https://youtu.be/dYA9vYa0iwQ

580k by 2030 gang here.

So far you thesis is playing out well. I have been in preffered stocks for a long time and over 15 year periods you marginally beat T-Bills and have a lot more volatility. I suspect these will be the same despite the high yield. I don't think a 25% drawdown on a stock that pays 11.5% is a big deal, but I agree that people were led to believe this is like a money market fund and I would bet they are devastated.

In my studies on the history of money and banking the Belle Epoc was dominated by consoles very similar to the preferred offerings of Strategy. The only difference is that governments were paying a small yield on gold backed bank credit. This was an ideal inheritance and was particularly noted in Jane Austen novels. My sincere question is "why is this a bad thing?" Hal Finney mentioned custodians and bitcoin banks as near preference both for spending, storing and issuing credit : "I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the 'high-powered money' that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Bitcoin is an Electronic Cash System. It cannot be rehypothecated within the system and those who layer on top do so with additional risks and rewards. Bitcoin at the base layer, even if a custodian holds a large percentage for intermediaries, cannot be broken within the system of peer to peer connected nodes. Why should we hold a hard line view that is against Finney's understanding of an inevitable future? Why should we not embrace savings alongside investment? Sound savings building sound investment sounds like the capitalism most are after in this space.

Michael Saylor - "We will never sell the bitcoin" Phong Lee whispers in his ear - "If we never sell it then the preferred offerings can never rise above junk status and exclusively selling MSTR when mNAV is below 1.22 is dillutive" Michael Saylor - "We will sell less bitcoin than we buy"

Matt, Your content is always spot on when dissecting frauds/scams/spams. However, I will have to disagree with this assessment of Strategy, it's calculation of mNAV and its securities offerings. To be clear, I do not conflate stocks with bitcoin. I do not think that Strategy has eliminated the risk from bitcoin exposure. In fact, I think the opposite. Strategy is a company that exposes investors to different kinds of custodial risk, whereas bitcoin only has a few. Bitcoin mostly has volatility and a small chance technical mishaps and cultural irrelevance. Coinbase holding a lot of bitcoin is not a threat to bitcoin the same way OGs or billionaires are not a threat. mNAV should be based on enterprise value because 100% of all the bitcoin belong to MSTR common stock holders. Capitalists buy stocks. Capitalists hold sound money. Capitalists often include land in their personal and business operations. I understand that public equities have been mostly corrupted, and that is one of the major reasons for Satoshi's creation to be released during the heart of the GFC. Most Capitalists include sound money in their portfolio ... it is not an exclusive obligation aa a bitcoiner nor as a capitalist.

Is this a Hoskinson moment?