I think the creation of various derivative financial instruments is kind of gross and kind of just another paper Bitcoin.
If we don't do it, someone else will do it.
Who is "we"? You trying to turn this into a patriotic thing?
Bitcoiners and Bitcoin maxis? I tried to imply who I mean by referring to as others with the shitcoin VCs as the alternative later in my post. I should have been clearer.
Of course, many bitcoiners are going to concede that bitcoin is for everyone, so you cannot stop bitcoin from being used by anyone who wants to, friends and enemies.. yet at the same time, if what the various financial instrument folks (whether talking about Backrock and the various ETFs or Saylor/MSTR and the various treasury companies) are doing can be considered as a kind of an attack on foundational level bitcoin and undermines bitcoin becaus of an attempt to prioritize using bitcoin through their instruments and systems and to vilify bitcoin being used in direct peer to peer ways, there are good reasons to announce and even to complain about such attack, even if you consider such attack to be coming from "the good guys.".. not very often that we have money-grubbing "Blackrock" portrayed as the good guys, unless you are some kind of a blinded fan-boy.
I agree with your reasoning, but do we actually see this kind of attack taking place in the US? I don't see anything compared to places like EU where there is a war on sovereignty and privacy. I don't dabble in ETFs or treasury companies but I don't see them as rather bad in the context that they are. Many entities could not get any exposure to Bitcoin legally and that is what ETFs enabled. We just need to keep pushing the education on owning your own Bitcoin. We can't expect everyone to know the reasons to do this or be able to do this, slowly we can change some people.
Some folks are rightfully skeptical of Saylor/MSTR because of how much bitcoin that he/MSTR controls and based on some of their tactics of using other people's money to get bitcoin in which they completely own the bitcoin (even though they tend to keep their bitcoin with custodians, like Coinbase, which is another angle that Saylor/MSTR has been rightfully criticized).
They are using a variety of tactics. Not all are good but that doesn't mean that the overall thing is very bad or that risky.
They have little debt and obligations comparatively speaking to their total holdings. Some people think everything was bought with debt and BTC crashing a little harder would nuke Strategy. It is quite similar to the stupid death spiral type of FUD. These people that fall for this nonsense don't even do basic research, even if their name starts with Og.
Sure. There are a lot of folks who have no fucking clue how MSTR/Saylor have structured its various debt instruments. I don't claim to know a lot either, even though I know that frequently MTR/Saylor naysayers frequently automatically think about collateralized loans, and I am pretty sure that none of MSTR/Saylor's debts are related to collateralizing the assets. and several of the past loans they paid off, which means that they own a lot of the BTC unencumbered. Furthermore, if MSTR/Saylor happens to have some collateralized debt it would not be in amounts that are materially significant.
I don't know it all either but some basic research will lead to information where the total debt is very low compared to the total amount of coins and their value. Further it can be looked at the details of those debts and they are at very favorable rates and fairly long, the risk is quite low for what he has done. One thing I do wish is that they stop buying! They have enough, they are very large now! He should focus on advocacy and getting rid of those debts slowly and they will be a risk free company eventually.
Another thing that is presumed is that if the BTC price goes below MSTR's average cost per coin (which is around $77k) that MSTR saylor will have to do something, which are totally fantasy ideas. If you completely own the coins then it does not matter if they are in profits or not, unless for some reason other obligations are not being met.
Saylor won't have to do anything in that case yes. Neither with these FUD nonsense about the stock being sold as it gets removed from indices. Even if the stock price of the company went to $0 it would not mean anything other than the market is crazy irrational, not that that is possible.
So....if Buffet's BRK-A is buying companies and invest >50% in OTHER companies stock, then it is NOT an investment fund, but if a DAT does the same (acquire assets), then it is a fund. It seems that this is a deeply flawed logic. Singling out digital assets makes no sense.
Things are happening behind the scenes, and this is just a corrupt decision as many others. There is no reason why it should be like this and the arbitrary cutoff at 50% is also suspicious.
Unfortunately a lot of people are easily swayed and they are fighting internet wars on topics like this unknowingly playing into corrupt hands each time.
