For all the #MSTR 1x MNav people out there. I’m confused.. you want to value MSTR solely based on the bitcoin they hold, but that in itself has gone from 252,220 to 499,096 since the US election in November. So which figure do you want to use again?!

A thought on a different lens about #MSTR new preference share offering $STRK, which at the moment yields about 9% p.a in perpetuity. As #Saylor has said, this offers a lower risk product out to the market with a more limited upside and downside than MSTR equity. In the earnings call Saylor pointed out that their current Bitcoin holdings could pay for around 750 years worth of #STRK dividends at current prices, and even 100 years worth if BTC declined by 75%. There are still tail events where the ability to make these payments comes under doubt. The question is, at what point will TradFi investors with no particular positive sentiment on Bitcoin sit up and take notice of this 9% yield? Possibly, at the time when they can hedge out these tail events and still obtain a decent spread over US treasuries. Could it effectively be done now? Would love to hear thoughts on this. Currently, a 2 year put on MSTR with a strike price at $10 can be bought at 0.66, suggesting a max return of about 14x on the premium. IBIT is an alternative - a 2 year put on #IBIT (current price around 55) with a strike of 15 (i.e. a drawdown of 70%) is priced at 0.74, which is a max return of 19x. I'm not sure those offer decent enough protection for someone who wants to use puts to insure against absolute loss of capital on the preference shares, since the premium would have to come out of the annual return and still look compelling for someone looking for an annuity type investment outperforming treasuries at little risk. Final thought - the upside equity conversion also has value and selling covered calls against that could pay to hedge some of the downside risk in dollar terms. cc @Jeff Booth @preston @James Lavish @Lawrence Lepard would love to hear any thoughts and please do spread this question further on Nostr? #asknostr PS my point is not that I'd do this personally, but if it starts adding up for someone in Tradfi with zero positive view on Bitcoin this would be a sign of inversion of the current financial world and Saylor may be able to issue a huge amount of these..

Thinking out loud here on the new #MSTR #STRK preference share offering. These preference shares pay a fixed $8 dividend based on every $100 nominal per share. The current market price is $90, meaning for someone who buys now they yield approx 9% per year. They convert to 1/10 of MSTR equity, on the request of the holder only, and not the company. The company has no rights to redeem them unless certain circumstances are met (I think it's something like less than 20% of shares are outstanding). Hence at the moment with MSTR around $325, noone will convert - your $90 market price would only be worth 325/10 = $32.5. This is why you may see the strike price said to be $1,000 - once the share price gets above this then the value of the shares if converted would be $100, so could start to be worth it versus the market value of the STRK preference shares (currently $90). Bear in mind these will move up and down, so it's non trivial. What I've been struggling with though - why would anyone ever convert when you can continue to pocket the $8 per $100 nominal a year, and always have the option to convert to an ever rising share price? The answer I've come down with is two fold. Firstly, you may want to sell the investment, and if the share price keeps rising, conversion to normal shares may maximise the value of your investment on selling. Let's say the share price rises to $2,000 - the equity if converted is then worth $200. With that said, we can't say for sure that's more than the market value of STRK at that point, as the market value of $STRK itself will take into account the value of possible conversion! Markets normally remove artibrage, so it's unlikely you could buy STRK and immediately convert to normal equity and sell for an immediate profit. Or maybe a small incentive would be priced into it, as you're sacrificing optionality? Struggling to get my head around this. The second potential for conversion relates to the fixed dividend. If the share price is at $2,000, and the market value of $STRK is above $200 (as would be logical), you're no longer realising 8% plus on the current value of your investment - you're being paid effectively 4%. So the incentive may exist to convert/sell, and reinvest that money to achieve a higher income stream than the $8. Let's say there was a $STRK2 issued by #strategy at that point, that paid $8 per $100 starting price, and converted to 1 in 40 MSTR shares.. by selling $STRK at $200, and buying this instead you could double your income stream - so there's your incentive. I'm no expert here - would love to hear thoughts on this if anyone has them. If anyone reads this let me know you're out here. NOSTR doesn't generally love Saylor / MSTR, but I'd rather have this conversation on here rather than X. #asknostr cc @Ben Werkman @npub18ajq...dmq0

If anyone needs a good book to read, check out Dava Sobel’s Longitude, the story of John Harrison’s lifelong quest to build a timepiece that could operate at sea. Truly inspiring. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and Harrison was one. #bookstr #longitude #harrison

Today’s market movements make me think of the old #Saylor quote - “Bitcoin is channeling human ingenuity into making it better, and every commodity is channeling human energy into making it worse (as a money)” To explain this. Consider computer chips a form of commodity. In #Nvidia you have a clear sector leader that the market has been treating as a form of money. Long term though, all the huge Nvidia valuation says to the rest of the world is - come and innovate and compete for our huge valuation, and have at it. That ingenuity will make Nvidia worse as a form of money. The signs may already be here. #bitcoin #money

This might be old news to many on here, but I've just stumbled upon what looks like the history of the "Vaccines contain microchips" theory. Perhaps naively, I'd always assumed that this was just some fringe crackpot group on the internet that came up with this, and thought no further about it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/08/15/debunked-bill-gates-conspiracy-gets-a-boost-from-rfk-jr-marla-maples/ However in this article the journalist links to RFK and an instagram post - 'This week he [RFK] posted to his Instagram account a photo of Gates with the wild words “The digitalized economy? We get rid of cash and coins. We give you a chip. We put all your money in your chip. If you refuse a vaccine, we turn off the chip and you starve!”' The article then jumps - "The conspiracy theory that Gates plans to install tracking devices into humans with the coronavirus vaccine his foundation is aiding has been debunked by experts but has still continued to gain traction in some circles since the onset of the pandemic." Therefore the journalist has baselessly linked RFK comments around digital identity / cash [essentially CBDC type commentary around control, linked to the idea of being essentially coerced via financial control to take a vaccine; surely this could never happen...] with it being a theory that vaccines were in and of themselves some form of tracking device. Hence, is that where the entire vaccines contain microchips conspiracy came from? Was it directly from this RFK quote being [deliberately] misinterpreted by multiple media sources? #asknostr #rfk #vaccines