Serious question: Investopedia defines NAV (Net Asset Value) as NAV = Assets - Liabilities But, with respect to Bitcoin Treasury Companies, MNAV (Market Net Asset Value - apparently not yet recognized by Investopedia) is typically defined as some form of MNAV = (Market Cap + Liabilities) / Bitcoin Holdings. What gives? If the denominator is only assets, then what's being netted? It seems to me Market Cap / (Bitcoin Holdings - Liabilities) would make way more intuitive sense. If a company borrows a bunch of money to buy that same amount in Bitcoin the Net Assets is unchanged; and so MNAV should remain unchanged. Instead, by moving liabilities to the numerator, every time a company borrows more money to buy that same amount in Bitcoin it serves to move MNAV closer to 1.0. PS. I haven't figured out how (or even if) this works out to benefit Treasury Companies. It just seems like an unnecessary distortion that has to be intentional.

I love all the efforts in Africa to spread Bitcoin! Whenever someone tells me that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, I point to what's going on in Africa and tell them that intrinsic value is only observable when it's being realized. View quoted note →

This is a rare 3rd drop in difficulty in a row. Seemingly unpopular opinion: hash rate follows price. That the price dip started ~9 weeks ago compared to the hash rate dip starting ~6 weeks ago ought to clear that up for anyone who was confused and doesn't understand incentives enough to think that price followed hash rate. View quoted note →

#asknostr, what's your go-to no-kyc solution for swapping BTC between on-chain and non-self-hosted lightning ? (e.g. zeus embedded node?, spark via wallet of satoshi?, liquid via aqua or bull wallet?, etc) what are the pros and cons of that solution as compared to others?

Proof of Horseshoe Theory?