@PeterSchiff@phongle No, it's not a Ponzi. A Ponzi would entail using new investor money to pay returns to old investors, while lying about the underlying business and the source of those returns. $MSTR is transparent. It also holds an underlying asset that it can sell if needed.
@saylor@AtlasHodld Endurance is hard and tough psychologically. But because of hundreds of hours listening to you, I want to do it. Will close my eyes, and instead read Will Durant's History Of Civilization...
@TTejpal@AdamBLiv Couldn't agree more! Obviously, everyone needs to do their own research. But these guys were way off. I'm in it for the long run, but I'm still laughing at the "bewilderment" and "the most hated rally of all times".
@Danainhawaii How would you fund the interest payments? You'd have to sell some BTC, but BTC is volatile, timing could be off. Michael Saylor has access to capital markets & can issue more securities to fund those payments. Leverage is controlled.
@PunterJeff When there is more clarity around the earnings generated by the green bars, the market should apply a multiple on that, and a new phase of price discovery will begin. Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.
@PunterJeff My question is: in a situation like this, how do we figure out what component of FASB earnings is attributable to the green bars vs. the orange bars. It's pretty clear the market doesn't get it... yet
@PunterJeff This is exactly what @saylor explained here: we would expect an mNAV of 1 in this situation, yet we would be reporting FASB earnings tracking the BTC price fluctuations. P/E multiple makes no sense.
@PunterJeff There is confusion about how to value the company. For purposes of applying a P/E multiple, the focus on FASB earnings driven by BTC price is confusing and misguided. We should be looking at a new measure of earnings that solely focuses on the BTC $ yield.
@Forbes The author of this piece doesn't seem to know that "Nothing Stops This Train" was coined by @LynAldenContact that's kind of embarrassing!
https://t.co/FqRamGSREc
@LynAldenContact This statistic came up recently in my work so spent time on it and wanted to flag that it seems that the Fred data changed slightly since Jan 2024. The number is more like 87% now, interestingly.
@RichardAHaas@PunterJeff I would agree. In fact, isn't what is being valued here the future expected BTC yield? or are we also valuing the future expected BTC $ value of the current stash? the latter is a more mysterious argument to me
@Iknowurmomwell @durov@ashish_fagna@LePoint We are grateful for your efforts to speak French & the gravity of the situation requires it. Merci ร vous Mr. Durov.