bitcoin_bunga

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

Young people don’t realize their portfolio is already loaded with "bonds"

Your job is a high-value bond—offering steady income and acting like a massive annuity that pays out frequently. And if you’re lucky (and skilled), that bond appreciates over time through promotions, raises, and job moves.

When most of your portfolio consists of bonds, volatility isn’t the enemy—it’s an opportunity. With time as your greatest asset, the real risk isn’t taking on too much so-called "risk"—it’s not taking enough.

The more I realize volatility is vitality.

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

One of the things Saylor called out and learned was the toxicity of capital behind convertible bonds. To me, PIPEs are no different.

We have seen months of BTCTC and PIPEs now, and the story has played out the same everytime. It's a 100% hit rate of crushing the stock.

So to me, I am wondering what the cognitive dissonance here is. They revere Saylor, but the "toxic capital" lesson that Saylor foreshadowed seems to not have been taken in by many BTCTC higher managements.

By now, to many retail investors, anytime PIPE is used, a giant red flag should be going off. Then the next step is to see the PIPE price and number of shares (easily examinable via SEC Docs + AI).

Asute retail can read the writing on the walls behind the PIPE and to me there is a lack of transparency in these BTCTC companies in giving their reasoning behind issuing such dilutive PIPEs, even when it's plain day.

The radio silence, and blocking of criticisms is certainly no way to manage that "risk" as well IMO. Loss of trust results in loss of capital if that's the flywheel they are going for.

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

Yup indeed, shorts can be quick and flexible.

But the BTCTC is bogged down by rules and bureaucracy, no matter how nimble they are, there will always be SEC regulations (or analogous entities within their own market) that will slow down moves.

Especially for BTCTC companies who publish wallet info, then shorts will set "snipers" at the wallet addresses. If you sell BTC they will react instantly to arb it. Element of surprise is lost for BTCTC companies here, and it's like trying to a game of chess while broadcasting your whole moveset; a losing battle.

Then there's all sorts of spread and liquidity issues. At the end of the day when you've sold all your BTC to but back shares, the balance sheet is now worthless. If you try to buy back BTC you may just eat spreads.

That's why I've always thought selling BTC to buy shares back sounds great in practice, but not feasible in reality. The BTC treasury company would really have to be extremely quick with the arb execution here to be successful. But they are operating against quants and firms with much of that tooling already in place and thus at an execution disadvantage.

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

I am also curious on your thoughts on the early closure. From what I understand the Aug 27th announcement filing showed that there was a possibility of 555 M shares, and with the window of Sep 9 - Sep 11 as the pricing period.

It seems Simon + team closed earlier and did not go the full 555 M shares (385 M instead), and closed pricing first day instead of going full window.

Do you think hedge funds/shorters expected it to go till Sep 11, and the full 555 M shares, and were thus caught off-sides when Metaplanet finalized the deal with the announcement the other day?

Just curious on how you see these dynamics, and if they may have played into aggressive covering of the shorts, and the price reversal.

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

My take: This wasn’t Costco bulk buying. It was a recipe change. They added water to the pot to pour about 50% more bowls (that’s how many new shares were issued), then served the new bowls about 10% cheaper off the close at a private table (not even counting the deeper discount that happened into pricing if you consider the shorting and hedging pressure that comes with this kind of bookbuild). For prior buyers, the bowl feels thinner relatively, and that cheaper pour becomes the new menu price. Most of us are fine with a little thinning when the broth (mNAV) is too rich, but this round pushed it toward watery while VIPs got the better ladle and not much accretion flowed to us.

There’s no buyer lockup (or at least none written), so those VIP bowls can come right back across the counter and get sold into us, which pulls price toward the close they priced off. These buyers might be tourists, not regulars, so incentives are not necessarily long term. That’s why it leaves a bad "taste". I still trust the team and the plan, and I’ll let them "cook". All puns intended.

I think there is a right tail with the preferreds that is hard to forecast, and the torque there could surprise on the upside. Once Bitcoin moves out of the sideways channel and sentiment flips, the reflexivity can be more than any of us can model so that's the hidden X factor. I still have no doubt that Metaplanet will outperform Bitcoin though.

Some additional notes as I re-read the August 27 capital raise: the first day to price was September 9, with optionality through September 11. They had room for up to 555 million shares but printed 385 million instead.

I think the team did not forecast how far the price could get pushed from August 27 to September 9 (announcement date to pricing period). The fact that they priced on the first eligible day, did not go up to 555 million shares, and did not wait to September 11 reads to me like they were a bit off-side and wanted to lock it early within the rules they had set on August 27.

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

@ZynxBTC See you at next shift, boss

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

The more I think about the landscape of $MSTR right now, the more I think what Saylor meant by this:

https://t.co/vYVuKxuHw2

It's as if he was perfectly alluding to events unfolding. He had posted this same message shortly before the undolding to a 76k BTC price and $240 MSTR.

[Michael Saylor @saylor]

Volatility Is a Gift to the Faithful.

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

@dampedspring @awertheim @adam3us @jlppfeffer This alternative link seems to work: https://t.co/eQ2KZoGk0V

[Simon Gerovich @gerovich]

We’ve completed a PFIC review with top U.S. legal and tax advisors. 

Metaplanet is not expected to be a PFIC for 2025, and we don’t expect to become one thereafter, based on our specific structure and operations. 

PFIC status is facts and circumstances specific and thus this advice relates solely to Metaplanet. 

Official disclosure in thread below

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

@mc_khristina @AdamBLiv @mc_khristina @JesseKobernick

https://t.co/2bWH04diqw

Sale was already pre registered and locked up well before BTC Treasury adoption.

Also info from Ben Werkman in same thread

[Pelle Frederiksen @Submarine345]

His answer to the share sale.

[Ben Werkman @Werkman]

For those who have listened to me long enough, you will know being entrusted with building a corporate Bitcoin treasury and being a steward of shareholder value is a massive deal to me. I look forward to building and delivering long term value for the shareholders of $SQNS 🙏

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

Picked up some more $SQNS here. My shares are being borrowed on Fidelity at a rate of 73% right now.

So seems like heavy short pressure. Although I think a lot of those shares are hedged because many of those shorts bought the warrants at $1.40.

But I don't think that supply unlocks for another 2 months or so based on the filings, so the borrow rate will likely be high till then.

Although, I am still happy to sit on my shares here at this low of an mNAV, a squeeze could occur if BTC price rises enough and/or $SQNS makes some surprise moves. Especially while
those warrants are still locked, and they start sweating as the borrow rate gets higher and higher. It was at 45% or so 3 days ago.

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

@docstacks @MasonFoard Didn't even realize, but it's even ordered by seniority in the spelling too.

[Mason @MasonFoard]

STR = Shorts Are…
F
C
K
D

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

> one of the things that I do daily is look through all the posts as I view our shareholders as a key part of the team

Love hearing this.

Some CEOs lose sight of the ‘common’ people (literally and figuratively for us common stockholders). Your commitment to the community is unparalleled and appreciated by us all.

Bullish $SWC. We like the stock. 🚀

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

Yeah I've been finding things to sell to but more $MTPLF, it's a nice compression here.

In regards to pairs trading, I am not seeing it mentioned much, but from my observations the rolling daily correlations of these assets, despite all being bitcoin based derivatives is actually quite low (<0.5 on the rolling 1, 5, and 10 day correlations). Really surprising to me and interesting.

There's actually a ton of room to pair trade these given that the correlations often de-couple, and pair that with a few stochastics like RSI, mNAV, and a number of other metrics and you can get some pretty good risk-adjusted returns trading around in various instruments (IBIT Leaps, MSTR Leaps, $MTPLF, and other treasuries).

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

Like your work, but think this one is a little messy.

Growth slows; nobody is cornering all 21 M BTC, a basic reality that we can all agree with.

Yet the current parameters spit out absurdities: Vaultz stays frozen at 50 BTC, and already has 50 BTC, and K33 rockets from 30 BTC to 2.1 M. Both on extreme ends of the curve that we can all agree probably won't happen.

Fitting treasuries with wildly different sample sizes, some having only a handful of observations, others having way more seems to bend the model around noise rather than signal. Leaving those extreme outliers undercuts your case

I know more data helps, but the model looks off on Day 1, and is flunking some basic sanity checks.

Don't know where the "right" model lies, but I think the drawing board still has to be revisited here IMO.

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

I’d argue that the converts were a mistake in hindsight.

Simon from Metaplanet has spoken about why they’re choosing not to use converts.

The capital they attract tends not to come from investors with a long-term view or any real interest in Bitcoin. Instead, it draws in arbitrage desks that short the stock immediately after the deal. Delta hedging keeps the price anchored around a fixed range.

This setup increases downside volatility. These desks aim to keep the stock near a 50 delta, since that’s where gamma exposure is highest. It often takes a significant, idiosyncratic move to escape that range bound zone.

Overall, it creates negative and opaque price action, which isn’t helpful for investor sentiment.

Saylor hasn’t addressed this publicly, but given his conversations with Simon and Andrew, both of whom have clearly moved away from converts, it’s reasonable to assume he advised caution or suggested finding more selective buyers and terms.

[bitcoin_bunga @bitcoin_bunga]

Another thing is that a 5–10% “discount” is actually a much more insane discount than it seems.

Because if they were buying on the open market like a regular retail investor, then they become a price taker and a price mover.

It’s not the 5–10% discount; it’s the fixed price without moving the market that is a much bigger deal. In that way, they have much less “risk.”

I see the arguments for “raising capital,” but I disagree with the premise. I’d rather have more organic capital raises, even if it’s slower, because the value goes to shareholders.

In a world of many BTC treasury companies, I firmly believe that a large “premium” rests in the perceived ethos of the team, and the tie-in and ability to raise capital is linked to that as well.

Companies who say that we, as regular investors, don’t understand capital markets are undermining the very people who will be supporting their capital market strategy.

BTC treasury companies will be heavily community-driven. A company should canvas its own shareholders to see where they stand, and that’s why I think this poll is valuable.

Trust is built slowly but lost in an instant; don’t do discounts. Seriously—say you raised capital at a heavy discount, say that transparently (not buried in SEC filings or legalese that only gets noticed if someone goes digging), and broadcast it on X. Don’t think the reception will be good.

Ignore the results of the poll at your own risk—or be humbled by the “polling” mechanism that is the market.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

@RenatoLima_X Fiat is hopeless, so yes