Uchenna Ibeka

Founder, AsymmetrIQ Labs

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

@8teAPi Proprietary data, speed, and execution quality is the moat in trading, not model intelligence. Access to SOTA intelligence will just be an additional piece of the puzzle

[Bambulu @Bqmbulu]

Every great man believed in his greatness before the world caught up because God puts it in a man's heart to know who he is

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

@cz_binance @MichaelJayBTC I agree, but you can never be wrong without specifying a time.

A prediction without an invalidation point is meaningless

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

@zerohedge True.

That is why Bitcoin is based on energy: you can issue fake fiat currency, and every government in history has done so, but it is impossible to fake energy.

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

@comic Leveraging the CAGR and/or volatility of Bitcoin and on the balance sheet is what defines a BTCTC. Coinbase is simply a company that holds Bitcoin, no different than Tesla.

We’ll find out when the merger completes, but for their sake - this better be their business model

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

@comic I think they’re alluding to their business model. Their name is XXI Capital and currently the third largest holder of Bitcoin - of course they’re a Bitcoin Treasury Company. They’ll just be the first with a legitimate business model. Everyone else will follow

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

They’re still a BTCTC. Their goal is accumulate and leverage the CAGR of Bitcoin to return shareholder value.

What they don’t appear to be is a DaaS (dilution-as-a-service) company. Tether seeding their treasury will allow them to skip “phase 1” of this process which is catastrophic to current investors

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

@comic Jack hasn’t said much lately, but that was one comment that stood out to me as well.

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

@higbee @JoshMandell6 I don’t believe this to be an issue of demand. The converts were effectively a free arb trade with favorable terms for Wall Street. They were almost always oversubscribed

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Companies who take risks (issuing debt/leverage) and execute will be rewarded with an mNAV premium. Dilution-as-a-service is not a viable primary business model. This is common sense to anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty.

With that said - issuing convertible notes at near 0% and buying Bitcoin is a demonstrably public speculative attack on the U.S. dollar, and I believe that’s why @saylor has stopped issuing them.

There is some agreement between him and the Trump administration that we aren’t privy to. It would explain the pivot from converts to preferreds, and the indiscriminate dilution of the common stock.

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

They became too complacent with dilution-as-a-service as the primary business model. They will now be forced to pivot toward monetizing their treasuries and reigniting the flywheel to provide real shareholder value. BTCTCs that take the “risk” and execute will be rewarded for it.

“Accretive dilution” was always BS

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

Because the common stock holder has the lowest claim in the capital stack on that bitcoin. There is zero material benefit of any of that Bitcoin to $MSTR. Zero.

MSTR needs to be trading at a significant multiple to both BTC and the preferred to accommodate for the equity risks. Suggesting otherwise is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty, especially coming from someone who used to parade higher mNAV/PE multiples before it became very obvious this is trending toward 1x

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

@MicroNok3 @_adrian 100% agree

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

@_adrian If you’re going to pontificate about the relationship between ATM and share price, then the very least you can do is demonstrate some intellectual honesty and answer the very simple and direct question asked.

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

The buyers of 2020 are irrelevant to Strategy’s ability to operate today. The $21/21 plan didn’t exist then. Their ability to maintain fluid operations is predicated on an mNAV >1 (>2 ideally)

MSTR will be one of the most valuable companies with perhaps the strongest, defensible moats with ~630k BTC. To be discussing a 1x mNAV as remotely acceptable in any regard is crazy, Jeff. If the stock is underperforming (it is) we need to be focused on why, and address it.

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

That sounds like a matter of personal preference and not particularly relevant to the binary. This isn’t about whether or not you would personally prefer to optimize recovery in bankruptcy court - it’s about the consistency of investment analysis framework.

But to your point - perhaps a theoretical 5% difference wouldn’t matter to you, but it absolutely would matter to institutional capital with tens or, hundreds of millions of exposure

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

@griff506 @hillery_dan @JoshMandell6 Volatility, and an options market. That’s it. If Strife ever trades similarly to MSTR’s, or even BTC’s vol, that’ll pose a significant challenge to holding MSTR common stock

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

@BuffaloDylBTC @ryQuant @hillery_dan MSTR is capitalized on Bitcoin, MSTR isn’t Bitcoin. The company can fail without Bitcoin failing. The liquidation preferences exist for a reason.

[Uchenna Ibeka @WillofGod_]

How so? the capital structure directly determines who gets the Bitcoin exposure that drives the KPIs. If you believe Bitcoin KPIs matter, then you absolutely must value which securities provide senior claim to the Bitcoin in a liquidation event.

If your position is that the *only* way Strategy fails is if BTC fails, then sure, but we all know that isn’t the case, even if improbable.

So again, which one is it?