Bitcoin Jimmy

🟠⚔️💵 I (bitcoin) drink your milkshake (fiat)

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

No post in a while. Building in the bear.

Few thoughts

1. turning over experienced employees at this rate is not typical.
2. a small group here attempts to drown out any negative-ish discussion. This kills healthy convo.

Both red flags - I would like @asjwebley to address

[Caleb Franzen @CalebFranzen]

Based on data, there's enough evidence to show that this recent price action for Bitcoin is different than in January 2026.

The question is, "is it different enough to suggest that the downtrend is over and a new bull market has begun?"

Here's the key info:

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

@asjwebley @aw_smarterwebuk Amazing, thank you @asjwebley and @aw_smarterwebuk super helpful!

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

@SmarterBuildBTC @smarterwebuk @asjwebley @Croesus_BTC @the_desert_ape Yeah that’s interesting that you would pay a premium.

Something for the SWC chaps to chew on.

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

Your calculation (34/40) is using a simple mNAV calc that is taking the Share Price and dividing it by the Market Value of Bitcoin/per share.

The mNAV you see uses Fully Diluted Enterprise Value / NAV.

This calculation factors in Debt + Cash.

In terms of whether this way of calculating mNAV is transparent or straightforward in terms of whether a transaction is accretive vs dilutive… that’s another question entirely.

FYI there are definitions at the bottom of the Analytics dashboard and the tool tips on the dash also explain how certain values are calculated.

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

@SmarterBuildBTC @smarterwebuk @asjwebley @Croesus_BTC @the_desert_ape Possible but would not be done until mNAV was sufficiently greater than 1. Doing it now would be dilutive to BTC/sh.

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

My thoughts on this Treasury 1.0 vs 2.0 debate.

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

@Bigpicture123 Derin. We love your passion for the active yield model. SWC are already aware of active yield frameworks. If you view their latest investor deck they are referred to there. And we have an example in the UK in the form of BHODL which SWC will be well aware of.

You’re right to flag that the debt that financed this transaction will need to be paid back and that this will impact the final BPS yield of this transaction.

However, to call it “accretive illusion” is disingenuous. Ultimately, if we all believe in where BTC is headed, this debt can likely be paid down, funded by equity, in a way that still results in net accretion to BPS. You know this.

This is a moment to recognise your own bias. You are trying to frame this transaction in a certain way to emphasise the Treasury 2.0 model.

Now before you come back at me… the Treasury 2.0 model is super interesting. I think you are directionally correct in your thinking here. The end game will be that BTC balance sheets need to be put to work in order to create “yield”.

Now you focus on ‘active yield’ and the Lightning Network. I say that’s too narrow. Ultimately, BTC balance sheets will be put to work as capital, just like fiat today, to generate PROFIT (you call it yield). This is the long term direction.

However, something that is critical here is scale.

Scale is the amplifier. The bigger you are. The more capital you can put to work. Theoretically, the more “yield”.

The Bitcoin Treasury 1.0 is clearly quite effective at delivering scale.
Objectively, between the fiat monetary system and BTC there exist arbitrage opportunities that allow BTC treasuries to scale their balance sheet. Objectively, these are quite effective methods. Objectively, yes, these are also cyclical.

I don’t understand why you interpret these equity funded scaling models and active yield models as mutually exclusive. They are not. In fact the former supports the latter. The more scale that can be achieved, then, theoretically, the more active yield that can be achieved.

I could see a future where a company like SWC or MSTR might leverage (or even acquire) active yield opportunities offered by LQWD or BHODL. It becomes an ecosystem.

So I don’t understand why you are so tribalistic about this.

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

@Bigpicture123 Derin. We love your passion for the active yield model. SWC are already aware of active yield frameworks. If you view their latest investor deck they are referred to there. And we have an example in the UK in the form of BHODL which SWC will be well aware of.

You’re right to flag that the debt that financed this transaction will need to be paid back and that this will impact the final BPS yield of this transaction.

However, to call it “accretive illusion” is disingenuous. Ultimately, if we all believe in where BTC is headed, this debt can likely be paid down, funded by equity, in a way that still results in net accretion to BPS. You know this.

This is a moment to recognise your own bias. You are trying to frame this transaction in a certain way to emphasise the Treasury 2.0 model.

Now before you come back at me… the Treasury 2.0 model is super interesting. I think you are directionally correct in your thinking here. The end game will be that BTC balance sheets need to be put to work in order to create “yield”.

Now you focus on ‘active yield’ and the Lightning Network. I say that’s too narrow. Ultimately, BTC balance sheets will be put to work as capital, just like fiat today, to generate PROFIT (you call it yield). This is the long term direction.

However, something that is critical here is scale.

Scale is the amplifier. The bigger you are. The more capital you can put to work. Theoretically, the more “yield”.

The Bitcoin Treasury 1.0 is clearly quite effective at delivering scale.
Objectively, between the fiat monetary system and BTC there exist arbitrage opportunities that allow BTC treasuries to scale their balance sheet. Objectively, these are quite effective methods. Objectively, yes, these are also cyclical.

I don’t understand why you interpret these equity funded scaling models and active yield models as mutually exclusive. They are not. In fact the former supports the latter. The more scale that can be achieved, then, theoretically, the more active yield that can be achieved.

I could see a future where a company like SWC or MSTR might leverage (or even acquire) active yield opportunities offered by LQWD or BHODL. It becomes an ecosystem.

So I don’t understand why you are so tribalistic about this.

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

@DivBy21 @adam3us @Strategy @smarterwebuk I brought this up re the naming of Bitcoin Treasury Company’s about 6 months ago.

Accumulation is a powerful word.

@adam3us

https://t.co/8RSR3coacS

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

Listened to @AlexandreLaizet and @asjwebley discussing the struggles of educating Trad Fi on the BTCTC thesis. I wondered what people thought:

Bitcoin Treasury Company or Bitcoin Accumulation Company?

Is the second one better at communicating the idea of compounding bitcoin?

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

@80IQConviction @smarterwebuk @asjwebley @Croesus_BTC @the_desert_ape Great question, I’ve been wondering this.

Good impact yield projections

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

@80IQConviction @smarterwebuk @asjwebley @Croesus_BTC @the_desert_ape That’s the spirit, risk registers are important!

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

C’mon guys, submit some proper questions for the livestream later.

[The Smarter Web Company @smarterwebuk]

Livestream with @asjwebley @Croesus_BTC @the_desert_ape discussing this week's warrant repurchase results & all things Smarter Web.

Date: Tomorrow (Friday, 10 April)
Time: 1:30pm UK
Location: Streaming on X & YouTube

What questions would you like us to cover?

[Jamie Knowles @the_desert_ape]

Been a very positive and constructive week for building - let’s finish it strong.

Looking forward to the Livestream with @asjwebley and @Croesus_BTC to discuss all our recent progress.

Date: Today (Friday, 10 April)
Time: 1:30pm UK
Location: Streaming on X & YouTube

🇬🇧 🟠

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

Shared this query earlier but I have rephrased to make my methodology and issues with reconciling the mNAV clearer.

(Can’t tag Jesse for some reason)

Hi - I’m trying to reconcile the Fully Diluted mNAV shown on the analytics dashboard and can’t get to the reported number.

The Fully Diluted mNAV is calculated as:

FD mNAV = FD Enterprise Value / NAV

The dashboard gives the NAV but it does not give the FD Enterprise Value, so we can’t quickly reconcile to the FD mNAV. However, the dashboard does state the FD EV formula so we can try and calculate it:

FD Enterprise Value = FD Market Cap + Notional Debt - Treasury Cash.

The dashboard gives the FD Market Cap.
It does not give Notional Debt but we have it from recent RNS’s. However, the Treasury Cash is not given.

No bother, we can calculate it from the stated formula for NAV:

NAV = BTC Market Value + Treasury Cash - Notional Debt

We can solve for Treasury Cash (algebra):

Treasury Cash = NAV - BTC Market Value + Notional Debt

Dashboard doesn’t give BTC Market Value but we can calculate:

BTC Market Value = Bitcoin Held * Bitcoin Price

Bitcoin held and BTC price are both shown on dashboard. And we already know Notional Debt so now we can solve for Treasury Cash

All this means we can get all the numbers we need.

So, using a snapshot of recent values shown on the dashboard today:

BTC held: 2,695
BTC price: £53,201
FD market cap: £114,716,972
NAV: £135,228,354
Reported FD mNAV: 0.85

And sourcing/solving for the missing inputs:

BTC Market Value = £143,578,820
Notional Debt = £9,500,000
Treasury cash = £1,351,659
FD Enterprise Value = £122,865,313

Then…

FD mNAV = FD EV / NAV

So…

FD mNAV = £122,865,313 / £135,228,354 = 0.9086

I get c. 0.91, not 0.85.

Other notes, the only way to reconcile to the NAV shown on the dashboard is to add this missing £1,351,658 number each time. which one assumes is Treasury Cash given that BTC Market Value + Notional Debt are known numbers.

Could you clarify what input or adjustment explains the difference? Or where I’m going wrong here?

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

Hi @asjwebly - I’m trying to reconcile the fully diluted mNAV shown on the analytics dashboard and can’t get to the reported number.

Sample of recent values shown on the dashboard:

BTC held: 2,695
BTC price: £53,201
NAV: £135,228,354
FD market cap: £114,716,972
Reported FD mNAV: 0.85

Some key inputs needed for the calc aren’t shown directly:

• BTC Market Value
• Notional Debt
• Treasury cash
• FD Enterprise Value

However, we can get these from other sources or infer them.

Treasury cash can be inferred from the published NAV formula.

FD enterprise value can then be derived from the published EV formula.

Notional Debt is reported as £9,500,000.

Methodology shown on the dashboard:

NAV = BTC market value + treasury cash - notional debt

FD enterprise value = FD market cap + notional debt - treasury cash

FD mNAV = FD enterprise value / NAV

Using notional debt of £9.5m:

BTC market value = 2,695 × £53,201 = £143,376,695

Treasury cash = £143,376,695 - £135,228,354 + £9,500,000 = £1,351,659

FD enterprise value = £114,716,972 + £9,500,000 - £1,351,659 = £122,865,313

FD mNAV = £122,865,313 / £135,228,354 = 0.9086

So I get c. 0.91, not 0.85.

Could you clarify what input or adjustment explains the difference? Or where I’m going wrong here?

[Freddie New @freddienew]

I wanted to end the quarter with a thank you - both to my team at @bitcoinhodlco and to our shareholders. We all know that markets have been febrile, but in Q1 we've managed to run a successful ATM, our mNAV has been high enough to support this, and there's been sufficient market demand for our shares (with the money going immediately into more Bitcoin).

And there's more to come - we've immediately launched a new ATM offering. Onwards into Q2, and thanks again!

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

@freddienew Just need to get the volume up, Freddie.

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

Can someone help me understand the Deferred Shares transaction? We’ve issued new Ordinary to finance buyback of these shares?

So 7m~ Deferred bought for 0.32p… £2.2m ?? This adds new shares to the fully diluted count, or it nets out??

Also why? Just curious

[Bitcoin Jimmy @BitcoinJimmy21]

@CalebFranzen I think NB 9060s could elevate the aura of this fit.

Love your work. So much noise, value your signals. Hoping to subscribe once markets have turned for me. Lessons learnt. LFG