Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

These big players loaded up heavy on $Bitcoin using leverage. Cheap debt and aggressive bets. Now the music is slowing. Private credit markets, the shadow banking monster that's been fueling everything, are showing massive stress. Over-leveraged positions, hidden risks, interconnected debt that no one fully understands until it cracks....

13,653 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Most people think about Bitcoin treasury companies incorrectly Here is why I think they are good for Bitcoin & why they are misunderstood: 1) Treasury companies are capitalizing the Bitcoin industry for a century to come 2) They are future Bitcoin Banks 3) However, they are developing in the reverse order compared to everything else - monetization first and then later on core business activities -- Bitcoin has traditionally received $1 for every $100 in funds that Crypto took in - it has historically been challenging to raise money for Bitcoin focused businesses. My view is that Treasury companies are changing this, and while the first phase will simply be acquiring as much Bitcoin as possible - they will later need to ensure the value of Bitcoin grows and find ways to use BTC as capital in a larger marketplace. These firms will become the future Bitcoin Banks and also Bitcoin conglomerates. In this exact moment in time the best use of capital is simply buying Bitcoin. It's hard to meaningfully outperform BTC, and as such all these businesses will do for a while is acquire BTC. But eventually that shifts, and these firms will see more incentive to both grow and deploy Bitcoin. They then will provide capital which, among other things, supports Bitcoin businesses and projects. Many people struggle to contextualize the current "land rush" phase with what will come later. You need to take a longer view to understand these firms. The order of operations is also reversed here. Typically you build a business or technology and then as a final step monetize it via an IPO. With Bitcoin, stage 1 is looking more like direct monetization prior to creating value via products, etc. This is deeply counter intuitive to many people in traditional finance, and also to many Bitcoiners. However, because Bitcoin is primarily money at a base level it makes sense the developmental path it is taking differs significantly from other tech. The amount of time it will take for other investors to understand this presents an opportunity for those who see it sooner. More thoughts below 👇

Steven Lubka ☀️

29,280 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Catherine Fitts: "There's been a huge effort to encourage retail to go into crypto...because they're trying to prototype... programmable money... [and] keep people away from the real assets... the game of growing the debt is over...[now] we're all [scrambling for] real assets" This clip of Fitts, an investment banker, former Assistant Secretary of HUD, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from an interview with Greg Hunter (Greg Hunter) posted to Rumble on October 18, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "There's been a huge effort to encourage retail to go into crypto, partly because they're trying to prototype the programmable money and make it attractive and profitable for people to go into programmable money. So part of it was that, but they wanted to keep people away from the real assets. "If you are the big equity holders and, managers and the central banks, you want to buy gold and you want to buy land without interference from, you know, retail buyers. So if you can get the retail investors going off and buying, you know, helping you prototype your programmable money, then they're not competing with you to buy the land and to buy the real estate. "The more you can suck them over into helping build your control grid and away from getting control of the real assets, which you, you know, now that you've printed so much money, you want to get control of the real assets. That's what they've been doing. "We've been issuing more and more paper, more and more debt, more and more derivatives, more and more financial assets, but that doesn't mean we're making that. You know, the acceleration of paper, is greater than the creation of new real assets. So we are creating new real assets because we're creating new businesses, new technology, but you're creating far more financial assets. "It's very interesting. The German finance minister at the meeting in Shanghai in 2018 said, very astute comment. He said, the debt growth model is over. There are no reforms now that are not real reforms. And what he meant by that is the game of growing the debt is over. And now, like in the game of musical chairs, we're all going to scramble to get control of the real assets. "Of course, that's when all the enormous profits started attracting people into distributive ledger programmable money, because you're trying to suck them out of the real assets over here to create your control grid while you jump in and get control of the real assets."

Sense Receptor

14,823 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

.Erik Voorhees: It’s actually good, from the Trojan horse perspective, that Bitcoin was traceable enough for traditional institutions to tolerate it. “When Bitcoin came out, everyone called it private, thought of it as private. It was referred to as anonymous in every news story. And in some ways, it is very private and very anonymous. But the truth is that it’s also extremely trackable and traceable. It is not private in reality. And the question is, should it have been from the start? And at first I thought, yes, it should have been more private. And that was a mistake in its design. However, I think if Bitcoin had been anonymous truly from the start, like a Zcash or a Monero, it would have had such antagonism from the state. I don’t know that the state could have snuffed it out, but they would have tried much harder. And I think it’s actually good, from the Trojan horse metaphor perspective, that it was traceable enough that the traditional institutions could tolerate it. They’ve never liked it, but they could at least tolerate it because there is some traceability. And that has allowed Bitcoin to grow. And I think in its shadow, that other crypto assets are actually anonymous is very healthy. The strength of cryptocurrency as a concept in society, I think, is served best when Bitcoin itself is not perfectly private, but other assets are. That is a very difficult thing, I think, for the state to combat. And that decentralization of attributes is really, really crucial. So, yeah, I’m very glad that there are other coins that are private. I want there to be more of them, and I want them to be more popular. And I think it’s okay that Bitcoin itself is not.”

Arjun Khemani

23,056 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Making Sense Of Strategy What is happening with $MSTR? If you’ve been following me on X for any meaningful length of time, you will know that I have been attempting to calibrate people’s expectations of the stock's performance for the best part of 2025. Here I have synthesised all of my thoughts and distilled them into a single video. If you prefer YouTube, you can watch it here: If you prefer written format, continue reading. The first thing we need to understand is what Strategy is and why people invest in it. Strategy At the highest level, Strategy is leveraged Bitcoin. That’s it. Strategy leverages debt to acquire more Bitcoin. Therefore, the main reason you invest in Strategy is because you want to outperform Bitcoin. The only thing better than Bitcoin is more Bitcoin. The second thing we need to understand is mNAV. mNAV Generally speaking for a pure-play Bitcoin Treasury Company like Strategy, mNAV is a reflection of the market's expectation of future Bitcoin Yield. Bitcoin Yield comes with diminishing returns because each additional Bitcoin purchase contributes less to Bitcoin Per Share. Thus, the larger your Bitcoin stack, the harder it becomes to generate Bitcoin Yield and by extension the harder it becomes to outperform Bitcoin. This is why on a Bitcoin Standard, over a long enough time horizon, mNAV trends towards 1 since the maximum amount of Bitcoin you can own is 21M. With all this in mind, why is Strategy trading where it is and why is it trading at such a low mNAV? There are a few reasons. 1. Strategy Is A Different Company In 2025 Firstly, Strategy is a totally different company in 2025 to the one it was in 2020. For context, believe it or not, the company only introduced Bitcoin Yield and Bitcoin Per Share in the July 2024 Q2 Earnings Call and so it was only after that that they began optimising for those metrics. In my view, that is also when Michael Saylor truly started to understand the opportunity that was in front of him, which is why in October 2024 we saw Strategy announce the 21/21 plan which became the catalyst for the parabolic run we saw in November 2024 where $MSTR went on to briefly hit an all-time-high of around $550. Since people are comparing $MSTR this cycle to the $MSTR of last cycle when it briefly traded at an mNAV of over 8x, it is distorting their expectations. Again, Strategy is a totally different company today with a totally different set of dynamics. 2. New Industry Secondly, we need to recognise that the Bitcoin Treasury Company industry is entirely new which means that the market has been forced to learn and adapt in real-time. With Strategy being the first and by far the largest Bitcoin Treasury Company, it has gained a disproportionate amount of attention and as a result it has attracted a disproportionate amount of speculative capital along the way while everyone has been trying to figure out how to value it. Consequently, in my view, the move we saw in November 2024 was an over-correction to the upside — which by the way coincided with Bitcoin’s parabolic run following Donald Trump’s election win — and what we’re now seeing is an over-correction to the downside. 3. Bitcoin Yield Thirdly, as I mentioned at the beginning, Bitcoin Treasury Companies are currently valued based on how much Bitcoin Yield they are expected to generate in the future. At the time of recording, Strategy currently holds precisely 637,460 Bitcoin — that’s over 3% of the total Bitcoin supply — which means that it is much, much harder to generate meaningful Bitcoin Yield, which again is why we’re seeing the mNAV compress. However, there is a caveat here. There is another metric that Strategy have introduced which is Bitcoin $ Gain. Bitcoin $ Gain is defined as the $ value of newly acquired Bitcoin within any period. Strategy — and I don’t blame them — have been attempting to encourage the market to interpret Bitcoin $ Gain as “earnings” and to value the company based on how much earnings it is expected to generate in the future. For full disclosure, I personally dislike Bitcoin $ Gain as a valuation metric. I think framing it as “earnings” is misleading and disingenuous. I understand why it has been introduced because it speaks the language of Wall Street. However, traditional earnings are final. Bitcoin $ Gain is not because it is forever subject to the price of Bitcoin. Therefore, for Bitcoin $ Gain to be embraced by Wall Street, the market must collectively agree that Bitcoin is going up forever. I remain very sceptical of that happening — especially in the short-to-medium term. However, I am also not attached to my beliefs and so if Wall Street does decide to embrace Bitcoin $ Gain as its primary valuation metric, then $MSTR is likely undervalued by a factor of 5-10x. If not, then $MSTR is likely undervalued by a factor of 1-2x. If you’re not content with the latter being the worst case scenario, then the stock probably isn’t for you. 4. Preferred Products Fourthly, the Strategy thesis right now revolves entirely around the success of its preferred products. Remember, Michael Saylor wants Strategy to become the Amazon of the fixed income market. Thus, we’re not talking about a small innovation here — we are talking about completely transforming global finance. This means that the process of generating awareness and educating the market that will ultimately drive demand for these products is going to take years — not months — which is why you need to have a long time-horizon. Presently, the market is completely discounting the success of Strategy’s preferred products. What it’s not factoring in however is that the capital markets are desperate for yield right now. Thus, when — not if — but when, they eventually wake up to Bitcoin, how do you think they’re going to get that yield? Who is going to be the entity that is offering Bitcoin-backed credit instruments at scale? The answer is obviously Strategy, but again, this is a 5-to-10 year and beyond story. So with all that said, if you’re reading this right now, what should you do? Valuing Strategy There are 3 steps you need to take: 1. Firstly, you need to define your time horizon. In other words, how long do you intend on holding the stock for? 2. Secondly, you need to estimate either — depending on your preferred metric — how much Bitcoin Yield or how much Bitcoin $ Gain you expect Strategy to generate during that period and then calculate how much you expect $MSTR to outperform Bitcoin based on those values. 3. Thirdly, ask yourself whether you’d be satisfied with the level of outperformance you have calculated? In other words, is the trade-off worth it? Or would you be better off investing in either spot Bitcoin, an alternative Bitcoin Treasury Company or a Bitcoin ETF. If you’re satisfied with the level of outperformance that you’ve calculated, then $MSTR it probably a good choice of investment for you. If you're not satisfied, then $MSTR is probably a bad choice of investment for you. I personally believe that $MSTR will outperform Bitcoin by a minimum factor of 1-2x over the next 5/10 years and potentially much more if Bitcoin $ Gain becomes the primary metric by which it is valued, but again, I remain sceptical of that happening. Regardless, the best is yet to come.

Chris Millas

36,835 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Gold since April 2025: +60% Bitcoin since April 2025: -30% Gold since its January high: still near all-time highs. Bitcoin since its October high: -48%. 5 consecutive red months for Bitcoin. A 0.55 correlation with the S&P 500 as of March 1st. And people still call it "digital gold." Let me explain why that framing will cost you money: When the Middle East escalated, gold surged above $5,300. Bitcoin dropped. When equities sold off, gold held. Bitcoin sold with them. When uncertainty spiked, gold hit all-time highs. Bitcoin bled. This isn't an accident. It's the nature of WHAT these assets actually are. Gold is an asset that isn't somebody else's liability. It's not correlated with the general level of risk assets. It doesn't shift identities depending on what the market needs it to be that week. Bitcoin does. Sometimes it's digital gold. Sometimes it's correlated to NASDAQ. Sometimes it follows the dollar. Sometimes it follows liquidity. It depends on whatever narrative is convenient at the time. And narrative always follows price. That's the way it works. When Bitcoin was ripping to $126,000 in October, everyone called it a store of value. Now that it's trading at $66,000 with 5 red months, NOBODY talks about the digital gold thesis anymore. Gold doesn't have that problem. Central banks bought 863 tonnes of gold in 2025. Accumulating at the fastest pace in decades. China is buying like crazy for months. Nobody's buying Bitcoin for their sovereign reserves. Nobody's rewriting the gold thesis every quarter. I said this on back in April last year when Bitcoin was reclaiming $90,000 and everyone wanted me to be bullish on crypto: "If NASDAQ takes a header, if risk assets take another leg down, you want to bet Bitcoin goes up or down? I'd vote down." NASDAQ took a header. Risk assets took a leg down. Bitcoin went down. Gold went up. It's not complicated. Gold is insurance against irresponsible policies from central bankers and government officials. It protects you against the falling dollar. It's been doing this for 5,000 years. Bitcoin is a speculative instrument that acts like protection only when everything else is going up too. And in the environment we're heading into (geopolitical risk at generational highs, the dollar under pressure, central banks still buying, the Fed boxed in on rates) you want the real thing. Not the imitation. GOLD SURVIVED EMPIRES BITCOIN SURVIVED TWITTER

George Noble

11,852 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten