@BigpictureBTC The decay part def makes sense. The "unwind" does not. Once the convertible debt is gone, there is nothing that triggers or forces stack liquidation/unwind. What am I missing? Thanks as always for your insights.
@nejatian@LiebermanAustin Thank you for your leadership @nejatian, and the results produced. No question we're on the right track. My vote is in. Curious... what are 1-2 things that you wish would have done differently since becoming CEO?
Based on my close following of the space in the last few months (yes I am a rookie), I doubt that Michael is either of those labels. I do think, however, that most (including Michael; correct me if I am wrong of course) do not recognize STRC as a financial product AND do not equate non-financial products with financial products. That's despite the fact that our lives are influenced just as much by the financial products as by non-financial ones. What is a mortgage if not a financial product. What is a stock certificate if not a financial product. What is a capital raise if not one? If one was to simply view STRC etc as a financial product that a company is selling in the form of currently dominant money (USD) so that it can spend the fiat on their main business activity (acquire btc), then it would be a lot easier to relate/equate it to the capital raise.
@jonbrooks I would say that ppl buy a feeling (pride, safety, etc). Whether they buy and what they buy is based on a payment. And to your point, payment is more important than the price tag. Just like with cars.
I did. Saylor and team certainly could have sold it to pay the div (although it's only a day's worth of strc at current volumes), and it also could be for the inoculation reasons as Saylor said a month ago. Could be something else too. Could be a combo. And of course we all have our own thoughts, feelings, and biases re the actions taken. My personal one is neutral to positive, although I can see the negative side as well. Let's keep watching.
@GlennOnrampBTC@WalkerAmerica Thank you. Not trying to be antagonistic at all with my q. Simply curious if there is any economic incentive to sell lower basis holdings.
All of the above makes sense and, to your point, there are diff ways to look at it depending on their biases and positions.
I can only speak as the “sister” in this case.
From that vantage point, the only part of the eval that needs to be done is the company’s ability to pay the %. There is zero expectations of the co itself of paying the sister back. And thus its company’s $ as soon as she contributes to the piggybank.
In other words different parties prob have diff numerators and denominators.
The liq preference only comes into play when the above mentioned ability is overestimated at the time of the purchase. And, once mstr redeems all of the actual debt, that can only happen when btc = 0. At that point of course all of the shares = 0, and we are all screwed without mstr puts.
@GlennOnrampBTC@sergains@BigpictureBTC Not exactly. The $30 is not borrowed. Its a contribution to the piggybank in exchange for the flexible rate (currently 11.5%). What is owed is 11.5%. Not the $30 + 11.5%.
Are you sure? On the way down, msty has to do better than mstr given the short call spreads. Also, https://t.co/z7gvXsnbev shows over 100% return since inception. The graph you're showing in the vid shows msty below zero. What am I missing and thank you again for the info and engagement.