have a certain amount of adoption, a certain size, a minimum threshold of computing power that renders attacks unprofitable. How do you do this, for it be decentralized enough, but start from nothing? If you want a create a better bitcoin, but keep all the positives of bitcoin, you simply can't do it anymore. It will fail spectacularly in some area and you would have to leave out some of the critical benefits of bitcoin as a store of value and medium of exchange. It is already so robust and decentralized that you just end up coming back to "lets just use bitcoin" and build on top of it.
Look at the English language. Some argue that its difficult to learn because it has too many rules that don't make sense. Some words sound the same but are spelled different and have different meanings. Some letters appear similar when you write them, so that can get confusing. (hence why some letters are even skipped once you go past base 10 for math stuff) Even pronunciation is difficult, so I'm sure a new language could perfect on this to make use of sounds that are easier to say for the vast majority. So it would almost make sense to create a new universal language that would be easy to learn and have better universal rules. But we clearly know that this makes no sense as English is already the accepted world language and we simply add to it what we need to. At this stage of human and cultural development, we can start language all over again. And likewise, I don't think we can start a truly decentralized and super secure blockchain all over again.
Here's something to think about. If you had a huge company that was about to spend 500 M on Bitcoin would you be telling the news about it first? Or do you think you would already buy and then tell the news?
Whether or not bitcoin should or will be successful is irrelevant.
It’s not Michael saylor’s business to solve for an investable bitcoin product through microstrategy. If he wants to he should have done it through a separate vehicle. the work of thousands of people is now 100percenr dictated by the random machinations of a bunch of apes driving lambos.
It’s not Michael saylor’s business to solve for an investable bitcoin product through microstrategy. If he wants to he should have done it through a separate vehicle. the work of thousands of people is now 100percenr dictated by the random machinations of a bunch of apes driving lambos.
they need to explain what the proceeds are. If microsoft did it, it would be a lot less material then when mstr does it.
Sounds like a variation on the AMC formula?
