Bitcoin Forum

I found on Reddit a nice website.

https://bitcointreasuries.org/


As I already was keeping track of companies staking Bitcoins, I decided to create my own version of this website, using Google Drive:

Bitcoin Treasuries (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fmYF8ND3lGHeZCzNww8chtiz7ZvbhSAzXOHKPkKDVF8) (Link to Google Spreadsheet)

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob2a95476b8593fc00.png



I opened several threads on the subject:

• MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5268108)
• Square invests 50 million USD in BTC: instrument of economic empowerment (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5280841)
• Everything you wanted to know about Grayscale BTC Trust but were afraid to ask! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5256529)

I will work to improve this spreadsheet, trying to monitor the trickle down effect kickstarted by Microstrategy decision.
Square was an obvious follower. Now I am really curious who’s going down the same path.

I have said this in one or two of my previous posts that MISCONCEPTIONS, MISINTERPRETATION are part of the many bad teeth affecting Bitcoin adoption, so I am excited about your project in that direction.

I perceive/think many people are un-sure of financial technology, the difficulty to make 1$ or more are getting brain straining, nerve racking, bones gnashing so I understand their skepticism about the lights of the risk.

Project like this when read and see that big companies interest and using big money in Bitcoin/crypto-coin can give people courage about it all. Its an exciting project.

I presume quite a few corporations are also going to make the same move, it's good for adoption as I'm quite sure other companies will be tracking the pros the decision taken by Microstrategy, square and Grayscale is having on their company before making a decision themselves to follow that path. And with the increase in MST stocks after investing in Bitcoin, it's a good signal for more btc investments by other companies. I'll prefer when Bitcoin is flashed and highlighted in the news for these, than scams that's most times the faults/follies of the victims, who don't take responsibility of their privacy and security.

Well done fillippone

It’s nice to see everything in one place, but I see you haven’t added Grayscale to your spreadsheet unlike the website which you stated in the OP. Of course, it is clear to me that the Grayscale case is a fund, so we cannot consider it an investment in terms of what MicroStrategy has done.

And I’m definitely interested in who will be next on the list, but honestly I’m even more interested in who all of the big companies have invested in Bitcoin without making it public - I guess it’s possible to do that, or maybe I’m wrong considering we’ve seen that MicroStrategy first announced its decisions to the SEC?

Exactly, the precise reason why I choose to keep Grayscale and Square (the CashApp part) is that those BTC amounts are not exactly their money, rather those coins belong to clients. So they are only managing those coins on behalf of clients.

I hope you noticed I left those informations on the second sheet on the spreadsheet.

Neat link, here's hoping that this list continues growing! I already see late-coiners moaning how it's unfair that all the big companies have bought into Bitcoin before them and now they're once again at an disadvantage.

Also I completely missed the news that Square now has Bitcoin holdings! Makes sense though, seeing how Jack Dorsey has been a Bitcoin bull for quite a while now. When Twitter? ;)

These type of companies will get more and more common, there is no way that these will be the last. Not only there will be more companies investing into crypto which would be given and totally realistic, but also the companies that invested right now will get richer thanks to the investment to bitcoin and when they get richer their investors will get richer and when that happens there will be more investors who will put money in them because they succeeded and that means more money coming towards bitcoin as well.

That is just a fact, the companies who invest into stocks and other stuff so far will be able to invest into bitcoin and not worry about it, it was a volatile and "dangerous" asset so far but in the past 2 or so years people have seen how awesome it is to invest into it.

A very interesting tweet originated a thoughtful article by Messari:

https://twitter.com/riabhutoria/status/1314198475626733569

In this article (https://mailchi.mp/595986b502fc/hip-to-be-square?e=85ab629faa) Messari’s Connor Dempsey stated that:


I think this is very true.
Bitcoin is a multi faceted investment. There is more than one investment thesis behind it.

There was a thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5279385.msg55295457#msg55295457) recently about a company Diginex, which supposedly has something to do with bitcoin and just got listed on the NASDAQ.  They don't fit into the bitcoin-as-a-treasury-currency theme here, but I thought I'd mention it.

And yeah, I've been following MicroStrategy's stock price quite closely ever since they decided to buy up all that bitcoin--which I find to be an astounding thing for a public company to do.  But as I said in previous threads about MSTR, the shareholders don't seem to mind all that much, at least if you can infer that from the stock price.

Grayscale I've heard things about, but I'll have to check out the links provided in the OP about them and Square.  All in all, this is some pretty interesting stuff going on in the crazy world of bitcoin.

there is no wallet address to check whether their holding is true?

i don't doubt if they have indeed invest to btc. while they announced how much they bought on otc, its going to be exciting to check in the website where their trails go.
or even which altcoins they have also invested. i'm sure its not just BTC that they are up to.

Some outliers may have holdings in alts that they are directly involved with, but I think it's doubtful we'll see significant altcoin treasuries anytime soon. Ethereum seems like a bad store of value for lack of a defined supply maximum and centralized currencies such as Ripple only introduce unwanted dependencies. Further down the list market cap size and volatility become an issue.

I think the original website made a little bit of confusion between firms holding Bitcoin for clients (Grayscale) and bitcoin hodling bitcoins as a Treasury (Microstrategy, Sqaure app, limited to their Treasury part).
While the first are not putting their funds at risk, as those coins are ultimately their client's money, the latter have a directional risk in this venture.

This is why I am putting on two separate sheets.

I believe the network effect will create tremendous growth for the Bitcoin price. Once a few big companies join the wave, the "herd" will feel obliged to follow the example.
After the companies guess who's joining the party?? - The nations.

Not financial advice, but .01 btc could soon be worth a house. ;)

I think this is interesting that you're tracking this.  One nit- "bitcoin investment" column is just taking the "today's value" divided by the "market capitalization" column, but the market capitalization is not a good indicator of the company's investable assets if that's the ratio you're trying to get at. What are you attempting to show in the last column?  Maybe the heading just needs to be updated to something more reflective of what you're tracking.

Also, Galaxy Digital's link shows holdings of 14,651 btc, not 16,651.  Is that a mistake or do you have a more updated number somewhere? It makes an $1100 in their average price cost basis.

Nice work @fillipone, I was only aware of a few companies on your list as I started paying attention to institutional investment (or it started getting much attention) recently.
One point which is impressive from my view is how majority of those companies are up on their investment value, it's a moderate percentage increase and can be wiped off if the market goes downwards, but it seems like a good factor to attract other companies who are watching the moves made by these public firms and considering the idea of using Bitcoin as a reserve tool.

Imo, the stock prices of a software company should not be much impacted by a switch in their reserve currency to Bitcoin. It's not a move that improved the fundamentals or directly affects their operation, so I was expecting the stock value to level down after the growth due to the hype about the adoption of a Bitcoin standard.

I really really curious how many bitcoins Overstock or its startup tZero still have in their wallet, they have supposedly been in the game for years, and if we would go by the word of their CEO they should have kept a good chunk of the sales made in BTC in their vaults and not exchanged it.
Of course, they might have dumped more that they want to acknowledge, especially since the company is going through harder and harder times but they might still have something significant.

It would be nice to know how many coins do some of the companies that deal with bitcoins hold for themselves, like Coinbase or Binance or LocalBitcoins, probably those are outranking the ones on this list above. But we will probably never know unless they lose them all!

Also, lol:
https://bitcointreasuries.org/private-companies.html
Nice try from the owner but twitter sources, meh!

The column was meant to be exactly the percentage of the BTC investment over the market capitalisation.
The purpose was to tell how much the firm is a “bitcoin firm”.
If the firm put all his asset in bitcoin, then the bitcoin investment would be equal to his market capitalisation (like Grayscale, basically).


I was lazy, and copied the bitcointreasury.org data in the spreadsheet. I noticed a few errors (HUT8 data are CAD, not USD), but I didn’t notice this one. Thanks for pointing out, I fixed it.

The more I look at the website, the more I like the idea, the less I like the implementation.

The guys is doing several errors, on many levels:

• He’s mixing companies putting value at risk investing in Bitcoin (Microstrategy, Square) with companies simply holding BTC on behalf of their clients (Grayscale, other ETP) and even miner with BTC inventories (HUT8)
• He’s adding CAD and USD values like they were the same currency, which is of course an error
• As pointed out by some sharp eyes, there are factual error is the links

This is why I am pledging to do an “improved” version of that website using my Google drive spreadsheet. Of course I will do a little bit of piggyback riding on the most tedious work, but I think the result will be more clear from a logical point of view.

I think in the past year, a lot of bitcoins have been transferred to cold wallets without our knowledge. The figure above is just the tip we see. I firmly believe that this will be the preparatory step for the next bull run we will see in the future.
Bitcoin has been priced above $ 10,000 for over two months and I am optimistic about its growth.

I checked OP's link and there is no address, I can second this problem because people will be suspicious if there was no funds. It is easier to announce that their staking in cryptocurrency. On the other hand, I can understand the companies need to make their addresses private, I mean that is a lot of money and we all know that there have been attacks.

Yeah, I don't like including any company's whose business is selling/holding bitcoin to other people as a service. Companies like Grayscale or Coinbase own a lot of bitcoin, but it's on behalf of other people. That's not an indication of the business's conviction of the future of bitcoin. Square is different because it allows you to buy bitcoin but the company itself has invested its own assets in bitcoin.

Yes, please. That's a super informative website but the way they implemented information is not efficient. It's a good start, and seeing your  Holy Gray(l)scale spreadsheet I guess you can easily fork Bitcoin Treasuries and make it better. Please consider also to contact the webmasters directly as they ask in the footer  ;)

Well, I tried to contact NVK, he’s notoriously not the most good minded toward well explained critics. So I decided to fork my own project.
As I haven’t access to a website, I decided to go with the Google Spreadsheet, an instrument I am more familiar with.

I know what you mean. Anyway, since most of us are interested in a better version of Bitcoin Treasuries please share the spreadsheet when you have it (alpha, beta, delta, whatever version you might already have).  ;)
On a side note, now imagine what 5%, 10%, 15% of major global companies following Microstrategy’s bitcoin strategy could mean for bitcoin. Isn't it crazy? ;)

EDIT: Jeez man! My bad! I can't believe I missed it.  ::)

Sorry, I tought it was clear enough on the OP message there is a link to the Excel Spreadsheet. Shall I make it more obvious?
Never mind, I am editing it straight away.

And whosever here doubts that bitcoins is being used by big companies should note that:

these are the companies which are willing to share that they have invested in bitcoins.

At the same time :

there are many more companies which are investing in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoins but hiding it for their privacy.

Investing in cryptocurrencies is a bit thing for sure now and people have to understand that not even governments can control it. They can regulate  but not control.

It's a pretty cool thing to see them developing towards cryptocurrencies. Good luck for your project.

With Bitpanda investing 100.9 million dollars I believe we should be pretty optimistic.

I have always said that there could be something like a treasury in the crypto market that would be more like sp 500 type of company that holds all the big cryptos all together equally and you would be buying it to say "I invest into future of crypto prices" and not because you think one or the other coin goes up. Right now, there is nothing like that, there is only coins you can buy, but you can't just buy "future of crypto prices" type of deal, there is no top 10 coins all together market, there is no top 50, it is only just the coins you can buy and that will change.

This is the start, you invest into stuff like square or microstrategy and all which in return would be like investing into crypto currency future, but we should also have a whole market maker thing as well and exchanges could do that for sure.

A little bit of circular reference here?

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob1a4a2daa3f6b70fd.jpeg

Bitcointreasuries.com copied exactly my computation: BTC% represents  BTC total value over market capitalisation.
Maybe NVK is reading this thread?

I just wanted to add an update here. Yet another company, Stone Ridge purchases 10,000 BTC and terms it there "Primary Treasury Reserve Asset"
More details in this articles;

1. Stone Ridge Reveals $115 Million Bitcoin Investment As Part Of Billion-Dollar Spinoff (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2020/10/13/stone-ridge-reveals-115-million-bitcoin-investment-as-part-of-billion-dollar-spin-off/#67d49d639850)
2. Stone Ridge Calls Its $114M in Bitcoin ‘Primary Treasury Reserve Asset’; NYDIG Unit Raises $50M (https://www.coindesk.com/nydig-raises-50-million)
3. Bitcoin price steady as $10B asset manager scoops up 10,000 BTC (https://cointelegraph.com/news/10b-asset-manager-reveals-buying-115m-in-bitcoin-in-a-growing-trend)

I couldn't find anything on the forum about the following hence I am posting this her which is the closest topic. So now shareholders in the company MicroStrategy have inderect bitcoin exposure. And seeing the entities behind it, this is getting huge.
https://research.arcane.no/news/the-norwegian-oil-fund-now-owns-almost-600-bitcoins
https://www.crypto-news-flash.com/norway-blackrock-and-vanguard-group-own-over-10000-bitcoin/

(if not relevant delete it)

https://twitter.com/Coin98Analytics/status/1315853890424717312?s=20

Nice sumup!


I think it has been already mentioned in the thread, or at least I saw this.

The Norvegian Sovereign Fund is a huge beast with more than 1 trillion USD of AUM. 600 bitcoin is less than peanuts for them!

I am not sure how accounting works on crypto currencies for corporations, but I think it's different to just buying treasuries. There is more risk involved on cryptos, but therefore you get a lot of upside potential in bitcoins compared to very low returns on treasuries.

I think for companies to buy bitcoins to invest excess cash is a good idea. But the opposite sounds a bit risky in my opinion. If a company would issue treasuries as a form of financing it would mean they get the bitcoins today and have to repay them at a future date. With bitcoin price so strong lately there are many indicators for the price to go up on the next few years. I would prefer to own the bitcoins instead of selling them.

This is a tricky one.
Stone Ridge Capital is an asset Management firm. They gave 10,000 BTC in custody to their New York Digital Investment Group (NYDIG) subsidiary, to have those securely stored.
They have several crypto funds dedicated to various cryptos.
In 2019 they even published a paper called "Buying Bitcoin (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3346668_code3091911.pdf?abstractid=3346668&mirid=1)".

Apparently, what they have done here is very similar to Microstrategy's decision, they even adopted the same language. This means this is not their customer's Money, but it is theirs. But the language is very confusing, because they also state that many of their funds, even traditional ones, allocate between 1% and 5% into digital assets.
So the exact nature of that funds remains unclear.
I will try to find out more about this.

Yes, I have known about this Microstrategy and Galaxy digital holding. Then it was today that I saw news of Square INC saying that they have invested in bitcoin. Truth is a lot of institutions are becoming interested in bitcoin and as time goes a lot of them are buying and investing in Bitcoin.

There might still be some of them that we don’t know, because they have not come out to say that they have invested in Bitcoin. Although I am not really sure about this, but it can still be possible, because you can’t really tell who is investing in cryptocurrency unless they say so.

Actually we are talking about listed companies.
Listed companies have an obligation to disclose on their balance sheets what kind of investment they have (or if not in the proper balance sheets, in documents strictly related to it).
So I guess it is indeed pretty easy to list those kind of investments.

Cointelegraph summarises what we already know: bitcoin is in the #phase5:

The next big treasure: Corporations buy up Bitcoin as a treasury reserve (https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-next-big-treasure-corporations-buy-up-bitcoin-as-a-treasury-reserve)



In the article they summarises the past investments and ask different experts the rationale behind this. Saifedean Ammous, gives his point of view together with some market analysis. Even if the thesis are very different, the outcome is the same: portfolio allocation should include more bitcoin.

Small funds are growing:
Canada’s first public Bitcoin fund hits $100M mark (https://cointelegraph.com/news/canada-s-first-public-bitcoin-fund-hits-100m-mark)


Well, with a rising Bitcoin, it's easy to see the AUM numbers inflate.
Brace yourself for Grayscale announcements.

There is one thing I'm curious about it and it might be interesting to observe, that's if the info will be available which it should in my opinion.

With all the news about PayPal, I was wondering about something, Revolut offers currently the same thing as PayPal will do at the start and they claim they are holding the equivalent of your bitcoins with their custodian. But Revolut is a privately owned company so they don't have to publish any data about this, Paypal, on the other hand, is a public company so not only can they be audited but they are also as far as I know bound to make an annual report on their business.

Does that mean that at the end of the year we're going to be able to see how much BTC are they holding for their customers?
This is going to be pretty interesting, if it's like that can we expect this to happen at the end of 2020?

Last week I saw same website on Twitter, I think that's really useful if they update it constantly.

I feel confident about Bitcoin's growth after all these big companies get millions of dollars worth of BTC.
Remember these are on the record investments, I'm sure there is much more than this in otc trades and untrackable positions. For example I know big guys in my country already had hundreds of BTC accumulated and they haven't stopped yet.

I have a feeling it won't be that informative. Financial statements are generally stated in fiat terms. All of the cryptocurrencies Paypal holds would probably be lumped together in fiat terms under a line item like "intangible assets." Apparently that's how Square is reporting their holdings, although I'm not 100% clear on the accounting nuances involved. https://www.forbes.com/sites/shehanchandrasekera/2020/05/21/how-are-cryptocurrencies-classified-in-gaap-financials/#50d7b93565b2

Researching for this thread I read a few balance sheets.
In all of them the valuation of Bitcoin is converted in fiat terms, to be added to the other items in the balance sheet, but in many of them there is also an explicit mention of the overall number of bitcoins held.
So, yes, generally financial statements are interesting, as they generally reports both values.

I've been following Michael Saylor the Founder of Micro Strategy on Twitter and saw his tweet last month. I had the feeling that something very good was coming for Bitcoin and I think we are witnessing it.


There have been several circumstances that have allowed Bitcoin to show a rise in price for a few days. I believe that Bitcoin is reaching maturity and there will be better performance in the times to come.

@fillippone, not sure if you have seen it on the WO but it might be added to the list. Just be careful as kurious gave a hint that being a CoinDesk story we do not yet know how much 10% of their treasury is worth, might be even £10.
Real question is, how many companies till end of year on your sheet?  8)

Thank you mate.
The point is that there is a big circular reference: the source of this material is bitcointreasuries.org, the same of my thread here, even if I corrected some factual errors and reclassified the result. The only thing is the visualisations.
I might include some kind of visualisation in the spreadsheet, if you think it is worth. But I think my thread on Grayscale and BTCP now thank them quite effectively with some nice graph.

References:

Everything you wanted to know about Grayscale BTC Trust but were afraid to ask! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5256529)
ETC Group to launch bitcoin ETP on Deutsche Boerse (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5254380)

So, as Ratimov suggested, I added to the spreadsheet a couple or graph:


No major differences between the Source Graph on Ecoinometrics.




A couple of considerations here:

• There is a difference between out Graph and the one on Ecoinometrics: galaxy digital seems shifted on the left. But it looks correct in my opinion
• With this visualisation we can appreciate how low the investment made by Square is. Definitely pocket money, and a lot of room to improve with future investments.
  

I think you can count for the weights of companies with their marketcapitalization for this graph. The bigger market capitalization, the potential bigger effects from news with their buy or sell bitcoin with their portfolio or reserved asset.

My 2 cents fil.  ;)

Shouldn't Binance, Bitifinex and Bitman be included in that list?

I believe they hold considerable amount of bitcoins. But I couldn't find how much

I don't think so.
Exchanges hold many bitcoins, of course, but they hold those coins acting as custodians of their clients.
So while those coins are technically their coins ("not your keys, not your coins"), there is also a custody contractual agreement with their clients.
All this to say I would say the ultimate legitimate owner of those coins are the clients, as the exchange cannot freely dispose of those coins.

This is a graph from Glassnode showing exchange balances:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob8574170d89231dea.png
Link (https://studio.glassnode.com/metrics?a=BTC&category=Exchanges&m=distribution.BalanceExchangesAll)


Interesting: how would you visualise that?

It is not the purpose of this thread IMO and fil. already explained it.

Besides the glassnode site, you can get some data from there https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html. Of course you need to play with raw data and make your own analysis then charts. I am not sure about validity of the third party data.

---

Stay tuned. I will give you update when I have connection to my dataset.  ;)

While they hold coins of their clients, they also have coins on their own. Nobody can open  an exchange without owing some bitcoins.

Additionally,  binance receives a % (paid in btc) of every bitcoin trade. So, they certainly hold many bitcoins which are not their clients. But how much? You cannot check that in the site provided by tranthidung.

I will see if I can find something and post here. But they certainly own a lot of bitcoins.

Birman is not an exchange,  and as miners they certainly own some btc as well.

Edit: Every company listed in stock exchange has to publish their balances and other data to investors. I don't think binance has any kind of obligation to make that data public, but there might be something. Sadly, I wasn't able to find in binance website.

I said above: that site can be used as source for double checking from your own. And the validity of data, especially how they identify and label wallets are unknown. You can run your analysis with this data and compare it with glassnode. If your result is almost similar, it means double checking has good result (as expected).

About exchanges, they have cold and hot wallets. With cold wallets, we don't know what they actually plan to do with such (if they don't publicly report it). Without details, it is odds to imagine or assume what exchanges are doing and with how much bitcoin in hands for specific purposes.

Definitely a great topic to see how the world of big finance companies are approaching bitcoin and the charts are easy to understand and just numbers and how much they have it, so it is really not that hard to see there is some interest. However I would love to see like a graph of interest towards bitcoin as well, like how many bitcoin treasuries was there 10 years ago (probably none) and with Winklevii twins probably considered to be the first big entry from rich people, from that day towards today how did it moved?

I feel like there could be this spike and crash in 2017 peak times, which I don't know if there were or not, that could change a lot of stuff on how we look at today as well. Do you know if you could find that or not? If you could that would be awesome to see.

I found something.
It is very hard to find detailed information about binance. It should be more open

But I was able to find this:

https://i.imgur.com/bgziz1u.png
https://6e8fa0cf-c67f-401d-93d1-8eafaa5249fb.filesusr.com/ugd/c5315e_cdb0fe68a66e4dbebf736bbbc7c98d68.pdf

In 17, 18 and 19 binance had a total volume of 681 billion USD in BTC.
The lowest fee possible (https://www.binance.com/en/fee/trading) is 0.012%.




The minimum BTC received, just in fees, in USD value is 80,172,000. If we convert that value to btc (at 10k USD rate, and it was much lower than that) we have more than 8,000 BTC.

I am not considering withdrawal fees, and BTC average price in 2017 to 2019 was lower than 10k USD. But we can have some idea of how much binance holds in btc. Certainly thousands. Those are not custodial BTC.



Additionally, i found this as well:


https://i.imgur.com/96lwcjZ.png
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/binance-recorded-time-high-spot-101011644.html

Their volume is going up. We can see (by the previous chart) that about 60-70% of that volume is BTC. So, just in 2020, it probably earned at least more 5k btc to their private holdings. Just in trading fees.

The problem is that the website you provided include all BTC, and most of it is BTC from their clients. They are just custodial agents of those btcs. They do not really own them, like the trading fees btc.


Edit: Sadly I couldn't find any audit on coinbase/binance. An audition would "prove" how much btc do they really own, how much USD etc.

https://bitcointreasuries.org/ (https://bitcointreasuries.org/)

I've seen your spreadsheet, good job.
I have inserted the complete list in the OP of my thread, I paste the content here in case you need any data,

Stronger
https://cointelegraph.com/news/grayscale-trust-sees-largest-ever-weekly-inflow-nears-500k-btc-in-total (https://cointelegraph.com/news/grayscale-trust-sees-largest-ever-weekly-inflow-nears-500k-btc-in-total)

I'm sure Binance owns plenty of BTC. They collect it on every ALT/BTC trade and there's no way they liquidate everything to fiat. CZ surely owns a large cache of BTC himself. He is a billionaire and I'm pretty sure most of his wealth is in crypto.

There's no point trying to deduce their holdings this way though. Without any other information, as one of the biggest exchanges in the world, the vast majority of Binance's coins should be assumed to be held in custody. We also have no idea if they truly keep their own value in BTC (they could be liquidating collected fees on an ongoing basis), although they probably do.


I don't think there is a single exchange being publicly audited. Is there? We just take Coinbase's word about their holdings.

As far as I understand,  grayscale trust is holding those bitcoin as a custodial service as well.
So, those are mostly clients btc.  Just Like an exchange


Edit: let me be more clear
Whe  you visit https://grayscale.co/bitcoin-trust/ you can see the trust fund details
You can buy one share of the fund and you will own 0.00095 of their btc per share.

So they do not own that btc. They are just the custodial service. Exactly like any exchange. But you have some benefits(like security due to SEC regulations ) for a 2% annual fee.

The financial statements, perhaps not if they lump it into intangible assets. My suspicion is that they will break it out as a sub-line under this though.  If they don't do this, there will be other reports where they spell out specifics on what they hold filed with the SEC (if they're a public company) because they're still under obligation to report information investors would find material to the business, and if they're holding a lot of btc that would qualify.

It is also a private choice for each company as well, there is nothing that stops them from showing how much bitcoin they have neither. I do not mean showing as a proof in a blockhchain wallet signed with their code so that we would know they actually own it, that is not required for many institutional investor because it is not really a big deal for them.

I mean showing as in actually writing the amount of bitcoin in the financial statement at the end of the year, there is nothing stopping them from doing that if they want to, they could also ignore it and just write something else and try to go around the subject if they want to as well. However I feel like most of them already talked about how much they bought and how much they made, so I assume some of them would definitely give exact bitcoin numbers as well while others will probably stay away from that.

Square Cash App sold a record Amount of Bitcoins during Last Quarter:

Square reports $1.63 billion in bitcoin sales for the third quarter via its Cash App (https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/83748/square-earnings-q3-cash-app-bitcoin?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss)

https://www.tbstat.com/wp/uploads/2020/11/image-49.png


It's a lot of bitcoins!
Some back on the envelope calculation can be found here:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob8055e277920032fb.png

https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/3iqs-bitcoin-fund-seeks-to-sell-up-to-1m-unit-on-canadian-exchange/ (https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/3iqs-bitcoin-fund-seeks-to-sell-up-to-1m-unit-on-canadian-exchange/)

There is a lot of space in the market for this kind of products. BTC E in Europe and this 3iQ in Canada are trying to gain market share providing fairer fees products, in the ultimate interest of their clients, rather than providing an elaborated management fee collecting scheme, like, I’m sure you did get the reference, Grayscale.
I bet both this instruments will se massive money inflows.

I saw a good returns for those who invested in bitcoin. It is just that when investing in bitcoin there should be a good practice so that one will not get losses. Bigger money invested to bitcoin requires bigger patience too. When buying bitcoin it should be that bitcoin should be in lower price and the wait for some time to earn that even it could go for a couple of years and not getting emotional when bitcoin market is not good. Remember that time will come bitcoin market will come kicking just like to what happen now with the bitcoin market.

Public companies have obligations to disclose some of these kinds of matters and to do it, publicly.

Private companies have little to no incentive.  It's like a private person disclosing how much BTC they own, and it would not seem like a very good idea.

O.k.  davinchi.. you first.  Prove your point by disclosing how much BTC you own...

Of course, if you own very little.. such as less than .5 BTC, then you might be more inclined to disclosed..  The more you own, the more likely you would prefer to be private.  There are reasons that richer people tend to want to have some privacy with the level of their wealth.. and maybe with bitcoin there will be greater incentives to be private for private individuals... but of course, there will be some people who might choose to be open, though I would still proclaim that they would be more of an exception rather than any kind of best practices.

Square is becoming one of the biggest and easiest place to buy bitcoin and I feel like paypal will get there very soon as well. By the fourth quarter ends (with new year starting) we are going to see both square keep breaking their records but on top of that we are going to see some huge numbers from paypal as well.

I am not going to lie I have always found buying bitcoin as something very simple, I just send deposit from my bank account to my exchange and buy bitcoins with it, quite simple method that I never really found hard, however from the looks of square and paypal and how awesome they are doing and how much they changed our world, I could say that buying bitcoin wasn't something this simple for millions of people out there and these companies adding bitcoin purchase option opened bitcoin up to a lot more new people.

With PayPal, you're not able to transfer btc off the platform or use it to pay for anything.  Is the Square app similar like that or are you able to transfer what you buy on the app to outside wallets? Buying without being able to actually use or transfer doesn't seem very useful.

There is also another way to see the whole Bitcoin Treasuries story which is as follows

https://twitter.com/thetaseek/status/1315542217071550465

These Bitcoin Treasuries in Public Companies may well be seized by the government. Although Theat Seek comments were met with some amount of speculation, the current lack of complete regulatory clarity leaves this door open for further worrying.

I can't really see US government confiscating bitcoin out of the blue, or more likely than the government confiscating any other asset out of the blue. In addition to that, in case of The Government seizing BTC from private firm, they will eventually auction them back into the market at a later stage, with a  neutral net effect on total Bitcoin supply.

That applies equally to Coinbase, the largest custodian in the world (almost 1 million BTC in custody), as well as all the regulated exchanges like Bitstamp, Kraken, Gemini, Bittrex, etc. The directors of these exchanges are all within arm's length of American regulators, and if push came to shove all their deposits could be seized without much effort. The recent experience at Okex (where withdrawals are still frozen due to a government investigation and the status of depositor funds is unknown) highlights the dangers.

Public companies or BTC-backed funds holding reserves is just an extension of the same dynamic. This is the inevitable path of regulation and legitimization of cryptocurrency.

I am being overly pessimistic probably. In any case, I see that as a potential danger. Fillippone, I agree with you when you say that those funds can not be seized out of the blue but still that is possible. Those are bitcoin with real owners, easily reachable with all that implies. To me that is a bit concerning moving forward.

Let's put this way.
If there are no problem with governments seizing privately held Bitcoins, I don't worry, as the rule by law is governing humans interactions, and also governments have to abide, like every other subject, to such laws.
If there are problems with governments seizing privately held Bitcoins, bending the laws or creating laws in order to seize them, well, Bitcoin is actually the only one asset I want to own.

Anyways, I like being long Bitcoins.

Surely, fillippone you make a good point regarding bitcoin being the most seize resistant asset, yet still there can be problems if governments were to be focusing on any narrow kinds of assets as the enemy, such as bitcoin and then befriending others as if they were more friendly... but still in the end, you are correct to suggest that bitcoin was designed around this concept that governments might become hostile to it - and we have already seen some hostility that could be ramped up, possibly, as acquafredda suggests.

Regarding acquafredda's focusing upon some kinds of government/regulatory actions that are possible or might be possible...   Ultimately, it's a BIG SO FUCKING WHAT with more FUD spreading than reality? because it is not currently happening, and there would definitely exist decently LARGE trade offs for governments to go down such a path - especially the longer that bitcoin is existence and as bitcoin has gained further and further adoption - including the adoption of public companies - and presumably more private companies too and high networth individuals too. 

I know that you, fillippone, recognize these dynamics and trade offs, but frequently we do get a lot of "what ifs" that may be truly believed and sometimes scare newbies from taking a BTC stake or making plans to take a BTC stake - because they are so busy worrying about some kind of speculative future that is very unlikely to happen... so they screw them selves into giving too much weight to such FUD based information pieces, and thus failing/refusing to take some kind of reasonable and prudent actions to allocate a sufficient portion of their investment portfolio to bitcoin.. whether somewhere in the range of 1% to 10% or some other reasonable number that is based on sound reasoning... .

So the more and more adoption of BIGGER players into the bitcoin space is going to contribute to dynamics that cause trade offs that governments might not want to attempt if they were to become increasingly hostile towards bitcoin - which would seem to be a reversal of some of the current direction in bitcoin that is largely allowing for channels for BIGGER players to get into bitcoin and even clarification of some bank custody matters.   

Sure, many governments would like to channel bitcoin interactions into KYC channels which is another ongoing attack vector that could lead to a kind of attempt to later engage in seizing of BTC stashes of individuals and companies - so we should take it into account as a direction that could come up and to attempt to protect ourselves and to attempt to create channels in which seizure attempts would cause a lot of costs for any governments attempting to go down such road.. that remains a BIG SO WHAT slim possible direction, at this time... and in that regard, we do not need to unduly focus on these kinds of matters - even while it remains healthy to keep them in mind and even engage in self custody, mixing and joining of coins in order to keep a large collection of the bitcoin obfuscated from government attack vector channels if they do attempt to engage in such seemingly short-sighted hostilities.

Agree.
In addition to that, but I am not a legal expert here, so I might be wrong, that every U.S. Marshall Bitcoin auction makes more and more difficult declare Bitcoin illegal in the future.
When U.S.. Marshalls seize cocaine, for example, of course there is a market value there, but they do not sell it, they simply destroy. Similarly they could send all the seized bitcoin to a burner address instead of selling it.

So every time they sell those bitcoin, instead of burning them, they reinforce the fact they are dealing with legal items.

This greatly narrow the window for arbitrary seizure of privately held BTC in the future to the point where the "why should they do that, in the first place" i think is now the major question to be answered, even before the "how should they do that?".

I am not spreading FUD and if you are concerned about noobs that can be possibly scared by my word then I do not fuckin' care.
I wrote about a potential danger (read the word potential, please) that I see possible. These bitcoins are publicly visible: imagine for a second that one of those companies going bankrupt, those assets could be seized to pay creditors etc.
Ok, I was speaking what if: then so what?
I know bitcoin properties very well, yet I can not be blurred by them.

Good for you.  Frequently when we are posting on public posts, like this, clarification is needed in order that some people might not get mislead into placing way too much weight into fringe case scenarios like you had outlined and trying to suggest that such nonsense deserves some kind of serious consideration, when it doesn't and it can be helpful to explain (or at least point out) why it does not.  In other words, posting about these kinds of substantive matters are not personal nor meant to be personal, so it is likely that no one really gives any fucks about you either (at least not in the abstract of dealing with the various evidence, arguments and attempting to assign weight to various matters).


Yes.  That potential that you pointed out had been noted.  There is a pretty long history in forums like this in which beartards focus on "potential," "possible" and blah blah blah, and sure all kinds of things are possible - but does not mean that any one of us should be giving very much weight to such highly unlikely scenarios and miss an asymmetric bet investment opportunity of a life time.

I recall in 2014 and 2015, in these various forum threads, we used to see purported computer science professor Jorge Stolfi spouting out all kinds of theoretical nonsense regarding so many of the various theoretical possible scenarios that could bring BTC crashing down and to cause negative pressures on BTC's price.. and sure he had a lot of ideas about a variety of "possible" scenarios that ended up getting to be shown as way less likely than what ended up happening.. causing those who even took modest BTC stakes to become quite well off by not getting so caught up with "possibilities" that did not end up even coming close to playing out.

Lot's of us have gotten rich as fuck from bitcoin because we assigned the appropriate weight to such baloney theories that we have seen (and the evidence and logic has shown) have become more and more baloney with the passage of time...

but sure, give whatever weight to those outlandish negative scenarios as you wish, and miss the bitcoin train.  That's your choice, and hopefully not too many normie peeps get overly scared by such whimsical information that is based on outlandish possibilities.

Yes, of course there are going to be both positive and negative trade offs to disclosures that public companies have to make, and of course, they are required, by law, to be a lot more transparent with their finances and even various other fiduciary matters in order to be less likely of being accused of misleading investors.  That is one of the downsides of becoming a public company - and many ceos (or owners) of such companies have already given thoughts to a lot of those risks before they even become public companies.... sure some might not realize the extent of such transparency burdens until they have been under such practice, but still a considerable amount of transparency is already part of the known practices of public companies.


Well, there are all kinds of factors to consider about bitcoin in terms of attempting to figure out whether it fits your own investment thesis and thereby how much to invest into bitcoin, in the event that you choose to invest into bitcoin... and of course, there are both transparency aspects on the bitcoin blocks and there are also ongoing tools that are developed in bitcoin that may create some opaqueness in the transparencies - public companies might still be able to use some of the opaqueness tools that are available and even being developed in bitcoin, but they also do need to disclose their intentions and their actions.. and I doubt that there is even any kind of one-stop-shopping approach that public companies take in these kinds of matters.

Seems to me that many public companies had been either refusing, avoiding or merely taking mediocre stakes in their investing into bitcoin prior to the Michael Saylor example, so surely we have already discussed that so far, it appears that Saylor's boldness has provided a decent kind of example in regards to how bold a company might get in terms of their strategy to invest in bitcoin - and surely we might not be able to predict exactly how so many of the ramifications are going to play out, including if having large bitcoin holdings might end up having more costs than benefits (as you seem to be suggesting as a possibility), but many of us longer term BTC HODLers have found these seemingly bolder investing strategies into bitcoin to be quite positive for our BTC bag potential.. even if we are not 100% sure how matters are going to play out - the indicators seem to be pointing in a positive direction in terms of likely ongoing UPpity BTC price pressures.

I think we believe more or less in the same things but it takes too many words for you to express them. Anyhow, the last thing I want from you is your patronizing approach. I feel is right to stop this exchange between us because I do not wish to derail fillippone's thread. I expressed myself, others can think whatever they want about what I wrote. Having doubts does not necessarily mean that I am a "beartard".

Trying to recover the thread beforre it's too much derailed from its original scope.

How is it Microstrategy trading?
Is it trading as a regular company, or as a bitcoin proxy?

Well we already have a little of evidence:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob8cd8273b923f6ca6.png

We see that despite rising market price the share of the Bitcoin investment is surprisingly not increasing the percentage of the company that can be considered "bitcoin".
Since their last investment, not to overcomplicate the analysis, bitcoin is up 53% (up 16,200 from 10,600), while the share price is up only 37% (195 USD from 145).
I think that, going further, if BTC bull run continues, the market capitalisation will  better track the BTC price, as the "bitcoin investment" part of the firm will overwhelm the "business part", being ultimately the only factor to be priced in.

Can I be a bit contrarian here? Why bother so much about the stock price while your best reserve asset keeps appreciating and basically multiply your earnings?
They won already by stockpiling bitcoin at lower prices, we can't assume a two-way correlation between the shares and the bitcoin price.
But I am open to being completely wrong on this.

My reasoning behind the above post is basically they are going to profit more and more from their BTC investment than their "Real" business.
So that they will eventually become a proxy for Bitcoin investment, as the greater part of the company valuation it will simply be the Mark to Market of their Bitcoin Investment at it will outnumber any possible profit of their characteristic business.
 

^ Why would public company's bitcoins get seized? I mean I do not see any reason why these companies could be in trouble for buying bitcoin, it is something anyone can do and it is something that is allowed and legal, so there is no reason why they should be seized?

I understand that if a company does something illegal, that means government could seize their assets to pay back the people they scammed or faulted but that is not all the bitcoins these treasuries have, it is just the ones that does something bad and that wouldn't be the huge ones.

So, day technically speaking it could be seized if everything goes wrong, but legally speaking unless something bad happens there is never going to be a seizing of assets for just keeping it in bitcoin, that is not a reason to do it.

Makes sense and it would be amazing to see this headline in the future:
"MicroStrategy close its operations after selling BTC reserves"  ;D ;D ;D
Like many early adopters who are now early retirees, the same could happen to public companies which are holding BTC. They will stop operating due to the immense profit in the long run. Why keeping working when your reserve assets make millions every day?

Digital Assets just announced quarterly results.
Obviously are good, as largely dependent from BTC price appreciation.

https://www.coindesk.com/galaxy-digital-earnings-q3-2020

What I liked reading this news is that our spreadsheet was actually very good at forecasting the total cryptocurrency held at the firm.
Of course this is also worrying, as this also means they didn’t increase their net exposure during the bull run: some thing I have also expected, and that is worrying, as other firms have been significantly increasing their AUM (Grayscale) or directly held BTC (Square).

You should compare these percentages also to the S&P 500 as a comparison, because a 37% rise in the stock price is quit an increase in this period of time.  If the market is up in the same ballpark as the stock, this would suggest the stock is just undergoing the same macro trends as the market generally. However if there is a large disparity, that would further suggest that the rise is attributable to the bitcoin holdings driving the stock price increase as bitcoin appreciates in value. 

Maybe we have a very simple answer to your question: every net exposure increase must be discussed, probably voted and availed. We could argue that this time they considered their exposure enough already (I don't see them behaving like traders, every time they work on their balance sheet they must follow strict procedures). Thanks for the update

Yep. I also think, like RIOT, that they'll act as a proxy for BTC investment because there are so few options available for BTC exposure in the equity markets. When an ETF with low carry cost is finally launched, these kinds of proxies will lose their luster. And so will overpriced instruments like GBTC.

https://decrypt.co/48277/grayscale-buys-240m-in-bitcoin-in-largest-capital-raise-week-ever   if you check this out, grayscale buys another 240 million dollars worth of bitcoin once again and raising their position in bitcoin. They are really not holding back at this point and they are going to own the largest bitcoin ownership we know since satoshi himself.

I know this is something we really like to see because it means bitcoin is going as mainstream as mainstream can get but it also means that we are giving power to these companies to manipulate the price way too much. Think of a scenario where grayscale suddenly decides to close shop and not be involved with bitcoin anymore? That would destroy the price of bitcoin and that is not a power I would like to give to just one company.

Do "we" have a choice, redsun114?

How are "we" going to stop them?

Break them up, for example,.. into 20 or more pieces and each ONLY has 1/20th (or less) the total amount?

Maybe I am not thinking creatively enough?  What do you have in mind, redsun114?  to stop giving them power?  Buy up the BTC before they do?

I cannot see this scenario. Why should they? They are earning more of 27 bitcoin daily, every given day, every 24 hours, every sunrise on Earth just because they sit on 500k bitcoins.
Why should they stop doing what they are doing?

At this point grayscale is not using bitcoin as a cash reserve but more like an investment. It shows the world that they are not afraid of buying at 16k neither, when they first bought it at 10k people were saying "of course they would, it went up 50%+ so they made a good decision to buy early" but these guys are buying even at the 3 year all time high as well, ever since early 2018 we haven't seen anything above 15k ever and right now we are at 16k and they are still buying as much as they can.

This is not just cash reserve type of situation, this is literally putting all your money into crypto and I feel like they are going to reach to a point where they will be biggest bitcoin owners in the entire world, since we don't know satoshi and no idea how much Craig Wright has, grayscale could be known biggest in the market.

I was actually surprised by this move, in fact MicroStrategy has recognized Bitcoin as a legitimate investment asset that can outperform cash. to dare to make Bitcoin the main holder in the financial reserve strategy. In fact, in 2013, Saylor tended to be less friendly
and do not believe in Bitcoin until it has predicted that bitcoin will die. But in fact, the price of Bitcoin has increased many times over and this year changed their view of the King of Crypto Assets, until they finally made a big investment.

I think it's both: investment (read insurance policy against a stock market crash) and reserve asset (the same that gold is for central banks).
If bitcoin keeps the promise it will become the asset of choice for companies to show their health status.
Central banks' gold holdings represent the last resort asset if things go wrong, meaning that if countries start offloading their reserve, and don't replenish them means, something is happening. The same could easily happen for these Bitcoin Treasuries. We will see.

It’s done. I added this on the spreadsheet.

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob6fcf5be39ee51847.jpeg

Sadly the percentage doesn’t looks so good for the moment, but if I could bet on it, I would say it’s meant to grow a lot.

Next in line: SkyBridge.

Multi-Billion Dollar Fund SkyBridge Capital Might Soon Buy Bitcoin (https://www.btctimes.com/news/skybridge-capital-might-soon-buy-bitcoin)



Compulsory follow then is @scaramucci to be notified about investment.

Yeah, but I did not know about Grayscale fitting in the same exact category as some of the other companies that are actually putting bitcoin into their treasuries and like microstrategy making a BIG move (percentage-wise) in that direction.

Seems that Fillippone already made this point about Grayscale, too.

Does Grayscale own any bitcoin in their actual corporate treasuries?  I am not sure about that.

I believe that Grayscale merely buys when various of their clients buy stakes in their GBTC stock.. and therefore, all (or nearly all) of Grayscales purchases of BTC are backed by client funds.. and accordingly GBTC is a kind of custodian.. even though the clients own the stock rather than the actual bitcoin.. but the BTC are ultimately dedicated to investments that clients had made.

Am I wrong?  Does Grayscale have some amount of corporate treasuries in BTC, too?

Yes, I recall that you, Fillippone, had mentioned that they earn around 27BTC per day by merely managing the funds... which surely is not a small amount of daily income to cover whatever expenses that they might have... which is probably far less than 27 BTC per day.

You stand correct: the infamous 500,000 BTC Grayscale “owns” are merely custody of their client’s money. That is, the profit of Grayscale is not from the profit of the AUM going up or down, but only for the 2% management fee they collect every year (of course this 2% is greater, for various reasons, when Bitcoin rallies, but this is another reasoning).

The point is that while GBTC (Grayscale Bitcoin Fund) is a traded object and thus obliged to report their balance sheet, I am not sure about Grayscale the managing firm. Because it is on that balance sheet I expect to find those Bitcoin from the collected fees.
I will dig into that trying to figure out for you.
Stay tuned.

"We" have a choice of making sure everyone else buys bitcoin as well, it is not going to suddenly happen and in reality we can't do it because people have to decide on it themselves and we can't cap how much one person or a company can have bitcoin, that is why it is decentralized.

However the solution is simple, have as many people as possible buy bitcoin, not right away, the goal here is ownership, they can all buy in the next 10 years all I care, but as long as we have "billion" people owning bitcoin eventually and more, we could say that we are doing fine and just one company can't hurt us. Still when the huge chunk of the market is owned by one place, that means market is in big danger and could be hurt by the same people as well. Hopefully that will not happen as long as price stands at good levels like this.

You are coming off as pie in the sky, redsun.  Barry Silbert is appealing to people to use his services because it is one of the ONLY vehicles in which traditional institutional investors can get into BTC through their various heavily regulated funds.

Silbert ended up playing his cards very well in terms of getting into that niche and having institutional players throwing money at him, even at a premium.

Regular peeps do not seem to be enlightened enough, and they buy into a lot of the fearmongering about BTC.. and they even get confused by BTC, so even they are going to go to someone like Barry rather than even attempting to hold their own coins.


Yeah.. right.. easier said than done.. we have less than 1% of world-wide adoption, and we have more informed peeps hoarding larger amounts of stash..

Even someone hoarding 10 BTC is going to be considered to be sitting on a BIG amount of BTC stash compared to the amount that regular peeps are going to be able to garner...

This is the way that the world works, anyhow in some sense... and sure some people are going to come around to bitcoin sooner than others, but we still have a lot of lagging masses.



Yeah, of course, more and more regular peeps are going to get into bitcoin, but they are going to have to continue to pay higher and higher prices in order to get a bit of a stake... and Barry's company is going to continue to accumulate, too.  I doubt anything gets resolved in terms of more fair distribution or trying to direct some kind of more fair distribution..

People who have information and have some kind of means to act on the information are going to get ahead..




Sure... large holders could turn evil.. that is possible... but again, I cannot really see you proposing any kind of meaningful way to address the issue or the "what if" fear that you seem to be wanting to focus upon.

That was on October 9th and not today neither. Because today we are talking about over a billion dollars in bitcoins held by these companies, not just because they have bought more which they did buy more, just recently grayscale increased another 300 million dollars or so all by themselves which makes it nearly a billion, but also bitcoin price has increased since October 9 a lot and made this a huge amount.

So, it is safe to say that bitcoin treasuries in these companies are getting closer to 2 billion dollars or may have even surpassed 2 billion dollars today if there are some we do not know about.

I am also a firm believer that many big companies have invested directly into bitcoin as well, when you put them into calculation we must be in high single digits of billions of dollars.

Mission Failed, for the moment.
Grayscale Investments is a private firm. As such, their reporting requirements are very limited. I wasn't able to fine anything about them but some obvious details about their address and managing team, led by Barry Silbert.
But I will try harder.
I just created the @fillippone Twitter account. I'll try to use it to ask Barry (this is the best idea it came to my mind).

If they are taking 2% management fee from their clients, with current rate of bitcoin, the 2% of the client’s 500,000 BTC that are currently in their possession will fetch them around $180 million! So, that’s really a big amount. That aside, whether they are the owners of the 500k BTC or it belongs to clients, it’s still doesn’t change the fact that the money was invested in Bitcoin.

So, it’s still going to boost the market in some ways, and I can’t wait to see that happen soon. The op was talking about how the money that’s being invested can help the BTC market to keep rising.

Grayscale isn't using bitcoin for anything. Grayscale holds bitcoin for investors. Grayscale does not (to my knowledge) hold any bitcoin itself.  Drawing any conclusions about how good Grayscale thinks Bitcoin is an investment based on how much Bitcoin they're holdings is erroneous because it starts from a false premise that they bought the Bitcoin themselves, which they haven't.  Grayscale holds bitcoin for institutional investors, and charges a ridiculous fee for it.

A nice report for Bitcoin funds.
Those are not properly "Bitcoin Treasuries", but Microstrategy  is mentioned.

2020 Q2 Crypto Fund Report (https://cryptofundresearch.com/q3-2020-crypto-fund-report/)

This will hasten the adoption process of bitcijn especiy when these big of a company are the ones who are open in saying that bitcoin is the future. However, I am quite in doubt that they are saving bitcoins for that sole purpose only. These corporations may be hiding something from us that we do not know of yet. This ckuld either make or break bitcoin's future,and being the public, we can only afford to watch.

If you are a small potato "public" person, then you should be buying bitcoin, instead of just watching.  Sure, some institutions might try to play with their coins to sell high and to buy lower, and some will make money in the process and some will end up getting fucked because they tried to play with or manipulate something that they did not understand.  We have already seen a lot of these kinds of dynamics, and the overall game does not change that much merely because BIGGER players are getting in, but BIGGER players getting into bitcoin puts buying pressure (and price pressure) on bitcoin rather than logically causing you to become too scared to dip your toes in because you believe that some of them might dump... blah blah blah.  They might, and they might not.   :D :D :D :D  Don't get stuck without any coins... and failing to meaningfully and adequately prepare yourself for UP.

Sadly to say that a lot of people are keep wasting the opportunities in the market where they prefer to watch than to take any action, for sure that there are a lot of companies and institution who also keep acquiring bitcoin especially today where it is now nearing at its all time high which almost $20k. These companies and institutions have the best analyst for sure and they able to understand that the all time high breakout is the strongest breakout that may happen, it is funny that a lot of people are now scared especially the small players out there where they think that the price is now expensive and overbought. Actually the momentum signal like RSI is having different purpose and uses whenever the prices are having strong momentum.

I am like a broken record in that regard.  I always tell people to start buying right away no matter what the price is, and of course, if you dollar cost average in, then you can still hold back some cash too in order to attempt to buy on dips, as well.. that is if there are dips.

So, sure, the companies buying, even at these seemingly higher prices, seems to be reflected partly in Michael Saylor's comments that it might well be taking some of them some time to really get on board and to be gearing up.

Not saying that we are not going to have some significant price dips along the way, but we are getting BIGGER player buyers that should be sending signals of a need to get in and to prepare for possible UP rather than just sitting on the sidelines and acting like bitcoin might not be "the right" investment for you....

In that regard, bitcoin has been one of the best investments, yet for retail.... Holy fucking shit.  Bitcoin has been one of the first investments that we regular peeps have been able to front run institutions and BIGGER players.  Sure some of them are coming in, but little guys still have time to get some kind of reasonable stake in BTC before more and more of the BIG players get in.. NOTHING really stopping regular normies from getting in, except for fear and failure/refusal to act.. and such fear and hesitations in acting are going to be their greatest enemies when it comes to 5 to 10 years down the road when they are likely going to have trouble buying even close to as many BTC as they can get now... Normies might be able to get 1-10BTC without any major troubles, but in 5 to 10 years, they might have trouble even getting a whole bitcoin.. absent having a pretty large amount of money (which kind of takes them out of the normies category).


Sounds like you have the right mindset KnightElite, and hopefully you have been stacking sats over the last few years, and either you reached your sat stacking goal or you continue to stack even if you have a decent stash of sats already.  Going to be an interesting year to come and maybe even an interesting couple of years from here on out to continue to hear about more companies getting in and also just more normies getting in, too.... we will see?  We will see?.....

There is not only Grayscale and the BTPE Funds: also the Canadian fund from 3iq is doing well:

https://twitter.com/3iq_corp/status/1331012161972310016?s=20

Please note the reference to BTC as unit of account!


So they are getting bigger:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob431edc473adaefb0.jpeg

Definitely noticeable in the bigger scheme of things: another frantic Monday-to-Friday buyer of BTC,


https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob3c699f187d2c7c14.png

Are Governments the next  Category in Bitcoin Treasuries?

We know that US Government already owns large chunks of coins:

US Seized More Than $1B in Silk Road–Linked Bitcoins, Seeks Forfeiture (https://www.coindesk.com/u-s-seized-more-than-1b-in-silk-road-linked-bitcoin-seeks-forfeiture-bloomberg)


We know that US Government is used to sell those coins trough a US Marshall Auction


But apparently, They're not alone: Chinese example is following their example.


Chinese police have seized $4.2 billion cryptos from PlusToken Ponzi crackdown (https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/85873/china-seize-billion-cryptos-from-plustoken-crackdown)

• A Chinese court has detailed for the first time the breakdown of all the crypto assets seized by police during the PlusToken Ponzi scheme crackdown
• The seized assets are worth more than $4.2 billion at today’s prices
• The court said the seized cryptos “will be processed pursuant to laws” and “forfeited to the national treasury.”

This is a combined amount of more than 264,000 BTC, or 1.25% the total Bitcoin Supply.

Holy shit!  This seriously makes me wonder if these corporations know something bad is around the corner--like hyperinflation, perhaps? 

It's unimaginable to me that publicly-traded companies would be snapping up all the bitcoin they can buy for their treasuries or whatever else, even in a bitcoin bull market.  It's extremely risky either way, and I get the feeling that these companies see owning bitcoin as a less risky alternative to the dollar or whatever fiat currency they normally kept in reserve.  That's actually kind of frightening if you think about it, but I hope I'm wrong and these corporations are just bullish on bitcoin.

Do you really think these supermassive fiat money conglomerates are really worried if buying $500, $1000 or $5000 more per coin? I don't think so. They are setting their agenda out in plain sight and it is like a hug f*** you to those asset and wealth management firms which kept saying bitcoin was a joke for the last 5 years.
MSTR showed us they basically moved on their own getting their btc on Coinbase (jeez, coinbase!).
Of course, it's frightening to think how these entities are moving the market but that is unavoidable now. Bitcoin has no owners and we can all be owners. Don't play with the sharks  ;)

It is both a bit about crypto but a bit about regular world finances as well. In the regular world finances we get to see stocks and other stuff crash once every decade or so, we also see that they are not going to be able to live like this forever because the idea is screwed up and it is not sustainable unless governments keep printing money all the time, what they could potentially do is move away from something that is not sustainable and move into something that would help everyone.

Now that means they are moving away from traditional markets, which has nothing to do with crypto, but the part that impacts crypto is that when they are moving away, they picked crypto as the place they move to, which is the reason why we see these high prices even with a fall.

Another day, another institutional buying:

MassMutual Joins the Bitcoin Club With $100 Million Purchase (https://www.wsj.com/articles/massmutual-joins-the-bitcoin-club-with-100-million-purchase-11607626800)


If a 170 years old institution buys 0.04% of his assets in Bitcoin I can’t see how any other institutional cannot have 2% of their total asset on Bitcoin.

Lol, easily, because just because a small minority of people are doing something doesn't mean that everyone else should also go do what they're doing, especially when it involves specialized knowledge, which I would consider bitcoin to require.  Most successful businesses are successful because they stick to what they know, and it's not reasonable to expect other people to go out and gain specialized knowledge just because some people are making money with it, especially when it's not germane to what they do naturally. For example, my neighbor has made a very significant amount of money buying and trading baseball cards and has a collection that is a significant portion of his net worth, but that doesn't mean that everyone else on my block is eager or even thinks it's a good idea to go out and start buying a ton of baseball cards.  None of us have the knowledge for doing that successfully and we'd lose a lot of money if we tried.

Maybe it is a bit "specialized" to appreciate the concept of scarcity, and the concept of Gold 2.0... And surely, there can be learning and attempts to learn along the way too...  Investors do not need to know all aspects of bitcoin in order to be able to put 1% to 10 % of their investment capital into it (or some other amount that is comfortable to them) just as a 16 year old girl does not need to know anything about mechanics (or even what makes the car go) in order to be able to drive a car and even become a kind of high talented driver.. similar with computer operations.. don't even need to know how the computer works, but if I hit these keys it types, and when I press on these buttons it takes me to google in which I can find out anything that I want, and I have hardly any clues about how all of that happened.


Yeah.. work that "specialized knowledge" angle.. until it starts to sound a bit forced.


Surely bitcoin is not baseball cards, and there is quite a bit more information out there about bitcoins various general propositions, especially compared to the amount of information that was available 12 years ago.  So, yeah, putting 1% to 10% of investments assets into bitcoin might require more knowledge the higher proportion that is invested and even the longer that a person is invested... but should not stop anyone from getting started.. even though lots of peeps do 1) fail refuse to get started, 2) fail to familiarize themselves with bitcoin and 3) even sometimes learn about bitcoin and then still fail to take any actions.  So the more common sets of problems likely would not be so much in acting, but instead failing/refusing to act.    :P :P :P

Wait a minute, are we sure about the grayscale number? If I am not reading it wrong, it says nearly 10 billion dollars and it says over 500k bitcoins, are we sure about that?

I mean there is already just around 10 million bitcoins available in the market, if they bought 5% of that in under one year, that is both awesome for them but also quite scary for us because if grayscale which is smaller compared to other huge wall street companies can do this, that means JP Morgan or similar level places could come in and buy like 100 billion dollars worth of bitcoin easily, hell do like a 1 trillion version and buy nearly half of it. I rather not see that happening at all.

I hope 500k+ is not the right number and there is something wrong with that number, maybe 10% of that so we can feel at ease.

What is scaring you off? Bitcoin is out there for everybody and I believe that is the beauty of it. GBTC is hoarding an enormous amount of coins and can be considered an institutional early adopter. We are entering into very scary waters so hold your keys and secure your BTC because these sharks will come after us.
Just remember: the more they buy, the higher the price. Bitcoin fixed supply will fix this.

I disagree. Just because one believes Bitcoin's monetary policy is a potential answer to inflation doesn't make it not speculative.

People like Michael Saylor are clearly betting that BTC prices are headed higher. That's the whole point of piling in so much cash over such a short period of time. I happen to agree with him regarding Bitcoin's long term trajectory but honestly, we're both just speculating about things like future adoption (whether institutional, retail, government, or all of the above) and future money printing. Those things aren't guaranteed.


Grayscale's trust has been building in size since 2013. Back in the fall of 2014 they held ~100K BTC. In the spring of 2015 they held ~135K. And so on. So it was not an overnight process.

Check out the GBTC observer thread for historical data: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=337486.0

Well, first of all there are more than 10 millions Bitcoin out there, we are a little bit more than  18,500,000 millions actually, so the 560,000 bitcoin held at Grayscale represent a little bit more than the 3%.

Secondly yes it wasn’t an overnight process, and if you want to know more about how they got so big, you could check the spreadsheet attached to my thread

Everything you wanted to know about Grayscale BTC Trust but were afraid to ask! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5256529)

There are many graphs about Grayscale and of course one of them is about the NAV build up:



Thanks!
I didn’t know that thread!

This may be asked before, but what advantages exactly does buying equities of holding companies that have a portion of their NAV in BTC or crypto derivatives have over just holding it in a hardware wallet yourself?

Is it some sort of tax incentive that I'm currently unaware of?

Obviously for the founders themselves, forming a corporation provides a limited liability clause in everything which allows them to separate their individual wealth from their potentially leveraged BTC positions - but I'm asking a very specific case here for the individual, retail investor that has a choice between pure crypto or crypto equities/ETF-like vehicles.

Seems to me that there is no advantage to investing indirectly into these funds, yet the reason that people do it will likely be that certain kinds of money that they have cannot be invested directly into bitcoin.  They need to have an authorized vehicle to get the bitcoin exposure through those funds - which would be through a company that has exposure or through some vehicle that is recognized as "acceptable."  A similar thing may well be true of financial consultants, they might be limited by their institutions in what they can invest in - including that their organization structures around fees that they can collect through such investment vehicles, even if the fees are small or close to zero.

Of course, some people get nervous owning something directly, so they like having those middle man holders/managers of their assets.

First, I wouldn't attribute everything to institutional interest. Second, none of that makes investing in Bitcoin not speculative. It's becoming less speculative and risky over time. That, I can concede.

Now Microstrategy is going into debt to buy more BTC, for amounts that represent a very large chunk of their net assets. And no doubt we'll see plenty of even more risky behavior from institutions at higher valuations. Then the real fun will begin!

One only needs to look to 2007-2008 for inspiration regarding how reckless institutional investors can be. :D

A new Bitcoin fund has been just launched.

SkyBridge launches SkyBridge Bitcoin Fund LP (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5307219)

This fund has a strong marketing stance at cannibalizing GBTC clients.
Let's see how it evolves, as I think the ultimate beneficiaries of this battle will be Bitcoin investors.

Another public company follows Microstrategy example:


Crypto Miner Marathon Patent Group Buys $150M in Bitcoin (https://www.coindesk.com/miner-marathon-buys-bitcoin-investment)



Of course, the reason, because they did something like that, is in the accompanying press release (https://www.marathonpg.com/news/press-releases/detail/1224/marathon-invests-150-million-in-bitcoin):


Op Updated (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5280947.msg55343417#msg55343417)

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob2a6e1d1b1964ad57.png

Some people think that fortune 500 companies investing on your assets give a sense of power and trust over the cryptocurrency you are trying to sell. That is simply not the case, it either falls to this scenario, or to a scenario where the buyer would refuse to purchase because of his fear of the value being manipulated by these big companies for their own benefit, which they can most definitely do. So it's still good that you're doing this and allowing more people to check it, as it allows new investors to decide whether to jump in or not.

it's really helpful, to be honest, there are still many siginaficiant contents in reddit community, I really love reddit

Well we can have both of them at the same time and that is what you are seeing right now. We do get some sense of power when big companies go into crypto because I have been here long enough to be labeled "drug money" as well, crypto was seen as something illegal people used and not regular people like me used according to "experts", and even today Janet Yallen type of people say that crypto is something used in illegal stuff. Nowadays those fortune 500 companies who invest into crypto, which gives me comfort about the idea that we are now a mainstream asset and that is a good thing.

Of course I am scared that it could be manipulated like crazy and that could be the reason why I may lose money one day, but that doesn't change the fact that mainstream finance world cares about crypto a lot more now. So I am both relieved about it but also scared about it at the same time.

A few days ago I read this article and I forgot to add to the thread.

Cathrine Wook, CEO and founder of ARK investment, stated that Microstrategy and Square are only the first, leading the way to many other firms in the future:

Cathie Wood: More Tech Companies Will Adopt Bitcoin Treasury Reserves (https://www.coindesk.com/cathie-wood-bitcoin-treasuries)


This is not something very new in her mind. I recall her in an almost year-old speech, where she already had quite clear in her mind the possibility to have Bitcoin Treasuries:

State of Digital Assets: Keynote by Cathie Wood (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c50TMCKsktA)

Guggenheim is raising the bar!

Guggenheim CIO Says Bitcoin Could Eventually Climb to $600,000 (https://www.coindesk.com/guggenheim-cio-says-bitcoin-could-eventually-climb-to-600000)

Of course if you read the article, and not only the headline, what he said is a little bit different:


So, it's actually a range rather than a prediction. Nevertheless, a sensible guess based on the physical-gold/digital-gold relationship.

As I commented in one of your threads, it all comes down to comparing Bitcoin to gold in all possible and impossible ways - so while both assets have something in common, they're mostly very different things. I guess all these comparisons to gold come from the fact that there’s really nothing else they could use for speculation like this, because Bitcoin is something unique in the market.

In fact, I do not see this analysis as something unique, because a similar one could be read from JPM a few days ago - the difference is of course that JPM takes the whole BTC/gold hypothesis with slightly more moderate numbers.

It is also interesting that Guggenheim publicly acknowledges that “the firm has been looking at bitcoin for almost 10 years”, only now publicly commenting on it. Interesting how everyone suddenly becomes interested in something when the opportunity for profit appears on the horizon :)

Regarding this, I always wonder which is the logical twist, brain malfunction or maybe weird genetical activation, that make you think something is not worth buying at 3,000 USD, while it is at 30,000 USD .
There must be a special place in hell for this kind of people.
/j

I am glad they are now able to solve all the hurdles a financial institution has putting bitcoins in their wallet: technical/legal/accounting problems that might be trivial for a single individual, might be cumbersome for an institutional investor.

A small update for a very big news.

Tesla Bought 1.5 B in Bitcoins (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5315581.0)


In the linked thread, all the discussion about this event.

"Small"?

 :P :P

Small indeed, at least small compared to the impact this news had on the market.
I am trying to update this thread, but news from treasuries, funds and ETP adopting bitcoin is overwhelming compared to my scarce resources (time, first of all).

A few days ago Hut8 updated their official figures on their BTC holding:


The spreadsheet  (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fmYF8ND3lGHeZCzNww8chtiz7ZvbhSAzXOHKPkKDVF8/edit?usp=sharing) has been updated accordingly.

I think professional bookkeeper can analyse more how bookkeeping works on crypto monetary standards for organizations, but I think it's distinctive to fair buying treasuries. There's more chance included on cryptos, but in this manner you get a parcel of upside potential in bitcoins compared to exceptionally moo returns on treasuries. I think for companies to purchase bitcoins to invest excess cash could be a great thought. But the inverse sounds a bit hazardous in my conclusion. In case a company would issue treasuries as a frame of financing it would cruel they get the bitcoins nowadays and ought to reimburse them at a future date. With bitcoin cost so solid of late there are numerous markers for the cost to go up on the another few a long time.

Buy the Dip!

Square Buys Another $170M in Bitcoin (https://www.coindesk.com/square-announces-additional-170m-bitcoin-buy)


The spreadsheet  (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fmYF8ND3lGHeZCzNww8chtiz7ZvbhSAzXOHKPkKDVF8/edit?usp=sharing) has been updated accordingly.

Still not a bad price, if they just bought recently.. which would be about $51,236 per BTC, yet I see from the average price on your spreadsheet, fillippone, that Square has an overall average price per BTC of $46,719, which is the worst of the group of public companies listed on that spreadsheet.. even though they still might appear to be geniuses (relatively speaking) 5 years from now.. perhaps?

Peanuts.
S2F is still in place. 100k is still possible in six months. Then we will see what happens: stagnation as PlanB models, or hyperbitcpinisation as Micheal Saylor argues?
In any case Square is on the small number of corporates treasuries who already made a step towards bitcoin. This is the huge difference with the rest of the SPX, not the tiny difference in price entry level.

Game Publisher Nexon Buys $100M Worth of Bitcoin.

 (https://www.btctimes.com/news/game-publisher-nexon-buys-100m-worth-of-bitcoin)




Original announcement here (https://pdf.irpocket.com/C3659/bxTh/SDDC/wbxu.pdf).

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blobf6f99d5b4dd3ba8f.png (https://pdf.irpocket.com/C3659/bxTh/SDDC/wbxu.pdf)

Nice fillippone, including your updating the Google spreadsheet that is linked in OP.

Yes.
Regarding the spreadsheet, I see that it has a few broken links, that I am trying to recover (I am not an expert scraper, so I am waiting for someone to help me..for free).

Also, I am noticing that few amounts are now diverging between my spreadsheet and the https://bitcointreasuries.org (https://bitcointreasuries.org), and I am trying to figure out why...   

This is definitely a concern.  It seems like large companies wanted to benefit from the obviously inflating Bitcoin bubble, but they don't want to stick around to see it through.  They don't actually care about Bitcoin.  They just wanted some easy money and now they're ready to run before things start to get messy.  I think they see what most experienced Bitcoiners believe, we're going to see a massive bubble and then a massive correction.  They don't want to be accepting Bitcoin during that massive bubble, they want to cash out.  You can probably expect Elon to make up some nonsense or release some BS alternative energy mining product and then claim all is fine and Tesla will accept BTC again, as soon as the crash happens so he can score cheap BTC again...

If Elon cared about the environment and not money, Tesla would be a non-profit and they'd be giving away a few billion dollars worth of cars per year to get combustion engines off the road.  Instead, he's the richest man in the world.  Look at the facts and actions, not the rhetoric. 

Likely it is fair to appreciate and recognize that Microstrategies remains a bit of an outlier in their approach to bitcoin.

I cannot remember exactly when I started telling beginner folks to invest between 1% to 10% in bitcoin and then go from there in terms of figuring out if you want to go outside of that range... I believe that i started to say that in around late 2014 when I had established my own position at about 10% of my investment portfolio in bitcoin, and at that point, I had considered myself to be a wee bit more aggressive and bullish about bitcoin, so that is why my allocation amount ended up being at the top of the recommended range - which surely, I was also suggesting that skeptics are going to end up investing way further down the range and perhaps even less than 1% depending on their circumstances, even though I had considered 1% as a basic starting point.. but of course, each person (or institution) should be considering his/her/its own particular circumstances anyhow when they are determining either how to allocate and how to go about establishing and maintaining such position and how to treat their position with the passage of time and the ongoing volatility of the asset, which has not really ever disappeared if we zoom out in terms of looking at either its price performance or the expectations of its price performance overall.

In some sense, and if history is any kind of guidance, no one (whether company or individual) should really need to invest more than 1% to 10% in bitcoin in terms of either being adequately exposed and then if BTC were to appreciate then it may well begin to take up way more than 1% to 10 % of the portfolio, especially if winners are allowed to ride.

Surely Microstrategies are more than able to determine their own circumstances to determine how much allocation to give to bitcoin, and surely they go into the really aggressive territory, which may or may not pay off for them, even though many of us longer term bitcoiners consider that their timing was quite good so they may well be able to have a lot of luck in outperforming so many companies that had approached the bitcoin investment matter more whimpily.



yeah, musk is all over the place in his rhetoric, so we are not going to be able to rely on him to stick to any kind of long term position, but I would hardly characterize investing $1.5 billion and then taking out a couple hundred million as not having a stake - even though its seems difficult to figure out what the hell they are doing...or might do in an opportunistic way.

You should not presume what other companies are doing based on what saylor and musk did.

Sure public companies have to disclose, but there are a variety of more discrete ways of disclosing, and there are other rich entities and people who have no obligation to publicly disclose.


I doubt the evidence really supports your position, but you can believe what you like and sell or wait to buy or blah blah blah.  Good luck, you may well need it if you are presuming that the top is in for this cycle.


NOT taking further bitcoin positions is not the same as selling their bitcoin position, so their concerns about energy consumption are likely either ill informed or just attempts at putting out misleading information (whether purposeful or not).  Anyhow a lot of us more knowledgeable bitcoiners (maybe gonna include my lil selfie with smart money, here) realize is just pure bullshit to be asserting that there is some kind of meaningful or realistic energy consumption issue with bitcoin and likely the opposite scenario already exists through the incentives within bitcoin and proof of work.

Another thing might be that companies that already are involved in bitcoin as a business might be reluctant to over expose themselves to bitcoin, since their carrying out of their bitcoin related business practices may also already expose them to as much risk as they are currently ready, willing and able to tolerate, and these tolerances for risk is likely to change in the years to come - and hopefully they do not end up shooting their lil selfies in the foot with their overly conservative considerations... and ONLY they will be in a position to consider what is best for themselves and their circumstances.


You seem to want to exaggerate, OgNasty.  Not every company is going to want to take the same level of aggressiveness as Microstrategies, and it could be possible that they have not put themselves in a position to do so, like Microstrategies seems to have done.. at least so far.



We are likely still quite new to the entrance of a variety of companies into bitcoin, and they are likely at least as diversified in their opinions as individuals, and they also likely have additional hoops to jump through as compared with individuals who have way more flexibility and individuals will likely be advantaged by their ability to be more flexible so long as they don't get sucked into believing bad information about bitcoin or get pushed into some kind of shitcoin or scam which surely catches a decent number of individuals already in this space, and some folks (including companies) are going to be more successful than others in terms of their navigation and their employment of strategies that end up working to their advantage (or at least are calculated to work to their advantages).


They care a whole hell of a lot more now than they did 4 years ago or 8 years ago.  So, sure adoption still remains pretty damned low, so whether anyone or institution gets into bitcoin will be shown about whether they end up being advantaged by such.. or if they try to play the system and end up getting burned.  Time will tell, no?


Sure, some might be calculating that the top for this cycle is already in, but does not seem too likely that the top is already in for this cycle.  So sure, some are going to calculate badly to the extent that they give shits about short term playing around once they have already decided to get in.. and sure, some may well decide not to get in yet and to see what happens before they decide whether and how to get in.


You mean that if everyone does not agree with that vision then they are not a "experienced bitcoiner"?

Even "experienced bitcoiners" disagree, but sure there is quite a bit of consensus that bitcoin has 4-year cycles, so there can be disagreement about whether this particular cycle is over yet and if not how it might play out. 

Also, there are some experienced bitcoiners who fucked up pretty damned badly in the past, and they may or may not be able to learn from their prior screw ups in order to play this particular cycle correct.

Many of us know that buy, accumulate and HODL has historically been a pretty damned good strategy, but even OG bitcoiners are going to vary to the extent to which they might have already shaved off profits, whether they plan to shave off profits in this cycle or whether they might feel that they need another cycle before they are going to be able to shave off profits (if ever), and even with that amount of variance and including that even BIG ASS screw ups might have been allowed to profit stupendously in bitcoin if the OG bitcoiner had actually had enough foresight or luck to HODL a sufficient amount of his/her stash rather than selling too much too early.



Fair enough that the longer that a bitcoiner has been into bitcoin then the more likely that he is going to be wanting to sell during tops, and sure some companies might get the top wrong, too.  So your point seems a bit weird even if their would be some truth to it, but I would not assume to know the top or attribute that knowledge to anyone else (even if they might believe they know what is a top and what is not because they may well get that top identification wrong, and that can be an uncomfortable place to be, and we have seen that a lot in bitcoinlandia.. whole maybe not knowing until after the fact about the significance of what we had seen.).

Cannot disagree with you about that point OgNasty, which seems to be that Elon cannot really be relied upon to be consistent, and whether it will come back to bite him in the ass might be another story.


Sure.. nothing really to dispute about these points.



Part of the reason that many of us should be grateful that Elon seems to be showing his true wishy washy colors, and yeah of course, there are always folks who follow the actions of celebrities, and they may well get reckt if they  don't know how to attempt to account for what might be going on rather than possibly following someone that is all over the place which is likely NOT a very prudent approach to investing in bitcoin rather than gambling (even though a lot of folks like to gamble and ends up being to their detriment rather than establishing and practicing a more thought out approach to bitcoin).

A fund managed by ARK collects 20 USD from 12 investors, with 1 million entry limit:

Ark Invest Buys $20 Million Bitcoin (https://www.trustnodes.com/2021/05/24/ark-invest-buys-20-million-bitcoin)



After all, it makes sense to BTFD if you think that corn will eventually get to half a million:

Ark Investment’s Cathie Wood Says Bitcoin Will Go to $500,000 (https://www.coindesk.com/ark-investments-cathie-wood-says-bitcoin-will-go-to-500000)


On SEC website we can find some more information:
https://sec.report/Document/0000943663-21-000107/

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blobd3a8bd325db21956.png
 (https://sec.report/Document/0000943663-21-000107/)

With ARK being one of the recent investment darlings, this should be interesting. Also, talk about buying the dip! It's almost as if they waited for a pullback to find a good entry point.

Point of clarification, this form that is linked to doesn't actually mean what is being represented.  This Form D that was filed with the SEC means this issuer sold $19,872,939 worth of its own securities to investors under Regulation D, not that it bought that much bitcoin.  As is typical, not all the money raised goes towards asset purchases because the investment manager takes fees for running the fund and other fund expenses come out of the amount raised like legal fees for filing the Form D and operating expenses like setting up the fund, etc.  Whoever wrote the blurb about this Form D filing doesn't exactly understand what the filing is.

Thank you jaysabi I for the clarification.
I am not familiar with SEC regulation, hence I trusted the article.

I think anyway it would be safe to admit the vast amount of money went to BTC buying, as the fees you correctly considers usually are a small percentage of that amount. For GBTC, a fund with notoriously high fees, we are talking about 2%.

The mayor of Miami advocates paying salaries in Bitcoin, paying taxes in crypto, making Miami a clean Bitcoin mining hub and adding Bitcoin to the city coffers.
The mayor of Miami is also looking to add Bitcoin to the city's coffers, and although current law doesn't allow it.

Yes, you’re most likely right. I would consider the vast majority of the money raised to go towards bitcoin purchases at some point soon after, I just wanted to clarify that the Form D amount listed was not actually the amount of bitcoin purchased.

https://twitter.com/michael_saylor/status/1430145340976648202?
"MicroStrategy has purchased an additional 3,907 bitcoins for ~$177 million in cash at an average price of ~$45,294 per #bitcoin. As of 8/23/21 we #hodl ~108,992 bitcoins acquired for ~$2.918 billion at an average price of ~$26,769 per bitcoin.  $MSTR"

https://i.ibb.co/8srvBdh/image.jpg (https://ibb.co/xL19sf4)
https://www.theblockcrypto.com

MicroStrategy Acquires 3,907 Additional Bitcoins with Proceeds from ATM Facility Sales
https://www.microstrategy.com/en/investor-relations/financial-documents/microstrategy-acquires-3907-additional-bitcoins-with-proceeds-from-atm-facility-sales

Big companies certainly won't risk assets for losses, they are very wise and choose a realistic path for the long term ahead
Of course there is an expert advisor in that field who can keep the secret

Companies might NOT be a whole hell of a lot different from individuals in terms of the conclusions that they might come to after looking at available information or their getting distracted by some of the nonsense and misleading information regarding shitcoins or not understanding the difference between bitcoin and shitcoins, and of course, companies have advantages of having a lot of potential advisors and inputs, but I doubt that those kinds of advantages would necessarily cause them to automatically arrive at better decisions/conclusions over individuals.

Even Michael Saylor had some of his earlier discussions on the topic of providing road maps for companies to get involved in bitcoin, and surely the smaller the company or the more nimble that it has its operations can allow for quicker movement into bitcoin, so individuals are going to have a lot of advantages over companies in some of the flexibility aspects, and even being able to appreciate the fact that individuals can move quicker and with fewer necessitates for approvals can cause individuals to front run the heck out of companies and financial institutions in terms of getting a stake in bitcoin.. .. and likely there is a bit of a presumption on my behalf that bitcoin is a good investment.. and purported experts might not recognize or appreciate the value proposition or have the abilities to come to the better conclusion to get some kind of stake in bitcoin, sooner rather than later.

Even though individuals are likely more nimble than companies in terms of being able to get into bitcoin, they also might end up making the wrong decisions too in terms of getting some kind of bitcoin allocation rather than waiting for everyone else first or being scared that governments might shut it down or blah blah blah other talking points in which either individuals or companies can also get caught up in the same nonsense that causes them to wait and see rather than to actually take action in terms of both figuring out what kind of stake they should take, get off zero and then act upon their coming to right conclusion and to get off zero and probably a 1% to 10% starting stake would likely be a decent and prudent starting point for either individuals or companies to conclude while they study the space more and learn what bitcoin actually is rather than getting distracted by various misleading information that is out there.

It's not a proper Bitcoin Treasury, as the BTC are not meant to be held indefinitely, but the Bitcoin Plan in El Salvador is going on, so I wanted to check how it is going using our spreadsheet:

Nayib Bukele yesterday announced he had bought another 150 BTC: El Salvador has now purchased a total of 700 BTC:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob6abf1b10d6b0fbfb.jpeg (https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1439815012642611203?s=20)
https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1439815012642611203?s=20

Let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations.

This is the list of the purchases:
 

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blobcd2dcfc6ee95cc7e.jpeg

As the purchase price has never been disclosed I used the maximum daily price.

El Chivo adoption, after some initial hassle, is now progressing quite well: we are now well above 1,600,000 users, and so probably an equal amount of users.


1.6 MILLION SALVADORANS NOW USING BITCOIN CHIVO WALLET (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/1-million-salvadorans-now-using-bitcoin-chivo-wallet)

The first thing I noticed is that if we multiply the number of users by the 30 USD that were promised to each one of them, probably the government is running a little late on the purchasing program:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob5da38886d2a7bfd5.jpeg

At a minimum, 48,000,000 in BTC would be necessary, while we are at around 36,000,000 only.

In addition to that, the program is still in its "early" stage, as per the total El Salvador Population:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob8a85c9b31c3b422f.png

I don't know if every El Salvadorean citizen is entitled to that 30 USD, newborns included.

There still is a lot to do, this is certain.

Al the above tables and graphs are available on the "El Salvador" sheet, in this thread spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fmYF8ND3lGHeZCzNww8chtiz7ZvbhSAzXOHKPkKDVF8/edit?usp=sharing)

and he also said $30USD and not a fixed amount in BTC. More than likey they have already allocated those funds to the wallet provider to allocated the required BTC on signup.

EDIT: I think it is being held as "Bitcoin Treasury"... Not to be bought and passed to the Citizens via the $30USD redemption.

You do not want to count El Salvador's BTC purchases as a treasury because that balance is part of working capital in regards to Bitcoin's liquidity in El Salvador?  I am having doubts regarding your way of considering such matter, and it seems to me that any company does have the ability to incorporate their bitcoin holdings into their cashflows as needed, even if they state that they do not have a plan for such or they state that their plan is to wait 100 years or some other such hyperbole.  In other words, I see no reason to treat El Salvador differently in terms of their intended BTC treasury usage of their so far acquired BTC (floating balance or whatever) and to just plug them in with the other institutional treasuries. 

El Salvador could not be any worse than some companies who announced that they were getting into bitcoin and then panic sold at the first opportunity in front of them.  We have had a few companies that got in and out of bitcoin in those kinds of circumstances, and even El Salvador's floating balance is likely to prove as stronger hands in that regard.

Relatedly, I remember that El Salvador had initially put something like $150 million into a trust that would be used for BTC liquidity, so do the bitcoin's fall under that trust, too?  Was bitcoin purchased with trust money?



I must be blind.  I could not find El Salvador on that spreadsheet.  Did you put them in a category of their own?  I was wanting to see what you did before I really started to get too emotional (or doubling and tripling down) about my assertion/belief that it is probably better to just lump El Salvador in with the various other institutional holdings, even if their balance might be bouncing around more frequently.. perhaps? perhaps?  (Upon reading further down this thread, it seems that hisslyness is taking a position similar to mine in terms of largely preferring the consideration these so far 700 BTC as part of treasuries)

I don’t exactly where those money comes from, I guess the general budget of the government, i.e. taxes, but what I suspect is that all that money is meant to be spent to buy bitcoin. So not held indefinitely, but bought only to be handed out as an airdrop to El Chivo subscribers.
This is the reason I am not listing as a ”treasury”.
I admit anyway I would like to know more.




I have to study if it is possible to link to a specific cell or not, as currently the share address points to the first sheet in the worksheet. So in the lower list of sheets you should fine one named “El Salvador”.

Thanks for pointing that out.  I was looking at the tab that came up through your earlier referenced link rather than the various other tabs that are available at the bottom of the page through that same spreadsheet, as you mentioned.

Is a football team a "Bitcoin Treasury"?
Apparently, PSV is holding the proceed of their sponsorship from

Dutch Football Club PSV Holds Bitcoin On Its Balance Sheet
 (https://www.bitcoininsider.org/article/127765/dutch-football-club-psv-holds-bitcoin-its-balance-sheet)


I have no clue on the BTC amount, I guess we could soon discover it, but it is an interesting development when they tell they decided not to convert the Bitcoins into FIAT:

Is it?

Yes.




Note: I was going to throw a "possible" in there, but I did not want to be ambiguous.

A football team isn't technically a bitcoin treasury, but if the question is should you include them in your list of entities that are using bitcoin as part of their treasury, I think the answer is yes.  Whether you actively buy bitcoin or are paid in bitcoin and make the decision not to convert to fiat, the end result of each is that you own bitcoin as an asset.  I think that makes it a clear case of using bitcoin as a treasury asset as you set out in your OP.  We just don't know the amount in this case because it hasn't been revealed.

A Few updates on companies hodling Bitcoins.

Let's call it "Bitcoin Treasuries' Update: Miners Edition":

• Marathon Digital Holding:7,035 Bitcoins
  
  Quote
  Produced 340.6 new minted bitcoins during September 2021, increasing total bitcoin holdings to approximately 7,035 with a fair market value of approximately $336.3 million
  Source:
  MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS ANNOUNCES BITCOIN PRODUCTION AND MINING OPERATION UPDATES FOR SEPTEMBER 2021
   (https://ir.marathondh.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1259/marathon-digital-holdings-announces-bitcoin-production-and)
  
• Hut 8 Mining: 4,724 Bitcoins
  
  Quote
  Total Bitcoin balance held in reserve is 4724 as of September 30, 2021.
  Source: Hut 8 Mining Provides Production Update
   (https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/hut-8-mining-provides-production-update-810257756.html)
  
• Riot Blockchain: 3,534 Bitcoins
  
  Quote
  As of September 30, 2021, Riot held approximately 3,534 BTC, all of which were produced by its self-mining operations.
  Source: Riot produces 406 Bitcoins in September 2021
   (https://www.riotblockchain.com/news-media/press-releases/detail/116/riot-blockchain-announces-september-production-and)
  

The spreadsheet has been updated accordingly.

Another bitcoin treasury added to the list:
US PUBLIC PENSION FUND INVESTS IN BITCOIN FOR THE FIRST TIME (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/houston-firefighters-public-pension-fund-purchases-bitcoin)




Adding even a low percentage of bitcoin in an investment portfolio is a rational move: low correlation assets can  lead to reduction in volatility given the expected return, or raise the returns leaving volatility (i.e. risks) unchanged.

Your posting in this thread did remind me of the news that I had heard yesterday or so in regards to Chainanalysis adding bitcoin to its balance sheet, so not sure if that would be within the category of information to either add into your spreadsheet or to monitor if there is a need for further confirmations or more specifics.. The updates to this thread/these kinds of spreadsheets might start to become overwhelming in terms of the number of companies and entities likely to be adding bitcoin to their balance sheets...

Chainalysis adds bitcoin to its balance sheet (https://news.bitcoin.com/chainalysis-adds-bitcoin-to-balance-sheet-first-cryptocurrency-acquisition/)

Do you consider your data to be more up to date than:
 
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/treasuries/

The interface of that website seems to be getting better with the passage of time, but I am not really following any of the specifics.. I was just triggered to come across some of this data (or to remember it) by your posting in this thread from earlier today.

I reckon that website is getting better and better.
I actually started this thread because that website was so awful it put on the same page money vehicle like GBTC ( essentially treasuring clients money, together with Microstrategy, holding their own stash.

I think that website is more closely watched, even if it strangely lacks links to real time stock exchanges (something my spreadsheet does).

I think it's a good idea for companies to buy bitcoin to invest excess cash. But the opposite sounds a bit risky from my point of view. If a company issues treasury as a form of funding, it means that they will receive bitcoins today and have to repay them at a future date. what will happen at the end of this year No. How much BTC do they hold , I feel curious and wait for this until the end of the year of BTC treasury.

Taking a loan in bitcoin is a very risky idea. Every treasury issued debt in fiat and bought BTC with the proceeds. They will eventually payoff their FIT debt with bitcoins, securing huge profits.
Or, at least, this is the idea.

If we look at the part where they list the countries that own BTC, they still claim that Bulgaria owns Bitcoin, and it was officially announced that they sold it in early 2018 - link (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5360967.msg57995536#msg57995536). Also, in my opinion, it is completely incorrect to list Ukraine and Georgia in that category, because those countries have never officially invested in BTC, it is a personal investment of their politicians. I think the data from @fillippone is much better and more reliable.

---

I also have one question for @fillippone, and it’s about EM publicly saying that SpaceX also invested in Bitcoin, but I haven’t found data so far on how much that company has invested in Bitcoin?

As SpaceX is not a listed company, they have little transparency obligations.
I remember both Tesla and SpaceX CFO's taking part in Microstrategy's conference that actually led Tesla's CFO to buy bitcoin. So I have little doubt also SpaceX moved on the same direction. But as I couldn't find any official documents about this, I think it's fair not to include that firm in the list.

Of course, I will be ready to take action in case the will disclose something about it.

Marathon Digital Holding announced their most recent results:

MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS ANNOUNCES BITCOIN PRODUCTION AND MINING OPERATION UPDATES FOR DECEMBER 2021 (https://ir.marathondh.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1273/marathon-digital-holdings-announces-bitcoin-production-and)

For the relevant part in this topic:


Regarding their holding habits:


I don't know it Mara would be a true BTC holder, as roughly of their liquidity pool is only 50% BTC:

I guess a true Bitcoin Treasury would convert all of his stash to BTC, as MSRT did.

Riot got its start from buying Bitcoin that was seized from the US Government.  Interesting to say the least.

Following the seizure of bitcoins coming from the Bitfinex hack, now the DOJ holds a cumulative sum of around 94K bitcoins.

How Much Bitcoin Does the U.S. Government Currently Own? (https://marketrealist.com/p/how-much-bitcoin-does-the-government-own/)



This puts the U.S. government right behind Microstrategy.

https://i.ibb.co/sPdmvV2/59219672.jpg

I bet DOJ conference are less enjoyable than Micheal Saylor’s.

How long those coins will stay in the DOJ wallet before leaving for Bitfinex, a dodgy offshore exchange, has yet to be seen. I guess that, sadly for my “ friend” Ardoino, the issue will take long to be sorted out.

You may be correct that the ultimate destination for the 94K BTC would be to be returned to Bitfinex, and surely, I would hardly characterize them as "dodgy" - even if their history is interesting - including various versions of how they lost those coins in the first place - and their various subsequent actions to stay solvent in spite of such a then situation.

Regarding the time to resolve matter.  I would imagine that DOJ/US Treasurer has a process - and surely, it would seem if they have the clear owners of property (even if the property had been involved), then they would be required to return the property to the rightful owners.. so I suppose part of the "time to resolve matter" issues, would be that they may well have a process that allows claims to be made in regard to the coins, and if such claims are clearly resolved regarding the owners (which may well be Bitfinex in this case), then the clear owners should be able to receive their property back in a relatively timely manner.

Maybe another aspect of any accusation of a crime might be that the two defendants might proclaim that they were the rightful owners of the coins, so there may well have to be some due process involved in sorting through those claims, too.

I'm wondering who is Ardoino?  Did Ardoino hold LEO tokens that would have been the Bitfinex way of formulating the claims to the BTC if the BTC were recovered?  In that regard, if the criminal prosecution does not end up with any claims against the coins, and then if the Govt has to allow for civil claims against the coins, then yeah, it could take several months to several years to resolve.. and I would suspect if the claims are fairly clearly able to be resolved in terms of the coins going back to Bitfinex, then those claims should be resolvable within 6 months, no?  I know it is likely not going to resolve that quickly.. so maybe we should have bets and achieving the resolution of the coins to go to Bitfinex within 18 months might be a reasonable wager timeline?

Regarding Microstrategy and Tesla, I setup a sheets, detailing th e biggest BTC holder, albeit on an indirect manner:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/15/blob2f082ee1f7dd4dc8.png
 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tvcOr3qX01YeNw4cFxqS70bCs0wL9Zb1mvLx8XwHKXU/edit#gid=1253639630&range=A2)


Curiously, there're public hodlers too, some of them we know already: 

https://i.ibb.co/NZ9dZ9X/59265004.png (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tvcOr3qX01YeNw4cFxqS70bCs0wL9Zb1mvLx8XwHKXU/edit#gid=1253639630&range=A2)

I guess the BTC holding is an unconsidered consequence of the equity possession, rather than a deliberate, pondered crypto investment.

An update from Ecoinometrics about Bitcoin Treasuries:


https://i.ibb.co/94CFdp8/FPprjxp-VEAIqpmg.jpg
 (https://mobile.twitter.com/ecoinometrics/status/1511639229624840199)
https://mobile.twitter.com/ecoinometrics/status/1511639229624840199

The only difference between this infographic and my spreadsheet is block.one. I will investigate.

I was pleasantly surprised by the LUNA Foundation's bitcoin purchases . If the hype for bitcoin-backed algorithmic stablecoins starts, Bitcoin Treasuries Holdings could grow in earnest. NEAR is also rumored to want to release something similar. Stablecoin's capitalization has grown to 160 billion in the last 2 years. This is a very progressive market direction.

Also Bitcoin Treasuries Holdings can add to ETF fund stocks if the mass approval of spot ETFs begins.

Luna Foundation Bough another chunk of Bitcoins:

Terra's Luna Foundation Scoops up 4,130 Bitcoin Worth $176 Million (https://news.bitcoin.com/terras-luna-foundation-scoops-up-4130-bitcoin-worth-176-million/)

Of course, everything was noted from the blockchain explorers:
In the following image you see the amount of the wallet growing with the time:

https://i.ibb.co/N1myPmF/59845051.png (http://[https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1q9d4ywgfnd8h43da5tpcxcn6ajv590cg6d3tg6axemvljvt2k76zs50tv4q)

You can see the latest purchases, topping the wallet to 39,000 BTC.

Wallet Michael Sailor
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1FzWLkAahHooV3kzTgyx6qsswXJ6sCXkSR
MicroStrategy Wallet
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1P5ZEDWTKTFGxQjZphgWPQUpe554WKDfHQ
On 2022-07-21, almost all coins were sent from these wallets. What is it for?

I am very sceptical about those wallets' origin.
How can you be sure those are the right wallet? Do you have any source for this?

To me, this smells like bullshit.
Microstrategy is a listed company, and buying or selling bitcoin with their funds is a piece of price-sensitive information that must be made publicly available in a timely manner.
Every time they buy and sell Bitcoins, they must address the SEC and release news.
So I hardly doubt that wallet is really Microstrategy's one.

oxt.me is just as bad, one user one opinion, 100 users 200 opinions.

Anyhow
1FzWLkAahHooV3kzTgyx6qsswXJ6sCXkSR can't be  Saylor's wallet as it was active during the period Saylor still believed BTC was crap, second, there is no way in hell any personal wallet would get in and out 5-25 000 coins from Coinbase like it did these days, it's just one of Coinbase wallets.

1P5ZEDWTKTFGxQjZphgWPQUpe554WKDfHQ started receiving funds in February 2019, against it couldn't be Microstragery who purchased (according to their statements) bitcoins first in August 2020

Second, I would be amazed if both Microstrategy and Saylor would be keeping all their coins in a single address and even if it were a single custodian.


This didn't age well at all, unfortunately...

I wouldn't be so surprised about this.
Microstrategy is doing self-custody.
Less address means fewer private keys to manage and more simplicity.

The Chinese Government is a big Whale, according to this tweet from Ki Young, CryptoQuant co-founder:


https://i.ibb.co/Fxjt2yH/61231832.jpg (https://twitter.com/ki_young_ju/status/1587917712126144512?s=20&t=vdFjKwzA3beJit4OA_OMLg)


This puts the Chinese Government well ahead of Micheal Saylor’s Microstrategy as far as Bitcoin Stash is concerned.

Of course, acquisition reasons are profoundly diverse: Microstrategy willingly bought those bitcoins because of an investment thesis, while the Chinese Government got in possession of those bitcoins as a part of asset seizure from illegal activities (PlusToken Scam, back in 2019).

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1050446/000119312522313098/d398241d8k.htm
"During the period between November 1, 2022 and December 21, 2022, MicroStrategy, through its wholly-owned subsidiary MacroStrategy LLC (“MacroStrategy”), acquired approximately 2,395 bitcoins for approximately $42.8 million in cash, at an average price of approximately $17,871 per bitcoin, inclusive of fees and expenses."

https://cointelegraph.com/news/microstrategy-bitcoin-purchase-divides-the-crypto-community

https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1608086703843180544?
"MicroStrategy has increased its #Bitcoin Holdings by ~2,500 #BTC. As of 12/27/22
@MicroStrategy
 holds ~132,500 bitcoin acquired for ~$4.03 billion at an average price of ~$30,397 per bitcoin. $MSTR"

This is something interesting for us to learn, because it is closely related to the condition of the Bitcoin market. With us being able to know who will enter the Bitcoin market, and how much they will invest, of course this will make the price of Bitcoin grow.
Equally important, we also have to know when they will exit the stock exchange or withdraw their investment. This can also affect the market to drop.
This is something difficult work that you work, I think we need appreciation with work like this. A little suggestion, if you work using MS Excel, you can connect directly between MS Excel and Googlesheet, so you only need to make changes in MS which can automatically change in Googlesheet. But I don't know if you do the same.

Thank you, but no, I work directly in Google sheet. Linking MS Excel would hinder the main reason why I use Google Sheets in the first place: being location/device agnostic.

Do you know that https://bitcointreasuries.org/ had been sold and it's now https://bitcointreasuries.net?
You can take a look https://bitcointreasuries.net to see the spread sheet of different companies both government and private limited treasuries. You will get update data about various holdings so in case of sells or buys .


https://i.ibb.co/M8SXc44/Screenshot-2023-0108-164823.png
https://i.ibb.co/c6X4J3f/Screenshot-2023-0108-164855.png
It contains all available treasuries we need to know.


Wow that is a good move and this would help you to keep records from time to time.
I think China is one of the countries that has the largest holdings in Bitcoin.   



I am very happy to come across this thread because this is an eye opening for those of us that are investors to know how the Bitcoin market had been splitted into different treasuries. This record is necessary for reference and educational purposes.  At least it gives us a broad outlook of the entire market.


I think Google sheet is quite better for me.
I think I will need to keep will these in my reference portfolio in case of necessity.

Thanks for the heads up. Anyway the importance of this thread was do signal the fact that Bitcoin Treasuries do exist and Decisions are mad in order to grow that. Bitcoin is an institutionalised product nowadays, and the market correlation it exhibit with Nasdaq is a proof of that.

Tether recently released its latest financial statement. An interesting fact was reported from Cryptoslate:
Tether attestation shows $1.5B worth of Bitcoin in reserves (https://cryptoslate.com/tether-attestation-shows-it-has-1-5b-worth-of-bitcoin-in-reserves)

Tether, is hodling Bitcoin and Gold against their USDt liabilities. Tether is holding bitcoin for 1.5 Billion, or 2% reserves, and gold for roughly double the amount.
It is compelling to notice they are holding a non-yield bearing asset in the high-rate environment.
They could invest all their reserves in Treasury bills which could yield a little less than one billion alone. (considering a 4.8 rate for a 1-year horizon.
They instead bought Gold and Bitcoin, whose nominal yield is close to zero percent.

hahahahaha

thanks for pointing out that "yield" angle.

Not everyone (or business) is tempted by having to get yield on their holdings in order to attempt to preserve their wealth, and surely many of us likely realize that some of the yield products have their various kinds of risk, and maybe there might be some justification to keep some value in the yield products - but also realizing that there is risk - even USGovt products... and even with the UPs and downs of something like bitcoin, many of us have also seen that there are some days (short-periods of time) that you just need to "already be in it" when it might go on some kind of an UPpity rip and fail/refuse to come back down to the price point in which it had started such rip... and of course, future UPpity rips are not guaranteed, even if they have historically happened on quite a few occasions in bitcoinlandia....

... so would it matter if you are in some kind of a "yield" product when the bitcoin rip ends up happening (if it happens?) when the yield might be paying a relatively high amount in dollars, but the dollar is devaluating so fast that the rip ends up showing the yield as the likely little dwarf that it is, relatively speaking.

No one is going to say how much each of us (whether an individual or an institution or a government for that matter) should attempt to keep allocated in various kind of asset classes or how much we should be considering "yield" when comparing products, so each of us has to attempt to figure out those allocations for ourselves, and then let the chips lie where they will when several years play out in which there may well have appeared to have been some great short term measurements on some products, but then how did the various products perform, relatively speaking, on a longer timeline?..

.. many of us might have recalled many of the bullshit correlation-related talking points that were being thrown around in around March 2020 about bitcoin failing/refusing to perform as an "inflation hedge" or a store of value.. and yeah there can be some opportunistically ways to make those kinds of measures (and the talking points stay in people's heads too), and yet do the measures and talking points measure up to longer term reality in which so many folks who had been accumulating BTC at sub $10k price points at any point between mid-2018 and late 2020.. have seemed to have had built up a pretty decent solid base for their cost of bitcoin as compared to how other various asset classes have performed over the same period of time... and yeah, the jury is still out in terms of where bitcoin might be going from here as compared to other places that any of us (whether individual, institution or government) might choose to keep our value and how much do we feel that we "need to be" in yield bearing products as compared to sound money products... gold? who knows about gold? but still.. having that non-yield bearing bitcoin on the side does not seem to be a bad thing for those folks who are able to figure out how to accumulate it and feel comfortable in their having had secured it.. even if it might be in a place that cost money to store or does not bear yield.

Well, when I see the Tether balance sheet I cannot avoid thinking that all those profits are nothing else someone else's loss. In this case Tehter is ripping of their own user base of their credit risk reward. Lending your federal coin to the US yields 4.5%. Lending your shitcoin to Tether Inc. yields 0%. So this 4.5% is captured by Tether itself!

Gosh, I don't know fillippone.  We seem to be looking at this from a different kind of a perspective, and it is not like either one of us is necessarily wrong, but just coming at the issue from a different angle .. and I am not even sure how useful a seemingly kind of conspiratorial approach (that you seem to be angling) is very helpful in terms of Tether to be playing some kind of zero sum game with their customers, and it seems to me that "so far" Tether has been amongst the best of "stable" coins in terms of being able to ongoingly and persistently achieve objectives of retaining a pretty stable peg to the dollar, so in some sense, it seems to me that their main job would be to make sure that they have sufficient assets in reserve to maintain their peg and to be able to sustain any attacks that might come upon their peg or even liquidity attacks or even other ways that sometimes there might be inconsistencies in the market or even where $800 million of their money gets taken by a company in Panama (perhaps facilitated by the USA) which seems to have been something that happened to them around 2016 or so.


... so yeah don't lose client money or rug pull clients would be important, and whether Tether might be making money (or yield) in any kind of way seems to hardly be an issue... because they also have expenses to operate and likely deserve to have various kinds of profits if they are able to accomplish profits without taking it from their clients or engaging in unlawful or unethical behaviors.

I would imagine that their clients have a variety of reasons that they might be in tether, either temporarily or in longer term bases, and it seems that tether is not designed to produce yield or to incentivize deposits by advertising yield, because if they were to offer yield then maybe they would end up devolving into some shitcoin or unstable asset or some kind of ponzi scheme like a variety of their emulator copy cat coins that try to act like they have reserves and they do not.. .. and there is no real evidence that Tether has not been maintaining reserves, even if they might not have had all of their reserves held in the same kinds of assets, and I don't see any reason for their not attempting to make sure that the value that they hold is potentially earning yield for them in a variety of ways  - even though of course, your initial post had to do with a certain quantity of Tether's reserves remaining in non-yield bearing assets - bitcoin and gold.. and surely I thought that you might have had been wanting to make another point in regards to the sound money (and diversification ideas) rather than maybe your suggestion that "maybe Tether should share some of its yield with customers?"... to the extent that might have been what you were suggesting.. hahahahahaha?  sounds kind of like something a Tether hater would proclaim, since there have been claims that Tether is going to zero and Tether is insolvent and blah blah blah since at least 2015-ish and I recall the Tether is a scam arguments being made before the Panama bank (perhaps backed by the USA government) took Tether's fund so that the USA government could proclaim that Tether was not sufficiently solvent and/or backed by dollars (that had just been taken from them) blah blah blah.

Tether is going to be the biggest Bitcoin treasury (soon)

Tether to invest up to 15% of its profits in bitcoin (https://www.theblock.co/post/231156/tether-bitcoin-investments-profits)