Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

What does it actually mean when STRC trades below par? Strategy CEO Phong Le breaks it down: "It's a preferred equity, not debt. And it's definitely not a money market, even though some people use it in place of one. It's designed to trade within a tight window of... par 99 to 101, but there'll be times when it doesn't" "Stretch is trading at 96 cents on the dollar, so it's down 4% during that period. But when you take the 11.5% dividend paid over the last 10 months, that's up 8%. So if you're a shareholder over that period, you're up 4%. If I told you in October I'm going to design an instrument with Bitcoin as the underlying, Bitcoin goes down 50%, and I give you a 4% TSR, would you believe me?" "The last couple weeks it's gone down because Bitcoin has gone down, but it'll come back up. We have the mechanisms. We could increase the dividend, we could shore up the US dollar reserve. I have a strong belief we'll continue to pay the dividends and it'll trade back at par"show more

The Wolf Of All Streets

1,085,529 subscribers

39,381 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik Finanzen

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

"I bought STRC around $92 and Bitcoin at $60,000 because it seemed like the most obvious counter trade in history" "Saylor sold 32 Bitcoin at $77K, the market was so spooked it dumped below 60,000. He not only inoculated the market to the idea of him selling, but was able to scoop up $101 million worth of Bitcoin much cheaper at $65K" "STRC was trading down to $91 and at the open today it skyrocketed over 3%. People are realizing maybe they panicked too much, and STRC will likely trade back to par at 100" "You can buy something designed to go back to par at 100 for $91, $92, $93, and unless you believe it's going to zero, you're probably going to get that 7, 8, 9% boost and then the 11.5% dividend on top. Not telling you what to do, telling you what I did"

"I bought STRC around $92 and Bitcoin at $60,000 because it seemed like the most obvious counter trade in history" "Saylor sold 32 Bitcoin at $77K, the market was so spooked it dumped below 60,000. He not only inoculated the market to the idea of him selling, but was able to scoop up $101 million worth of Bitcoin much cheaper at $65K" "STRC was trading down to $91 and at the open today it skyrocketed over 3%. People are realizing maybe they panicked too much, and STRC will likely trade back to par at 100" "You can buy something designed to go back to par at 100 for $91, $92, $93, and unless you believe it's going to zero, you're probably going to get that 7, 8, 9% boost and then the 11.5% dividend on top. Not telling you what to do, telling you what I did"

The Wolf Of All Streets

102,511 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Threadguy breaks down the recursive death spiral that could unwind Strategy "I don't fully understand the alchemy in the Strategy ecosystem, but here's what I do know. The only way you get Stretch back to peg, if it doesn't just trade there, is you raise the yield. It's at 11.5% and clearly that's not enough, so he has to push it to 12, 13, 14, 15." "But to pay a bigger dividend you have to raise more cash, which means issuing more MSTR and diluting shareholders, and this whole time Bitcoin has to go up to justify the MNAV. If it doesn't, demand for Stretch drops, so you raise the yield again, dilute again, MSTR goes down again, MNAV gets hurt again. It just eats itself." "I'm not calling the death of anything, people way smarter than me like it. But I'm not touching this thing with a 10 foot pole. For 11%? You're out of your mind."

Threadguy breaks down the recursive death spiral that could unwind Strategy "I don't fully understand the alchemy in the Strategy ecosystem, but here's what I do know. The only way you get Stretch back to peg, if it doesn't just trade there, is you raise the yield. It's at 11.5% and clearly that's not enough, so he has to push it to 12, 13, 14, 15." "But to pay a bigger dividend you have to raise more cash, which means issuing more MSTR and diluting shareholders, and this whole time Bitcoin has to go up to justify the MNAV. If it doesn't, demand for Stretch drops, so you raise the yield again, dilute again, MSTR goes down again, MNAV gets hurt again. It just eats itself." "I'm not calling the death of anything, people way smarter than me like it. But I'm not touching this thing with a 10 foot pole. For 11%? You're out of your mind."

Kai

15,114 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

"People realised they can't treat this as a savings account" Avi breaks down why Stretch isn't trading back at par "You've got to ask, what is the product, why does it even exist? It exists because he wants to give you exposure to Bitcoin in a way where you get some of the returns from an asset you might think will go up over the next few years, but with capped downside" "What happened is that confidence in that product broke, because you obviously don't necessarily have capped downside, especially in moments of panic when you can enter into these liquidity crunches" "One reason it's not back to par is that it's cannibalised by a lot of products. But two, people realised they can't treat this as a savings account, which is how it's been pitched. They can't just park capital in it and pull it when they need it" "If you park capital thinking you're getting a dividend, and when you see an opportunity you can pull it out and reallocate, that's just no longer the case. You're dealing with a volatile product now, so it probably isn't going to trade at par, because it has to be discounted for that reason"

"People realised they can't treat this as a savings account" Avi breaks down why Stretch isn't trading back at par "You've got to ask, what is the product, why does it even exist? It exists because he wants to give you exposure to Bitcoin in a way where you get some of the returns from an asset you might think will go up over the next few years, but with capped downside" "What happened is that confidence in that product broke, because you obviously don't necessarily have capped downside, especially in moments of panic when you can enter into these liquidity crunches" "One reason it's not back to par is that it's cannibalised by a lot of products. But two, people realised they can't treat this as a savings account, which is how it's been pitched. They can't just park capital in it and pull it when they need it" "If you park capital thinking you're getting a dividend, and when you see an opportunity you can pull it out and reallocate, that's just no longer the case. You're dealing with a volatile product now, so it probably isn't going to trade at par, because it has to be discounted for that reason"

The Wolf Of All Streets

36,699 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

"I do not believe I need a cash reserve. But our debt holders and Stretch holders feel it's less risky to have one. If Bitcoin crashed 90%, we'd have two and a half years" Strategy CEO Phong Le on why the company plans on keeping the cash reserve "Mathematically I do not believe I need a cash reserve. But from a risk perspective, to satisfy our four stakeholders, common, preferred, Bitcoin and debt holders, especially debt holders and Stretch holders, they feel it's less risky to have a cash reserve. If Bitcoin were to crash 90%, we would have two and a half years" "We took the 2.25 billion down to north of 700 million. Why did we do it? Because at that point in time, that was the best way to buy back our convertibles of one and a half billion dollars. We've also said we're going to bring it right back up, and we've done it $100 million at a time" "We bought $100 million in Bitcoin last week right after we sold $2.5 million. Nobody talks about the purchase of $100 million. They talk about the sale of $2.5 million. We'll bring the cash reserve back up and refresh it over time"

"I do not believe I need a cash reserve. But our debt holders and Stretch holders feel it's less risky to have one. If Bitcoin crashed 90%, we'd have two and a half years" Strategy CEO Phong Le on why the company plans on keeping the cash reserve "Mathematically I do not believe I need a cash reserve. But from a risk perspective, to satisfy our four stakeholders, common, preferred, Bitcoin and debt holders, especially debt holders and Stretch holders, they feel it's less risky to have a cash reserve. If Bitcoin were to crash 90%, we would have two and a half years" "We took the 2.25 billion down to north of 700 million. Why did we do it? Because at that point in time, that was the best way to buy back our convertibles of one and a half billion dollars. We've also said we're going to bring it right back up, and we've done it $100 million at a time" "We bought $100 million in Bitcoin last week right after we sold $2.5 million. Nobody talks about the purchase of $100 million. They talk about the sale of $2.5 million. We'll bring the cash reserve back up and refresh it over time"

The Wolf Of All Streets

55,916 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

"For every 10% Bitcoin goes down, your rate goes up 20 basis points. So even if Bitcoin goes to zero, your rate only increases by 2%. And it works the other way too" CJ Konstantinos, founder of Peoples Reserve, on how the self-repaying mortgage rate moves with Bitcoin "So, even if Bitcoin went to zero, it's just like a regular mortgage at that point, because you have no Bitcoin working for you anymore. We don't believe Bitcoin goes to zero, but if it did, that would be the consequence" "For every 10% Bitcoin goes up, we reduce your rate by 0.2%, up to a 33% LTV, a 300% collateral ratio. If your loan is $500,000 and you post $1.5 million of Bitcoin, or your original $500,000 grows into $1.5 million, we reduce your rate by 400 basis points. So if you're basic with an 8% starting rate but you over-collateralize, you get a 4% rate" "We believe over time Bitcoin will do what it was engineered to do and accrue value. Intraday volatility doesn't matter, it's a 30-day window. At the end of every month before your payment is due, we take a snapshot. So if Bitcoin flash crashes and bounces back, no change to your rate, it has to be a consistent drawdown over 30 days, and we reamortize the loan based on the collateral ratio at that time"

"For every 10% Bitcoin goes down, your rate goes up 20 basis points. So even if Bitcoin goes to zero, your rate only increases by 2%. And it works the other way too" CJ Konstantinos, founder of Peoples Reserve, on how the self-repaying mortgage rate moves with Bitcoin "So, even if Bitcoin went to zero, it's just like a regular mortgage at that point, because you have no Bitcoin working for you anymore. We don't believe Bitcoin goes to zero, but if it did, that would be the consequence" "For every 10% Bitcoin goes up, we reduce your rate by 0.2%, up to a 33% LTV, a 300% collateral ratio. If your loan is $500,000 and you post $1.5 million of Bitcoin, or your original $500,000 grows into $1.5 million, we reduce your rate by 400 basis points. So if you're basic with an 8% starting rate but you over-collateralize, you get a 4% rate" "We believe over time Bitcoin will do what it was engineered to do and accrue value. Intraday volatility doesn't matter, it's a 30-day window. At the end of every month before your payment is due, we take a snapshot. So if Bitcoin flash crashes and bounces back, no change to your rate, it has to be a consistent drawdown over 30 days, and we reamortize the loan based on the collateral ratio at that time"

The Wolf Of All Streets

90,567 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

“There was never any talk of the risk.” Peter Schiff is just lying at this point. The risk of $STRC was always obvious: it is preferred equity issued by a Bitcoin Treasury Company. Saylor said it clearly: if Bitcoin goes down long term or forever, that is the risk. And what are we seeing now? Bitcoin under pressure. Liquidity rotated into AI and IPOs. Maximum fear. STRC down. That is not some hidden scandal. That is risk premium repricing. Strategy does not magically control STRC’s market price. They can adjust the dividend rate, but the market prices the risk of Bitcoin and Strategy’s ability to keep paying dividends. And when Bitcoin starts going up again, what do you think happens? The same risk premium reprices in the other direction. If you buy preferred equity in a Bitcoin company, you are making one core assumption: Bitcoin goes up over the long term. That was never hidden.

“There was never any talk of the risk.” Peter Schiff is just lying at this point. The risk of $STRC was always obvious: it is preferred equity issued by a Bitcoin Treasury Company. Saylor said it clearly: if Bitcoin goes down long term or forever, that is the risk. And what are we seeing now? Bitcoin under pressure. Liquidity rotated into AI and IPOs. Maximum fear. STRC down. That is not some hidden scandal. That is risk premium repricing. Strategy does not magically control STRC’s market price. They can adjust the dividend rate, but the market prices the risk of Bitcoin and Strategy’s ability to keep paying dividends. And when Bitcoin starts going up again, what do you think happens? The same risk premium reprices in the other direction. If you buy preferred equity in a Bitcoin company, you are making one core assumption: Bitcoin goes up over the long term. That was never hidden.

Alex 👽

21,220 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨NEW: Adam Curry nicely breaks down how Stablecoins work, Tether, and the likely future of the US Digital Dollar system. (Worth a watch if you don't know about this subject) "A stablecoin is a digital dollar thats pegged to the dollar so it's always a dollar. It's already being used all over the internet and the world. The only reason it's worth a dollar is because the stablecoin company that creates it has debt and paper to back it up. They buy America's debt, they buy treasury bonds or T-bills that pay a dividend that gives interest, and for each dollar they've bought in treasury they can create stablecoins. If you look at the company Tether they've bought more of the US debt than most countries. They have $160B worth of US debt. For each of those dollars they have a stablecoin. There's like 50 people in the company. They have $160B at 4% interest annually, they're making BANK just for holding this debt. I think that President Trump is very smart in seeing that we can flood the world with our stablecoin and we get a 2-for-1. We create a dollar of debt and we create another dollar that can be used all over the world as a reserve currency and that should result in some new monetary system that we need to come up with to have our dollar valued properly but also still remain the reserve currency and remain a strong export country. We don't make anything that we sell abroad, we can't all serve each other burgers and fries -- we have to build something. All of that went overseas. There's something big coming, and it has to happen. Trump is a meta guy. He's going to re-finance the country. It'll be digital and he Bitcoiners don't like this because they want Bitcoin to be the one currency that everyone uses but its now more like a digital gold that's much easier to move around. It's useful but it isn't money or currency the way it was originally intended -- but it is still very important and will be part of the US' strategic reserve. It looks to me like Stablecoins and Tether in particular will be the future of the US dollar payments. A lot of people on the right are afraid of being controlled on a grid because you can stop stablecoins -- but it seems there's no way of getting around some form of a digital dollar. I still like Bitcoin as a backup to protect from that control." Great breakdown Adam Curry - curryirc.com

🚨NEW: Adam Curry nicely breaks down how Stablecoins work, Tether, and the likely future of the US Digital Dollar system. (Worth a watch if you don't know about this subject) "A stablecoin is a digital dollar thats pegged to the dollar so it's always a dollar. It's already being used all over the internet and the world. The only reason it's worth a dollar is because the stablecoin company that creates it has debt and paper to back it up. They buy America's debt, they buy treasury bonds or T-bills that pay a dividend that gives interest, and for each dollar they've bought in treasury they can create stablecoins. If you look at the company Tether they've bought more of the US debt than most countries. They have $160B worth of US debt. For each of those dollars they have a stablecoin. There's like 50 people in the company. They have $160B at 4% interest annually, they're making BANK just for holding this debt. I think that President Trump is very smart in seeing that we can flood the world with our stablecoin and we get a 2-for-1. We create a dollar of debt and we create another dollar that can be used all over the world as a reserve currency and that should result in some new monetary system that we need to come up with to have our dollar valued properly but also still remain the reserve currency and remain a strong export country. We don't make anything that we sell abroad, we can't all serve each other burgers and fries -- we have to build something. All of that went overseas. There's something big coming, and it has to happen. Trump is a meta guy. He's going to re-finance the country. It'll be digital and he Bitcoiners don't like this because they want Bitcoin to be the one currency that everyone uses but its now more like a digital gold that's much easier to move around. It's useful but it isn't money or currency the way it was originally intended -- but it is still very important and will be part of the US' strategic reserve. It looks to me like Stablecoins and Tether in particular will be the future of the US dollar payments. A lot of people on the right are afraid of being controlled on a grid because you can stop stablecoins -- but it seems there's no way of getting around some form of a digital dollar. I still like Bitcoin as a backup to protect from that control." Great breakdown Adam Curry - curryirc.com

Autism Capital 🧩

365,662 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

“Strategy is going bankrupt.” Peter Schiff just said this today. Saylor’s response? He already gave it two months ago: “You can’t pay a dividend on preferred stock that would create an insolvency event.” Translation: preferred stock does not force bankruptcy. If Strategy can’t pay the dividend without becoming insolvent, the dividend gets suspended. That’s it. But here’s the part people keep missing: “If Bitcoin goes up 2%, we can pay the dividends forever.” If you don’t think Bitcoin can average 2% a year, why are you even looking at preferred equity in a Bitcoin company? h/t Crypto Banter Bankless

“Strategy is going bankrupt.” Peter Schiff just said this today. Saylor’s response? He already gave it two months ago: “You can’t pay a dividend on preferred stock that would create an insolvency event.” Translation: preferred stock does not force bankruptcy. If Strategy can’t pay the dividend without becoming insolvent, the dividend gets suspended. That’s it. But here’s the part people keep missing: “If Bitcoin goes up 2%, we can pay the dividends forever.” If you don’t think Bitcoin can average 2% a year, why are you even looking at preferred equity in a Bitcoin company? h/t Crypto Banter Bankless

Alex 👽

281,428 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

The World Economic Forum doesn't talk about Bitcoin - so I made sure that we did in 2025. I took the chance to ask if the US will adopt a Bitcoin strategic reserve during the 'Crypto at a Crossroads' session inside this year's WEF conference. Coinbase's Brian Armstrong remains confident we will see a Bitcoin reserve in America. Interestingly, South Africa's Reserve Bank Governor Lesetja Kganyago made it evident that many still don't understand the underlying value proposition of Bitcoin. Armstrong provided an important response: "Many things have been used as money over the years. I think it's clear at this point that, you know, Bitcoin is a better form of money than gold. It is provably scarce, just like gold, but it's more portable and divisible. So you can actually use it. It was the best performing asset of the last ten years. And so for a store of value, I think it's going to be important for governments to hold this over time. It may not it might start with being 1% of their reserves, but I think over time it'll come to be equal to or greater than gold reserves." Cointelegraph

The World Economic Forum doesn't talk about Bitcoin - so I made sure that we did in 2025. I took the chance to ask if the US will adopt a Bitcoin strategic reserve during the 'Crypto at a Crossroads' session inside this year's WEF conference. Coinbase's Brian Armstrong remains confident we will see a Bitcoin reserve in America. Interestingly, South Africa's Reserve Bank Governor Lesetja Kganyago made it evident that many still don't understand the underlying value proposition of Bitcoin. Armstrong provided an important response: "Many things have been used as money over the years. I think it's clear at this point that, you know, Bitcoin is a better form of money than gold. It is provably scarce, just like gold, but it's more portable and divisible. So you can actually use it. It was the best performing asset of the last ten years. And so for a store of value, I think it's going to be important for governments to hold this over time. It may not it might start with being 1% of their reserves, but I think over time it'll come to be equal to or greater than gold reserves." Cointelegraph

Gareth Jenkinson

452,090 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Former BlackRock fund manager Ed Dowd: "The metals are telling you that there's uncertainty out there and a lack of trust... [and] that gold and silver are going to be part of the new monetary system... [so] gold and silver are the trade and not Bitcoin so much." This clip of Dowd (Edward Dowd), who is also the founder of Phinance Technologies, is taken from a discussion with Michael Farris (Michael Farris) posted to YouTube on January 13, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "The metals are telling you that there's uncertainty out there and a lack of trust. I think the big, the moves in gold and silver are really discounting a lack of trust and fear of what is coming and what it's going to look like. And, and also it's also telling you that gold and silver are going to be part of the new monetary system. "And Bitcoin, interestingly enough, has stalled out. It's down 20% since October, the high in October and Bitcoin is barely up today. So, you know, there was always this thesis around Bitcoin that when when there's a new monetary system comes, it's going to, it's going to be protection against, you know, any of that kind of uncertainty. It's increasing. It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that gold and silver are the trade and not Bitcoin so much. "And Bitcoin, unfortunately, is very highly correlated to the Nasdaq and it's disconnected from the Nasdaq. The Nasdaq and Bitcoin have disconnected temporarily. Generally speaking, they're highly correlated. So what does that say? Does that say Nasdaq is going to catch up down to Bitcoin or is Bitcoin going to rally back up? I think that the Nasdaq is going to go down to bitcoin. So that's where we are."

Former BlackRock fund manager Ed Dowd: "The metals are telling you that there's uncertainty out there and a lack of trust... [and] that gold and silver are going to be part of the new monetary system... [so] gold and silver are the trade and not Bitcoin so much." This clip of Dowd (Edward Dowd), who is also the founder of Phinance Technologies, is taken from a discussion with Michael Farris (Michael Farris) posted to YouTube on January 13, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "The metals are telling you that there's uncertainty out there and a lack of trust. I think the big, the moves in gold and silver are really discounting a lack of trust and fear of what is coming and what it's going to look like. And, and also it's also telling you that gold and silver are going to be part of the new monetary system. "And Bitcoin, interestingly enough, has stalled out. It's down 20% since October, the high in October and Bitcoin is barely up today. So, you know, there was always this thesis around Bitcoin that when when there's a new monetary system comes, it's going to, it's going to be protection against, you know, any of that kind of uncertainty. It's increasing. It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that gold and silver are the trade and not Bitcoin so much. "And Bitcoin, unfortunately, is very highly correlated to the Nasdaq and it's disconnected from the Nasdaq. The Nasdaq and Bitcoin have disconnected temporarily. Generally speaking, they're highly correlated. So what does that say? Does that say Nasdaq is going to catch up down to Bitcoin or is Bitcoin going to rally back up? I think that the Nasdaq is going to go down to bitcoin. So that's where we are."

Sense Receptor

136,648 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

There's some serious money to be made by those who can understand this before the market does. The market is extremely inefficient at pricing the Strategy Preferreds. Bitcoin fell to $82k and the market panicked. $STRC fell to $92, $STRF to $94 and $STRD to $65. This meant that the yields for each of these products went up substantially when compared to at par, implying that the risk had also increased significantly. The problem is, this just isn't true. Saylor said himself that "If Bitcoin goes up 140 basis points a year, we can pay the dividends forever. If BTC goes up 0% a year, we have capital for the next 70 years." The risk doesn't materially change that much if Bitcoin is trading at $105k or $82k. If you're buying these products in the first place, surely you believe that Bitcoin is trending upwards long-term anyway. Herein lies the opportunity... unless you're betting on Bitcoin and Strategy collapsing, smart money will be buying these Preferreds at huge discounts when the market is capitulating. You get to benefit from a significant increase in the dividend yields and beautiful capital gains as these products inevitably trade back up to par. I will be making these trades as often as possible until the market figures it out.

There's some serious money to be made by those who can understand this before the market does. The market is extremely inefficient at pricing the Strategy Preferreds. Bitcoin fell to $82k and the market panicked. $STRC fell to $92, $STRF to $94 and $STRD to $65. This meant that the yields for each of these products went up substantially when compared to at par, implying that the risk had also increased significantly. The problem is, this just isn't true. Saylor said himself that "If Bitcoin goes up 140 basis points a year, we can pay the dividends forever. If BTC goes up 0% a year, we have capital for the next 70 years." The risk doesn't materially change that much if Bitcoin is trading at $105k or $82k. If you're buying these products in the first place, surely you believe that Bitcoin is trending upwards long-term anyway. Herein lies the opportunity... unless you're betting on Bitcoin and Strategy collapsing, smart money will be buying these Preferreds at huge discounts when the market is capitulating. You get to benefit from a significant increase in the dividend yields and beautiful capital gains as these products inevitably trade back up to par. I will be making these trades as often as possible until the market figures it out.

Zynx

236,230 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

“I'm not a huge hater of the institutions. I wasn't a huge hater of altcoins. These institutional products are just kind of altcoins. People can go make their money. Go do your thing. But it's not Bitcoin. An ETF is not Bitcoin. With these centralized projects, you're not getting the core values of Bitcoin, the control, the censorship resistance, the privacy. You're putting it in a centralized wrapper, and if you put Bitcoin in a centralized wrapper, you lose everything that's good about it. It's not Bitcoin. It's just an affinity marketing thing. It's “Hey, you like Bitcoin, go buy my other project." Just like, "Hey you like bitcoin? Go buy my altcoin." It's not the same thing, and I think in many ways it's a step backwards. I don't hate these people, but they certainly shouldn't be celebrated. It's not forwarding our industry if we do treasury strategies, if we do ETFs, we cheer for BlackRock and Cantor. That's a step backwards. It's not something to be cheerful for. It's not a victory, in my opinion. A victory is having more people have direct ownership of real Bitcoin. We now have millions of people who've been onboarded into this fake paper thing that's a claim on a claim on a claim of something that has Bitcoin in the words, but it's not actually Bitcoin. They are never actually holding a wallet like many of us did back in 2012 where somebody sent us that first dollar and you say, "Wow, this is cool. I didn't need to give my ID and I'm able to control and hold this sound money for the first time." You now have a whole generation of millions of people that don't have that. They have some junk fiat product sitting like sludge on their centralized brokerage account at the centralized clearing firm, traded on a centralized exchange, with a centralized transfer agent, and a centralized custodian, and they have to trust six levels of people on a claim for something that has the word ‘Bitcoin’ in it. It's not a victory. It's not a step forward. I don't think it's something that should be celebrated at all.”

“I'm not a huge hater of the institutions. I wasn't a huge hater of altcoins. These institutional products are just kind of altcoins. People can go make their money. Go do your thing. But it's not Bitcoin. An ETF is not Bitcoin. With these centralized projects, you're not getting the core values of Bitcoin, the control, the censorship resistance, the privacy. You're putting it in a centralized wrapper, and if you put Bitcoin in a centralized wrapper, you lose everything that's good about it. It's not Bitcoin. It's just an affinity marketing thing. It's “Hey, you like Bitcoin, go buy my other project." Just like, "Hey you like bitcoin? Go buy my altcoin." It's not the same thing, and I think in many ways it's a step backwards. I don't hate these people, but they certainly shouldn't be celebrated. It's not forwarding our industry if we do treasury strategies, if we do ETFs, we cheer for BlackRock and Cantor. That's a step backwards. It's not something to be cheerful for. It's not a victory, in my opinion. A victory is having more people have direct ownership of real Bitcoin. We now have millions of people who've been onboarded into this fake paper thing that's a claim on a claim on a claim of something that has Bitcoin in the words, but it's not actually Bitcoin. They are never actually holding a wallet like many of us did back in 2012 where somebody sent us that first dollar and you say, "Wow, this is cool. I didn't need to give my ID and I'm able to control and hold this sound money for the first time." You now have a whole generation of millions of people that don't have that. They have some junk fiat product sitting like sludge on their centralized brokerage account at the centralized clearing firm, traded on a centralized exchange, with a centralized transfer agent, and a centralized custodian, and they have to trust six levels of people on a claim for something that has the word ‘Bitcoin’ in it. It's not a victory. It's not a step forward. I don't think it's something that should be celebrated at all.”

Bruce Fenton

23,882 Aufrufe • vor 8 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

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

Trump: "A little thing they call it, but it's not a little thing if you like eggs and you don't have a lot of money. Eggs have gone down 25% in the last couple of weeks. We inherited that problem. Eggs."

Trump: "A little thing they call it, but it's not a little thing if you like eggs and you don't have a lot of money. Eggs have gone down 25% in the last couple of weeks. We inherited that problem. Eggs."

Aaron Rupar

778,867 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Why do we have inflation? The Fed tries to force 2% inflation. It wasn’t always this way. “The natural tendency for prices is to go down. If you look at the CPI in 1900 and you look at it in 1800, it was down by 50%. So for a hundred years in America, prices went down. And during that time, we had the Industrial Revolution.” “We had the most rapid period of economic growth in the history of America, which was after the Civil War and into the early 1900s. All the time prices were coming down.” “Today, the Federal Reserve says that we need to have 2 % inflation. Prices have to go up 2 % a year. Why? I mean, why does the cost of living have to go up? Why can't it go down or at least remain the same? And what is the answer to that? What's the rationale for that?” “Well, they have a bunch of BS explanations and it's all to justify the fact that the government wants inflation. It's not that it's good for us. The government needs it.” “It's the way the government raises revenue and repudiates its debts.” Peter Schiff

Why do we have inflation? The Fed tries to force 2% inflation. It wasn’t always this way. “The natural tendency for prices is to go down. If you look at the CPI in 1900 and you look at it in 1800, it was down by 50%. So for a hundred years in America, prices went down. And during that time, we had the Industrial Revolution.” “We had the most rapid period of economic growth in the history of America, which was after the Civil War and into the early 1900s. All the time prices were coming down.” “Today, the Federal Reserve says that we need to have 2 % inflation. Prices have to go up 2 % a year. Why? I mean, why does the cost of living have to go up? Why can't it go down or at least remain the same? And what is the answer to that? What's the rationale for that?” “Well, they have a bunch of BS explanations and it's all to justify the fact that the government wants inflation. It's not that it's good for us. The government needs it.” “It's the way the government raises revenue and repudiates its debts.” Peter Schiff

Wall Street Mav

98,990 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

If Bitcoin keeps going down, will MicroStrategy end up like FTX? Pio and Kaleo discuss the future of MicroStrategy. Pio: "Do you realistically think that $MSTR is going to have to sell 50,000 Bitcoin in the next two years?" Kaleo: "More, and I think it's their best option. They have made it their clear mission that they want to increase net Bitcoin, but what does that necessarily do to create value for $MSTR holders?" "I just think it's reckless right now, the way that $MSTR and the other assets are being advertised... MSTR is amplified Bitcoin... it's just a fancy word for saying it's leveraged." "You can also lose a lot more on the way down... they can't get rid of those dividends unless they buy $STRC back... the obligations accrue; they don't go away." "Look at what happened with FTX. Did anybody think that Bitcoin was going to go back down to 16k?... No. As Bitcoin price goes down, the MSTR compression of their multiple continues to go down."

If Bitcoin keeps going down, will MicroStrategy end up like FTX? Pio and Kaleo discuss the future of MicroStrategy. Pio: "Do you realistically think that $MSTR is going to have to sell 50,000 Bitcoin in the next two years?" Kaleo: "More, and I think it's their best option. They have made it their clear mission that they want to increase net Bitcoin, but what does that necessarily do to create value for $MSTR holders?" "I just think it's reckless right now, the way that $MSTR and the other assets are being advertised... MSTR is amplified Bitcoin... it's just a fancy word for saying it's leveraged." "You can also lose a lot more on the way down... they can't get rid of those dividends unless they buy $STRC back... the obligations accrue; they don't go away." "Look at what happened with FTX. Did anybody think that Bitcoin was going to go back down to 16k?... No. As Bitcoin price goes down, the MSTR compression of their multiple continues to go down."

Fibonacci 🥷

40,287 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

It's not important that your partner is an identical copy of you. It's important that they're not, that they bring something else to the table that you don't have. Now, in the context of entrepreneurship, because that's what I'm associated with, you need to find somebody that's willing to put up with the fact that you're just never there. I mean, that's very difficult because if you're running a business and you can't have a balanced life when you're an entrepreneur. It's really about finding that person that understands what you're about, that you're going down that journey and that you're not gonna stop doing it.

It's not important that your partner is an identical copy of you. It's important that they're not, that they bring something else to the table that you don't have. Now, in the context of entrepreneurship, because that's what I'm associated with, you need to find somebody that's willing to put up with the fact that you're just never there. I mean, that's very difficult because if you're running a business and you can't have a balanced life when you're an entrepreneur. It's really about finding that person that understands what you're about, that you're going down that journey and that you're not gonna stop doing it.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

17,254 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

🚨James Fishback says getting Floridian’s money back from Israel will be easy to do! “You don't even need Israel's permission to get the money back. You just need to sell the bonds on the open market. We'll bring all the cash back. It's called T plus two. So it'll settle two days from trade date. We'll have all that money back, and we'll be able to invest it in our state, in our communities. Those government bonds actually trade on the open market. So literally all you have to do is go into a Bloomberg terminal, which I happen to know how to use, and sell the bond. So we could literally sell them in 72 hours. It's actually quite easy. It's not like I need to call Netanyahu up. Although, if I did call Netanyahu up, under only one circumstance, it would be to ask where our money is. That's the only circumstance. But it's actually quite simple. And by the way, that's not anti-Semitic. Neither that question nor my answer.”

🚨James Fishback says getting Floridian’s money back from Israel will be easy to do! “You don't even need Israel's permission to get the money back. You just need to sell the bonds on the open market. We'll bring all the cash back. It's called T plus two. So it'll settle two days from trade date. We'll have all that money back, and we'll be able to invest it in our state, in our communities. Those government bonds actually trade on the open market. So literally all you have to do is go into a Bloomberg terminal, which I happen to know how to use, and sell the bond. So we could literally sell them in 72 hours. It's actually quite easy. It's not like I need to call Netanyahu up. Although, if I did call Netanyahu up, under only one circumstance, it would be to ask where our money is. That's the only circumstance. But it's actually quite simple. And by the way, that's not anti-Semitic. Neither that question nor my answer.”

Chris Nelson 🏝️🇺🇸

109,504 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Ed Dowd: "What we're learning from the Epstein files is that it's an operating system...[and] let's not forget Epstein was involved in money laundering... [and now] Bitcoin has been tied to... Epstein, and he's been involved in taking over the network and funding it... If you wanted to set up your own dark-money blackmail operation and launder money, Bitcoin would be the perfect way to do it, I guess." This clip of Dowd (Edward Dowd), a former BlackRock fund manager and co-founder of Phinance Technologies, is taken from an interview with Jesse Day (Jesse Day) posted to the Commodity Culture YouTube channel on February 28, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "What we're learning from the Epstein files is that it's an operating system. So we have the public-facing institutions, but we find out there's a layer of people above them that know how to manipulate that whole thing to their benefit through Kompromat and blackmail, and money laundering. "Let's not forget Epstein was involved in money laundering. That's how a lot of this stuff was. It's all dark money. And the other thing that surprised me, that I didn't. This angle I didn't think of. And again, we'll find out more, but Bitcoin has been tied to Jeffrey Epstein, and he's been involved in taking over the network and funding it. I don't know what to think of that and intuitively makes sense. "If you wanted to set up your own dark money blackmail operation and launder money, Bitcoin would be the perfect way to do it. I guess. So, you know, there's a lot that's being revealed, and I don't, you know, I don't know what that means for Bitcoin long term, but, it certainly kind of disrupts the narrative that bitcoin is freedom. "I mean, that was kind of one of the narratives that we were hearing. And I've never been a bitcoin, bear or bull. I've always said it's a. It's a proxy for NASDAQ and liquidity trade, you know. You know, buyer beware. It's not a store of wealth. It's very volatile. So that's what it's always been to me is a volatile, you know, 95% correlated asset to the NASDAQ."

Ed Dowd: "What we're learning from the Epstein files is that it's an operating system...[and] let's not forget Epstein was involved in money laundering... [and now] Bitcoin has been tied to... Epstein, and he's been involved in taking over the network and funding it... If you wanted to set up your own dark-money blackmail operation and launder money, Bitcoin would be the perfect way to do it, I guess." This clip of Dowd (Edward Dowd), a former BlackRock fund manager and co-founder of Phinance Technologies, is taken from an interview with Jesse Day (Jesse Day) posted to the Commodity Culture YouTube channel on February 28, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "What we're learning from the Epstein files is that it's an operating system. So we have the public-facing institutions, but we find out there's a layer of people above them that know how to manipulate that whole thing to their benefit through Kompromat and blackmail, and money laundering. "Let's not forget Epstein was involved in money laundering. That's how a lot of this stuff was. It's all dark money. And the other thing that surprised me, that I didn't. This angle I didn't think of. And again, we'll find out more, but Bitcoin has been tied to Jeffrey Epstein, and he's been involved in taking over the network and funding it. I don't know what to think of that and intuitively makes sense. "If you wanted to set up your own dark money blackmail operation and launder money, Bitcoin would be the perfect way to do it. I guess. So, you know, there's a lot that's being revealed, and I don't, you know, I don't know what that means for Bitcoin long term, but, it certainly kind of disrupts the narrative that bitcoin is freedom. "I mean, that was kind of one of the narratives that we were hearing. And I've never been a bitcoin, bear or bull. I've always said it's a. It's a proxy for NASDAQ and liquidity trade, you know. You know, buyer beware. It's not a store of wealth. It's very volatile. So that's what it's always been to me is a volatile, you know, 95% correlated asset to the NASDAQ."

Sense Receptor

21,167 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten