@ColeMacro Well said! I began purchasing ASST a few months ago, and my only regret is not rotating more into it. That mistake is mine, and I must accept responsibility for it.
I understand, but this is about investing, not cheerleading or politics. We need to do the math, calculate the cost of capital—all you need is a simple calculation, not a complicated one, and you'll see how unfavorable it is. If this method is correct, why did they stop it in August?
I'm in a similar situation as you, though not with over 100 people—just mostly my family's funds. I genuinely understand your pain... I even contemplate taking on all their losses myself.
But yeah, I did miss out this 10th SO, will do better next time.
I see it as a failure in my investing due to insufficient due diligence, despite spending several months researching before committing a significant portion of my portfolio.
Couldn't agree more! Thanks to those who called them out publicly and got the anti-dilution clause deleted.
I would never have invested in the company if I had known about the old business-model compensation package with an anti-dilution clause that was carried over to a BTCTC business model.
Now is the golden time for management to show they are with shareholders and willing to fix the wrong one.
@RoaringRagnar@ZynxBTC
My reply to Simon Gerovich, CEO of Metaplanet.
TL;DR: The only way out is to roll back the 273 million extra shares, and to replace them with a new, retroactively applied incentive program.
Thank you for breaking the silence.
1. The 10th series and the adjustment clause was not published in a transparent and widely accessible manner. Companies like Strategy and Strive publish full cap tables with line items for options, RSUs/PSUs, and warrants. This information was not easy to find at Metaplanet. It took even Japanese shareholders 17 months to find it. Here's the first public mention I found from September 2025 (https://t.co/yB4x2azDTB).
2. Dylan explained the removal of the adjustment clause in his reply to me (https://t.co/eyDclSlqxl) like follows: "When shareholders strongly expressed their feedback on the 2022 structure, the company extinguished the feature". Why extinguish a feature that you believe is fair and reasonable? And if it wasn‘t fair and reasonable, why keep the extra 273 million shares the feature created?
3. The company, in their August 18 notice, said the adjustment clause "amplifies the dilution borne by existing shareholders" and raised "concerns regarding the relationship between capital-raising decisions and the interests of the SAR holders". (https://t.co/WAOa5pncu7). I can't agree more. But if that's the case, how can you justify keeping the 273 million extra shares the clause created?
4. Last year's International Offering created an extra 96.25 million shares from the adjustment clause. The community has raised this very publicly and loudly in September/October last year, see (1) https://t.co/f4x32vyIhR and (2) https://t.co/EAzDBNsYuF. There is no way management hasn‘t seen this. So the only logical explanation is that you chose to ignore it. Why did you do that?
5. While there is a new 5 year lockup, the 273 million extra shares have never had any performance conditions attached to them. They have been a blanc prepayment for future performance. This is not acceptable, especially not when compared to compensation plans of other companies like Strive. And especially not if we are talking about a value of over $500 million today and $3.2 billion if the company ever reclaims their all-time high of 1,930 Yen.
6. The company, in our private discussions, claimed that this clause was necessary to attract and retain talent. If they rolled back the extra 273 million shares, 46 million shares with a current value of $80 million and $552 million (at a future all-time high) would remain. The company hasn't explained why this would not be enough to satisfy this purpose.
7. Bitcoin per share would be 20% higher if the extra 273 million shares did not exist. Or said differently, the adjustment clause caused sats per share to decline from 3,167 sats/share to 2,637 sats/share. This is a massive drag for shareholders and significantly worsens any benefits from a potential lower cost of capital in Japan, one of the core thesis why many shareholders are interested in the stock.
8. This situation clearly doesn't pass the Warren Buffett newspaper test. (https://t.co/iuPkSv4WJY)
9. The reaction of the community is overwhelmingly clear. The only way out is to roll back the 273 million extra shares, and to replace them with a new, retroactively applied incentive program.
10. It's still not clear whether there are (or have been) conflicts of interest, and if so, to what extent, with regards to MMXX or EVO Fund. We need a lot more transparency.
This is a golden chance for management to show you are with shareholders and turn the tide.
You know the right thing is to roll back the expanded 10th Series shares. The only question is whether personal interest sits above that.
Metaplanet is my largest holding. If I cannot see management fix what is clearly wrong, I will walk away. I think many other investors will do the same.
I regret that I did not rotate enough to $ASST.
The key question is still unanswered: will you roll back the extra shares created by the 10th Series adjustment clause?
That plan was approved in Feb 2023, before the Bitcoin Standard in April 2024. It was not designed for a company that issues equity to buy BTC. After that model started, the clause expanded the pool from 46 million to 319 million shares.
Freezing it is not the same as rolling it back.
Leaving the expanded pool in place rewards management when issuance is not even accretive to existing shareholders.
@RoaringRagnar I couldn't agree more, bro. Thanks to Zynx and you for speaking up. The antidilution clause in the legacy hotel model shouldn't apply to the BTCTC model
I completely agree with you. I would be very disappointed if management decided to ignore this issue. It could become quite serious if they stay silent and do nothing to resolve it permanently. Many people might leave. As a BTCTC, once trust is lost, you're out of the game. Metaplanet is my largest holding, and I will keep a close eye on what management decides to do.
@gerovich@DylanLeClair
Sad to hear that, bro. If your work doesn't cause much stress, I'm afraid our worry about sleep quality has been a significant source of stress.
I once tried to improve my deep sleep or make it longer by reducing blue light from my phone and monitor screens, and turning on a 6-70% blue light shield on windows, PCs, or monitors to protect melatonin.
Also, monitor the CO2 levels in your room to see if they are too high, as this may affect sleep quality. I am tracking my CO2 levels as well; it turns out mine reach too high at 4am Still working to improve it.
Googld luck bro🙏🏻
@Micro2Macr0 Happy for you!🥳❤️🙏Health is the most important thing in our life. It’s kind of 0 and 1. We might own everything we consider important, but without health, everything turns to 0. Grateful for being healthy.
Haha, yeah. She doesn’t realize what SpaceX can do. I look forward to having Starlink on Singapore Airlines in 2027! The current wifi without Starlink is terrible—almost no internet during the 13-hour trip from SG to Switzerland.
But I don't subscribe to the IPO valuation, will wait for good entry
@dRiskDave Yes, especially when STRC and SATA are printing strongly. Then sentiment influences the price, FOMO kicks in, and here we go with BTCTC... hopefully, Metaplanet will pick up MNAV premium in Japan.
omg... There are quite a number of opportunities out there. It's definitely not ideal to see red or dead water every day when the market is thriving everywhere, with SPX reaching all-time highs and memory and semiconductors also performing strongly.
I think I need to consider whether I am going to keep their shares as my largest holding