pull down to refresh

Been definitely neglecting my treasury-companies-reporting duties for ~~econ
So here's this:
you’ve decided to start a bitcoin treasury. And why not? Everyone else seems to be doing it. This year dozens of companies have announced they plan to buy and hold the digital token. The strategy seems to works magic for some, yet not for others. Perhaps counter-intuitively, the losers might be the more appealing investment.
We all know of Strategy's great discovery to sell $1 worth of bitcoin for more than a dollar to stupid/trapped Wall Street capital. Ingenious.. and not very cypherpunky (#1201352)
Some companies, though, when embarking on this journey, don't get a magic boost (Empery, Sequins) . Lex is telling us that, actually, they might make excellent investments for the big guys — since some of the shitty treasury companies trade at below NAV gobbling them up is like buying bitcoin on discount.
Assuming such NAV discountees are happy to buy their shares rather than more bitcoin, they are a better bet for investors. After all, they represent a way of buying tokens more cheaply than an investor can in the bitcoin market. If corporate hoarders get sick of being under-appreciated they might decide to throw in the towel and sell their coins, at which point the discount ought to close
There'll definitely be some consolidation as some of these companies collapsing are (probably??) currently spitting out coins by the thousands.
Funky, funky.

~Stacker_Sports promises to be an exceptionally poor treasury company. Give us sats!
reply
42 sats \ 5 replies \ @grayruby 10h
I say we sweep all our treasury sats into 49ers shares. It's a guaranteed win!
reply
How about we sweep them equally between Yes and No positions? Then we're really guaranteed to win.
reply
42 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 10h
The first time I went to Vegas I couldn't sleep one night so I went down to the casino and walked around at like 3am there were some drunk guys playing roulette and one of them was using that strategy to ensure he didn't lose money. 10 on red, 10 on black. I think in his state he forgot that zero will come up every 37 spins or so.
reply
Even for a drunk guy, that's impressively stupid
reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 10h
Maybe he considered the free drinks a fair trade off for losing 10 bucks every half hours or so.
reply
Ahh, yes, there's usually a reason when you take the time to look for it.
reply
Have no sats for you, here are some shitcoins
reply
This seems like the more Buffet-y play, right?
Identify the worst managed treasury companies, or just those most willing to sell out, and consolidate into a well managed BTC.
reply
they might make excellent investments for the big guys — since some of the shitty treasury companies trade at below NAV gobbling them up is like buying bitcoin on discount.
This is my bullish case for buying bitcoin treasury companies like Cathedra!
reply
80 sats \ 1 reply \ @satgoob 9h
Is that below NAV tho
reply
Not sure to be honest. They don’t have much BTC they will probably go bankrupt before they get bought out for their BTC on the balance sheet
reply
158 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 10h
These companies probably end up liquidating the coins to buy back their shares so if you are looking for cheaper Bitcoin exposure I am not sure how far you are going to get. However, I do think there is value in identifying ones that have staying power (say from an actual business like Semler) who may have cheaper mNAVs than others. I am much more interested in these types of companies that actually have a profitable business and sweep the cash flows into Bitcoin fortifying their balance sheet and growing their book value over time as opposed to the Saylor copycats who are solely interested in financial engineering. I get the geographical arb thing where certain markets have advantages for an equity wrapper of Bitcoin holdings but how many of those do we really need?
reply
All you need to understand
reply