I've been thinking a lot lately about @Strategy's embrace of @Strive and $SATA, and I'd like to offer a thoughtful comment.
I think there are two main explanations, neither of which is mutually exclusive.
1. The first and simplest is that Saylor and Phong truly believe in lifting up other Bitcoiners, with no other calculus needed beyond that core tenet.
2a. The second is that Saylor and Phong know that Strategy has already won. So now, the question is: what does the remaining path to Valhalla look like? They could try to maximize the company's share of the remaining #Bitcoin. Or they could chart a path in which Strategy accumulates somewhat fewer Bitcoin while allowing others to succeed in their wake, knowing that doing so will have knock-on effects — accelerated adoption, increased acceptance of an industry with multiple issuers, increased symbiotic competition (learning from others' innovations), etc. — that accrue to the benefit of Strategy shareholders. Either path will result in massive gains for holders of $MSTR, but the second path may be more stable politically and institutionally, as well as more vital and healthy.
2b. Or, if you prefer a more cynical lens: if I had 80% market share in some industry, I might keep my competition around in order to (1) keep regulators at bay, (2) give the market the appearance of competition and choice, and (3) keep a source of good ideas alive so that I could cheaply learn from my competition without having to do all the R&D work myself.
I happen to think that Strategy leadership believes in both (1) and (2a).
In short, they've made a judgement call that magnanimity is, on balance, in the best long-term interests of MSTR and $STRC shareholders.
Even if they instead believe in (2b), that would still be consistent with their fiduciary duties.
Saylor and Phong are fallible, just like the rest of us, and I'm confident they will course-correct if and when the occasion calls for it. (I'm also confident they aren't done innovating!) But so far, they have a pretty good track record, and honestly, I admire them more as human beings for their support of Strive and others. I think they recognize that they are here not just to accumulate Bitcoin, but to inspire.
The goals of (1) maximizing shareholder value and (2) being not just respectful, but charitable towards other stakeholders are not always incompatible. I truly feel that, because of the unique structure of Bitcoin — both the protocol and the community — this is one of those cases. 🟠
There’s some quirk in physics where, if there’s a small hole in a bag of mulch it will leak all over your vehicle.
But if you rip a giant hole in the bag and try to dump it out into your landscaping, almost none will fall out.
What sucks so incredibly badly is that this exact girl used to be the one in middle school that you got the dry handjob from in her rich parents pool house when they were out of town and you drank 2.5 vodka cranberries and now that entire beautiful moment has been commodified and digitized into something you pay 15 Yen-cents for on OnlyFans.