pull down to refresh
Yes and I cringe every-time I see someone post that number, its cherry picking and "zooming out" with no practical basis for engineering financial products such as he has.
If we want to cherry pick and zoom out we can also say its only 18% from 2017 to today. That's higher than he's paying on STRC, but still not a lot of margin when you consider his execution prices are terrible, theta risk, and probably other things I can't even think of.
The emission schedule favors higher, capital markets access favors higher, but at the same time the contrarian asymmetry is lower, fiscal regime change favors lower, and ownership concentration creates a new risk on-par with policy risk.
We topped on apathy not exuberance, so when you adjust for that, this bear market is a major channel breakdown of all prior assumptions.
I'm obviously still bullish long term, but we deserve better bull narratives than I'm seeing.
Saylor is a CIA-affiliated spook HQ'd minutes away in Northern Virginia, he's obviously been tapped on the shoulder to play a role and can't tell us exactly what he knows, but neither the Saylor detractors nor the Saylor worshippers are using all the available information.
Saylor is a CIA-affiliated spook HQ'd minutes away in Northern Virginia, he's obviously been tapped on the shoulder to play a role and can't tell us exactly what he knows,
THAT is juicy, oh yes. Tell us more
Long time "contractor" from publicly available information
Anyone who's been in any intelligence agency rabbit holes knows contractors and front orgs are used for much more than is publicly known.
They practically share a campus
Everything he (and Bitcoin generally) have done wrt access to capital markets takes blocking and tackling at the highest levels to achieve. Game theory may account for some of it sure, but at the same time, there are counter-forces for whom this game-theory is a threat to their incumbency and would crush it at all costs.
One can say there are no conspiracy theories, but to be consistent in saying that you must also conclude there are no coincidences. If Federal intelligence contracts and sharing a campus with the CIA is a coincidence it's also a conspiracy.
If you bought gold in 1980 you were underwater until 2006, or in 2011 you were underwater till 2020.
In either case break-even was nominal, not keeping up with purchasing power, nor the compounding effect of higher treasury rates.
The current gold run is steeper than either of those runs, given advents in mining (including eventual space mining) and the decade+ long cycles for gold, recent top buyers may never break even.
On the other hand, we may also have to consider Bitcoin may have largely done its job already. It was there as a check on and escape hatch for the loot-the-treasury era of fiscal stimulus, which is now over, if we take Bessent/Warsh/CEA at their word.
It doesn't need to maintain its historical CAGR to be effective as a check on fiscal stimulus returning in future admins. Kevin Warsh seems to understand this better than most Bitcoiners, success is it merely existing to establish a mexican standoff with fiat. They see it as a shadow currency lying in wait can impose an undeniable cost on bad policy.
If that's the case, we may be chopping sideways for years until household savings and economic productivity really to allow supply float to be digested again.