Bitcoin Forum

https://talkimg.com/images/2025/04/24/U2GvdH.jpeg (http://xxi.money)

21 Capital is a newly formed Bitcoin-focused investment company founded and backed by Tether, Cantor Fitzgerald, and SoftBank Group. Jack Mallers will serve as CEO

https://talkimg.com/images/2025/04/24/U2GfhI.jpeg (https://x.com/jackmallers/status/1915399337913290867?s=46&t=ybCp3ydjDJA_wR_uVxrEgA)

More information and a detailed description of the process that will lead to the creation of 21 Capital can be found in the official statement by Cantor:

Tether, SoftBank Group, and Jack Mallers Launch Twenty One, a Bitcoin-native Company, Through a Business Combination With Cantor Equity Partners (https://www.cantor.com/tether-softbank-group-and-jack-mallers-launch-twenty-one-a-bitcoin-native-company-through-a-business-combination-with-cantor-equity-partners/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CMarkets%20need%20reliable%20money%20to,built%20by%20Bitcoiners%2C%20for%20Bitcoiners)

The funding structure of 21 Capital is structured as follows:

• Tether up about $1.6 billion in Bitcoin
• SoftBank  about $0.9 billion in Bitcoin
• Bitfinex about $0.6 billion in Bitcoin​
• Cantor Equity Partner about $0.2  billion in Equity
• Cantor Equity Partner about $0.585  billion in pledged investments
  
  • 385 Millions Senior Secured convertible Notes
  • 200 Millions Equity PIPE

With a planned public listing via a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC) and over 42,000 BTC (worth roughly $3.6 billion) committed at launch, 21 Capital would immediately rank third among the largest corporate holders of Bitcoin.

Initially, the corporate valuation would be pegged at the treasury valuation. This represent a solid discount if compared to Strategy, which trades at 2x the value.

https://talkimg.com/images/2025/04/24/U2GYzg.jpeg

21 Capital aims to emulate and even rival the success of Strategy, formerly known as “MicroStrategy”) by accumulating Bitcoin as a primary treasury.

KPI will be similar to the one tracked by Strategy
21 Capital will have some advantage over Strategy:

https://talkimg.com/images/2025/04/24/U2GVm5.jpeg (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1865602/000121390025034374/ea023922201ex99-2_cantor.htm)

At the moment 21 Capital is still incorporated in Cantor Equity Partner.
Nice trading over the last sessions:

https://talkimg.com/images/2025/04/24/U2Gyld.png

I have to discover more.


Strategy has almost the same KPI: the meaning of this is that the key success metrics will be Bitcoin denominated. Once again, the target of the investment is increasing the number of satoshis per shares, offering a positive Bitcoin Yield, something that is already a market practice in Hedge Funds investing in Bitcoin.

Also, the set of instruments by 21 Capital to attain this result will be similar to Strategy's one:


21 Capital will use a combination of debt and equity instruments to finance the buying of bitcoin. The press release covers only the initial offerings, but I have no reason to doubt that the recipe will be repeated frequently, as Strategy has done after their initial purchase.

• Debt: Convertible Senior Secured Notes.
  Convertible Senior Secured Notes are a type of debt instrument, combining features of debt and equity securities.
  
  • Convertible
    Convertible notes can be exchanged (converted) into a specified number of shares of the issuer's common stock, a predetermined price or conversion rate. Investors have the option, to convert their debt into equity, usually when the company's stock price rises above a certain level. When it happens, the capital returned to investors exceeds the one they subscribe to the notes.  Convertibility gives investors potential participation in the company's growth through equity.
  • Senior
    "Senior" means these notes rank higher than subordinated debt or equity in the company's capital structure. If the company faces bankruptcy or liquidation, senior debt holders have a higher priority for repayment compared to junior (subordinated) creditors (Shareholders have an even lower priority). Seniority reduces investor risk, thus reducing the issuer's debt cost.
  • Secured
    Secured notes are backed by collateral or specific assets of the issuing company. In case of default, investors holding secured notes have claims against these pledged assets, which increases their chances of recovering their investment. In this case, the notes are secured by the Bitcoin resulting from the buy with the proceeds. Again, together with Seniority, this reduces the risk of the debt for the investor and the cost for the issuer.
    
    

• Equity: PIPE Offerings
  A PIPE Offering (Private Investment in Public Equity) is a financing arrangement in which institutional investors (accredited investors, banks, or hedge funds) directly purchase shares from a publicly traded company at a negotiated price.
  In essence, these are private placements: the shares are sold privately without initial public offering registration or wide public marketing to raise capital quickly with less regulation than traditional public offerings.
  

---

I am travelling as it it holiday in Italy.
I will have little or no time in the coming days to write this article, but this is too important not to be tracked. I will write this on my mobile. Trying to organise all the material. This will be a different animal from my "research first",  write later long forms.
Keep the OP under review, as it will be constantly updated.

A competitor for Strategy after all  ;D
Interesting to see Tether, which was always quoted as the next to fall, being a giant and extremely profitable company

Could it be that in a few weeks or months we'll see posts from Strategy saying they've bought a few million BTC and then XXI also posting that they've bought a few million more?

It could be a very influential company for BTC, especially with Tether and Jack Mallers

First of all congratulations on starting to invest in 21 Capital Bitcoin native company. This Bitcoin native company will provide various avenues for investors, such as Bitcoin exposure, pro-Bitcoin advocacy, etc. From what I've read, this company will start with around 42,000 plus Bitcoins initially, perhaps making it the third largest Bitcoin treasury. @HODL15Capital (https://x.com/HODL15Capital?t=BsPSO8ayXaVNLbrwmRYlzw&s=09) Twitter regularly publishes a list of the top 75 Bitcoin investing companies and we may soon see the names of 21 Bitcoin company.

This company's primary three presentation key slides,

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/04/25/U2MZxI.jpeg

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/04/25/U2MCPd.jpeg

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/04/25/U2MQj5.jpeg (https://x.com/HODL15Capital/status/1915077097870999906?t=im_Ddq5aZ9PLL024sgm-og&s=19)

This one is actually solid for an investment, basically discounted MSTR but better.

I wonder if this gonna cause people to rotate from MSTR eventually.

Bitcoin's future and potential growth just keep getting brighter and brighter with all these undeniably.

First I wanna say here is that the Beat The Denominator is the best Youtube channel providing information about these bitcoin proxies.


Are you sure about that? I think that if someone buys at that price it will be institutional investors who will have already agreed to buy at that price for the launch. I doubt that the general public is going to have that opportunity and even less seeing how CEP stock has behaved recently, of which XXI will be a merge.

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/04/25/U2MoCW.png

You talk about this yourself but it doesn't quite square that the stock is going up pre-merge with there not going to be premium on NAV at launch, especially for the general public.


I would not take this for granted, it seems to me more marketing than anything else and in this sense I would recommend watching Beat The Denominator's video about it.

MSTR vs. XXI (CEP): Is XXI Really Better than MSTR? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXrI2SfWIug)

OP updated with few information about the structures used by 21 Capital to raise the capital needed to buy bitcoins.

The key play here will be the NAV multiplier: who will have the lower multiplier will be winner, amongst Strategy and 21 Capital.

It is commendable because despite the challenges they managed to keep going and even get themselves improving. It is not like they are crashing down as of the moment but it is known that they are battling some regulations especially in the EU which everyone thought would affect them badly but it seems like they were able to move past it.
It will not be a surprise. We knew this would happen so we should really not doubt any more further and keep accumulating bitcoin.

That infographic forgot to mention the fact that Strategy has a massive 540k BTC advantage over this company that just started. So if they want to frontrun Strategy they have a ton of buying to do, and guess what, the more other companies buy in order to overtake Strategy's leading position, the more Strategy will benefit since their BTC holdings go up, and the more convertible bonds and ATM they can do to buy more BTC and so follows. So MSTR is positioned to stay a leader, unless some Massive buying starts, and they would also prove to be able to survive an entire bear market as Saylor already did without blowing up. In fact Strategy's asset to liabilities ratio now are better than ever. So I think this is a all horses win race here, where it doesn't matter since BTC will go up and these companies will benefit, but I just don't see XXI surpassing MSTR as the leader in BTC proxies.

The senior loan is quite a subordinate to the secured debt because the lender has no lien - a claim to the company assets, which isn't meant to be so. I wouldn't consider it a senior debt if it's insecure, and places investors in a lesser 'siniority' in the company's capital structure. The Secured debt should rather be rephrased as the Senior loan, and the other first 'senior loan' as subordinate. Because a senior loan with collateral (it wasn't specified, I assume that the senior debt in 21 capital has no collateral) is no different with the secured debt explaination you have here. However, I have a question - preferred stock is it in pari passu with secured loan?

Here the doubt I have is whether the initial offering of shares will be made via PIPE, therefore not accessible to the general public, or not. I am pretty sure of the former as it would be very rare that with the expectation that is being created and the growth of CEP's share price that the public is given the opportunity to buy so cheaply, without premium over NAV.

In any case I think the competition is good, and a Mallers vs Saylor won't hurt the rest of us.


No, they haven't forgotten, I think they are doing pure marketing which is even a bit misleading. On the one hand it is true that by starting with much less bitcoins, XXI will potentially be able to grow the BPS much more than Strategy, which we think that by having more than half a million bitcoins, if it wants to double the BPS it will have to acquire another half a million bitcoins. While XXI is more likely to make an X10 in BPS, what they don't mention is that each bitcoin they buy adds buying pressure and will potentially increase the dollar price of the bitcoins that Strategy already has (and the rest of us).

As the video I mentioned in my previous comment said, I think they have it wrong. This should not be a game in which if XXI succeeds Strategy loses, on the contrary, the more people buy bitcoin the more we benefit the rest, and in this case it is the same, the more companies buy bitcoin the more Strategy benefits and everyone who has bitcoin.

Strategy Stock Could Climb as New Rival Twenty One Validates Its Bitcoin Strategy
TD Cowen says launch of Twenty One could shift institutional sentiment and validate MSTR’s long-term bitcoin strategy.

TD Cowen says Twenty One’s bitcoin-focused structure echoes Strategy’s and affirms its treasury strategy.
It called it the most significant validation yet of MSTR’s bitcoin treasury model.
The analysts maintained a $550 price target for MSTR and projected $129B in bitcoin holdings by the end of 2027.
Michael Saylor's bitcoin buying strategy had both believers and skeptics. But a new rival just emerged, already holding nearly $4 billion BTC on its balance sheet—and it's a bullish sign, according to at least one Wall Street analyst.

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/04/24/strategy-stock-could-climb-as-new-rival-twenty-one-validates-its-bitcoin-strategy

---

Since Saylor has been notified of Twenty One Company as a competitor, let's see how long it can last in competition with Michael Saylor. Saylor is an experienced Bitcoin holder who has been buying and holding Bitcoin for a long time, but of course, the difference between the two companies will ultimately be noticeable in the case of Bitcoin purchases.

Tether is the main orchestrator behind this operation.
Just remember that Cantor holds a lot of their Treasuries, so their interest is pretty aligned.
With this move with some reputable tradfi players, Ardoino is trying to access Wall Street, something that wasn’t in the cards until a few months ago for an offshore company.
More on that later.

I have doubts it's so simple, but I may be wrong on this.

My understanding is: Strategy is benefitting currently that it caters to a market of -- primarily institutional -- investors who want exposure to Bitcoin but has no other means to invest in it as they need fixed-income financial products. This market has limited demand, as all other potential investors can get exposure cheaper by 1) buying BTC, or 2) even by buying ETFs and leveraged ETF products.

If this market now gets a new player, assuming the demand for these financial products stays the same, the demand for MSTR should weaken at least a little bit. This would lead into the premium erode over time. While this also makes the MSTR product less risky it also reduces its volatility, and volatility is one of the primary ingredients of MSTR-style business models due to the importance of "gamma trading" (see this FT article (https://www.ft.com/content/738546c5-a3f8-4d2a-ad49-ec1627dea1f7)). In general it could make MSTR's product less attractive over time, which may eventually lead to decreasing income of the company.

Of course it is possible that the appearance of a second big competitor could also lead to more demand for their products, and thus indirectly for BTC, because those who doubt get a "confirmation" that this business model is viable, as @Popkon6 wrote, and also because of their initially more beneficial terms for investors. I also think that one single competitor more (in this case XXI) would probably not put the MSTR model in danger. But anyway I think the demand for these products is still limited because of ETFs and BTC itself as "competitors", and it may be difficult to accomodate more players without harming the business model.

Am I understanding something wrong? I had also discussions in the Spanish forum about a related issue.

Nice summary Their Bitcoin-per-Share and Bitcoin Return Rate metrics mirror MicroStrategy but come with a SPAC discount. I’d love to see more public firms adopt this model. As each new buyer tightens liquid supply, it will help fuel the next bull run

Yes it's wrong the basis of your reasoning.



The statement is provided by Google AI using this article  (https://fintel.io/so/us/mstr)as source.

I am editing to add this information here:


Source is again google AI with this article as main source:

Retail investors own a significant portion of MicroStrategy (MSTR) stock, with estimates ranging from 47% to 59.30%. This indicates that a large number of individual investors hold MSTR shares (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microstrategy-incorporated-nasdaq-mstr-most-130025198.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGujUOJ-WddRWqWk31qMyDsMAXQbbURXIDusyuJsuVIeP-4xW9FnLp9WLqQsDgq0ECilWq3ylst_oGcyfV3W4cxjWLMxAmMwxZ2K8vv-KllTDjqqe8JusuRPTbzuXw3QUzNOSEQ5dMUvnAts2_eZqU0HAVodKXMdfK12LTcK07Iu)


Wrong assumption again. Why should it stay the same? Has the bitcoin demand stated the same over the years?

A pleasure to debate with you even though we often have conflicting opinions, but starting from two premises that in my opinion are incorrect I will not comment further on what you have said.

What I was coming to comment is the embarrassment I felt for the first time when I saw Mallers presenting XXI.

Jack Mallers Launches XXI, A Strategy Competitor (Full Video Announcement Included)  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZOInEv26y4)

At the beginning of the video he kept repeating the concept of Bitcoin per Share, which he has not invented but seems to want to attribute and more towards the end he repeated dozens of times the word bitcoin, in a more tiresome way that I have not even seen the last minutes.

I was considering buying some shares of XXI Capital, depending on the price and to diversify what I have of MSTR but if it is for that presentation I do not buy any. Now everything is going to depend on the price when it is available to the public and the premium over NAV.


The problem with this is that they want to claim the concept of BPS, which is false. The BRR I believe is new. And as I've said before, I highly doubt the discounted stock is available to the general public. In the OP (edited) I think that is implied with the PIPE offering.

Tether is the big player in this industry and with their treasury engages bigger to US. bond market, it can make Bitcoin and cryptocurrency companies and investors feel safer.

Though there are more reports and better transparency with time, Tether and their USDT minting are still something vague, shady and there are risk of address and fund freeze by Tether company through smart contracts.

Tether minted more USDT. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5479450.0)
PSA: Most Stablecoins Can Be Frozen, Even in Your Own Wallets (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204055.0)
USDT banned addresses with total 1,434,061,573 USDT in those banned addresses.
https://dune.com/phabc/usdt---banned-addresses

A latest audits report. (https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/6L2yLNnLltcCP6ZcTxJrll/aea0ec279fea08637445c8be57f63d87/ISAE_3000R_-_Opinion_on_Tether_Consolidated_Financials_Figures_31.12.2024.pdf)

Thanks for the stats. My source was an article on investing.com (https://www.investing.com/analysis/microstrategys-bitcoin-strategy-is-riskier-than-you-think-200655151) which was skeptical about MSTR's prospects. They didn't claim that institutionals were the majority of the investors, but that a sub-group of institutionals depending on fixed-income products seem to be important for the company's business model because they can't access to other (cheaper) means to gain exposure to BTC, so MSTR has (had) a monopoly in that field.

The crucial question remains: Who should buy MSTR shares if 1) one can buy Bitcoin directly and 2) one can buy ETFs if you want a leveraged exposure or don't have access to BTC spot, if both of these options are cheaper than MSTR regarding the risk premium? 21 Capital should have the same problem. The only really important reason I can see is indeed volatility just due to the risk premium, but you could simply increase your leverage on ETFs.

Here's a cite from that article:


I have seen also justifications for the premium based on the assumption that MSTR could lend the BTC or enter "staking" agreements, i.e. "make their BTC work" to generate income, but I think the potential income from that source is probably limited. And Google's AI states that they currently do not lend out their BTC (source from late 2024, though).

Regarding the second assumption:

I clarified that further down in the previous post. The assumption that demand stays the same is important for projections involving other variables, before you start speculating on demand evolution.

Demand can of course increase due to a lot of factors. But it is then because a new competitor enters? It is possible, because both players (MSTR and 21 Capital) will intensify their marketing activity due to increased competition, and in addition 21 Capital could offer some terms which cater to those who have doubts about MSTR's terms or simply don't like Saylor, for example. But I think these effects are probably relatively small, above all if one again thinks about the question above: who's exactly the intended public?

The comparison with Bitcoin demand here doesn't make sense in this context because the Bitcoin (circulating/total) supply is predictable. The focus of my post was the influence of the market entry of 21 Capital, not some other factors which could influence demand.

BRR is nothing more than the Bitcoin Yield in Strategy jargon. Ideally, it is a little bit more sophisticated, as the BTC Yield is a very approximate return index.
As far as PIPE is concerned, while I am pretty sure the initial offering was made at 10 USD per share, looking at the current price of CEP (30 USD, roughly), even if they accept you in the PIPE (where "you" is a generic accredited investor, most likely someone willing to put north of 50 million on the table), I highly doubt you would be allowed to, but at 10 USD per share, 25 USD more realistically.

Indeed as I pointed this is a all horses win type of race, anyone holding Bitcoin will benefit, but at the end of the day they are private companies competing against each other. MSTR has the massive headstart, and as XXI buys more BTC, MSTR becomes more powerful because of that. Michael Saylor frontrunned everyone. This doesn't mean XXI cannot be acreetive to their shareholders, is just that I would prefer to hold MSTR if I wanted a BTC proxy with some leverage because of their successful track record and massive stack.

We know that those derivative products are for institutional investors with huge capital and ignore a fact that small investors can not access those products, big games like this are both new fuels and catalysts for the Bitcoin Snowball.

If we are small inestors with available small capital, we can simply purchase bitcoin by ourselves, buy a hardware wallet and store bitcoin by ourselves too. This way we are controlling our Bitcoin private keys and actually own bitcoins.

They are institutional investors but they won't own any private keys but let's they choose it if they like. The Bitcoin snowball was already kicked off and it won't stop.

If you buy MSTR, beside the leveraged BTC product, you are buying the biggest BTC holder with a corporate infraestructure and free cash flows from being index funds bought all over the world. They have the possibility of becoming the world's biggest Bitcoin bank in the future. It's the nationality of what being the #1 holder gives the company to do things. The best investments are usually monopolies. And MSTR is a monopoly because they simply were there first and took the risk, they are not shady monopolies like Google or Facebook which constantly try to screw up competition. Saylor is doing the opposite, he is teaching competition how to replicate their model if they want. It's all open sourced.

Yes, that's more or less in line from what I read that in the future they could lend or "stake" their Bitcoins (ETFs can't do that, to my knowledge; some ETP however can). But would that be enough to justify such a high premium?

Apart from that we could also question if having big "Bitcoin banks" is desirable or even viable, if Bitcoin was made and provides features to reduce the importance of banks (and bailouts, see genesis block).

Of course for the question I'm asking here Satoshi's ideology doesn't matter, what does matter is the commercial viability of a "Big Bitcoin Bank". But would people need Bitcoin banks and pay fees for their services? Maybe for some use case where Bitcoin credits make sense, but would they need big banks, i.e. centralization? We talk all the time about decentralization, so would people continue to support Strategy also in the future just because they're "the biggest one"? Or would that business model eventually erode?

I agree that a part of the investments in MSTR probably was attracted because the business model was unique and that in fact they were a monopoly.

But now we return to the topic of the thread: they aren't alone now, 21 Capital is one of the first of a potential larger group of competitors. So the "monopoly bonus" doesn't apply already. There's still a first mover advantage for MSTR. But in the banking sector for example, the oldest banks aren't necessarily the biggest banks, so they can't rely on that in the future.

I guess that once the market has been more populated we would see smaller premiums, and that means that the earlier investors would tend to lose money in comparison to direct BTC investments or leveraged ETF exposure.

Due to the bitcoin yield. MSTR gave a 74% bitcoin yield on 2024 and a 14% this year so far. If I bought 1 bitcoin or 1 bitcoin through an ETF a year ago now I have 1 bitcoin and in a year I'll have 1 bitcoin whereas if I spent the same money on MSTR at 2 NAV premium I almost have 1 bitcoin exposure now and will have much more than one bitcoin in a couple of years.


Comparing leverage on ETF to be able to borrow billions of dollars at 0% with no margin call is like comparing an elephant to a mosquito.


So what if the supply is predictable. What MSTR has demonstrated with facts is that it has created products that no one could even imagine a few years ago and that it has a growing demand for them, such as bitcoin bonds, which are the most profitable in the entire bond market. To think that demand is going to remain fixed when it has not stopped increasing is an unjustified assumption. And the fact that bitcoin has a predictable supply has nothing to do with it, Litecoin also has a predictable supply and its demand has not increased.

One of the main sources in the Microstrategy business is the convertible bond trading community.
Michael Saylor has been riding the volatility of his stock to sell a lot of volatility to the hedge fund community, which bought the cheap convertible bonds, selling the shares (or better, selling bitcoin) and gaining when volatility in MSTR price goes up (and the multiplier grows).
This is why Michael Saylor has been quite profitable in selling very low-priced debt and keeping his debt costs low. Selling volatility to institutional investors, operating in a delta neutral way.

I was talking about buying ETFs in a leveraged manner in that sentence, i.e. via call options.

What is exactly the advantage for the investor? These billions are only invested in BTC.

Maybe I expressed my point in a wrong way. I was comparing the market entry of 21 Capital, a "supplier increase" in the "bitcoin bond" market, and its influence on MSTR and the market in comparison to the steady, but diminishing increase of Bitcoin's supply.

I think it's quite a trivial effect I want to describe ... Let's have a simplified example: let's speculate that demand for MSTR-like bonds increases 10% per year, and that 21 Capital achieves an 20% market share (regarding income via bonds) after a year. That means that after a year, MSTR has lost 10% of its income via bonds, in comparison to the starting point of our comparison. Thus, if the competitors itself do not bring additional demand into the market, the original monopolist suffers. I don't know why this simple principle should not be valid for this particular market too.

We can of course speculate that the demand increase for these bonds is higher than 10%, and thus both competitors win. But as a monopolist, MSTR could have achieved a higher growth.

The market entry of 21 Capital does not per se increase the demand for Bitcoins, because 21 Capital competes with MSTR's demand, the ETF's/ETP's demand, and even the demand on the BTC spot market (and a lot of informal products like "BTC staking" offered on Bitcoin exchanges). It only increases demand for BTC if it doesn't take market share from these existing "suppliers" away, i.e. if it is able to convince new investors which wouldn't have invested neither in MSTR, nor in ETFs, nor in BTC directly.

The point about the predictable Bitcoin supply was a bit misleading perhaps, let's just ignore it, it isn't important for my point.

The fact that there is no margin call, no risk of liquidation (or if you prefer a risk so low that is extremely unlikely, especially compared to a leveraged position in an ETF, that can be margin called).


Given the success that MSTR has had with this product, it is not incompatible for me that demand will continue to grow even if XXI goes on to offer a similar product, as it offers security, which is what a bondholder is looking for, as well as the highest yield in the entire bond market, which is why demand has not stopped increasing.

At Twenty One, our mission is simple: grow Bitcoin per share (BPS).
We’re not here to beat the market, we’re here to build a new one.
We measure success in #Bitcoin, not fiat.

 Source and video link https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/04/30/U21Qn8.jpeg (https://x.com/jackmallers/status/1915871168201961806?t=zvr4Os4Mj8mr6IVRFp-flw&s=19)

Tether was always quoted as the next to fall because Tether is a privately owned company, their audits are questionable and there is a big chance that USDT isn't as backed as they claim. To say on the other hand, 1 USDT is not 1 USD and if there is a sudden spike in demand, tether might be the next to fall but it doesn't mean that thether isn't profitable or can't be profitable and to be honest, this decision of theirs is very wise and beneficial for strengthening the company.

Didn't MicroStrategy face a liquidation risk in 2022 when Bitcoin sharply fall? It was very close to liquidation if I remember correctly but I might be wrong because I didn't pay too much attention to this fact.

Nearly since they experience losses before due to market downturns https://coinpedia.org/news/will-microstrategy-liquidate-its-bitcoin-holdings-if-btc-price-drops-to-12k/

Many people thought that they get dissolve when that situation occurs, but Microstrategy manage to survive and their belief on Bitcoin bring them on where they are right now. if this situation happen to other company for sure they already file a bankruptcy. So let see if 21 Capital could also do what Microstrategy done and they have the same level of belief and understanding since if they don't know how to handle well the situation maybe they are the first one will get dissolve.

I think this is the mayor hurle for 21 Capital.

Currently i see two weakness in 21 Capital:

• Higher entry price in Bitcoin: the market can test the "pain level" of 21 Capital, much quicker and easily than Strategy's one. They will eventually do that. Bear in mind the 85K level.
• Commitment: Saylor said he would never sell any bitcoin and would take his stash to his grave. 21 Capital is a sum of different players; hence, agendas could diverge sooner or later.
  

I agree with you. MicroStrategy has crossed the ocean in the face of adversity, and the way they are buying Bitcoin makes it clear that their goals and foundation are very strong.
It is not yet clear whether 21 Capital will be able to withstand the waves of the river and cross over. How strong their goals and foundation are has not yet been proven. It is very important that 21 Capital highlights two of its main weaknesses. From my perspective, if 21 Capital really wants to be a bitcoin native company, they need to take care of these three things properly, unity, patience and transparency, otherwise there will be no profit in accumulating bitcoin.
This is my wish for 21 Capital to overcome all obstacles and develop into a bitcoin native company.

I don't know who satoshi was, but Hal Finney was a solid proponent and in case someone that was in constant conversation with satoshi. It was predicted decades ago by Hal Finney how this Bitcoin bank model could be useful in the future, where you would have a free market of interest rates by banks.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211

I made a thread about this discussing this topic:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5529621.msg65044294

As far as why people should or not should invest in MSTR. Well that comes down to personal preference. Of course holding your own BTC will always give you more control over your money, but there will always be businesses and people trying to come up with ways to beat the market. This is like claiming people should not invest in MAG7 companies because it's already very centralized there. People will invest in whatever they think will return the most on their investment. If they can predict MSTR will continue to outperform BTC, they will keep investing. There will always be people that want a BTC proxy because they don't trust themselves with holding the keys and they may trust Saylor's team above Blackrock and so this could be an ETF alternative with some extra perks. It's a free market after all. And in any case, the concept of Bitcoin banks would be very different from regular banks. I would personally own both, have a BTC stack and then have some MSTR proxies for better liquidity. You can buy and sell millions worth of MSTR shares at any moment, but BTC is very cumbersome to deal with banks as you need audits and so on.

I don't claim to be an expert, yet Tether's supposed insolvency has been quite exaggerated, and they have made it through a variety of attacks, while still remaining amongst the most profitable companies in the world.  Even their level of supposed "non-backing" has been questionable at best.  Many of us probably recall their getting robbed $800 million or more by one two of their custodians in Panama, while at the same time they were being attacked by NY prosecutors - resulting in some settlement agreements.  They also switched over to being backed by assets that were other than dollars (such as corporate papers, and they were criticized for that, and in the last several years they have been buying a lot of bitcoin for their corporate treasuries but also various kinds of US T-bills (mostly short term, I believe).


MSTR's being close to being liquidated was also greatly exaggerated.  They had some loans that were collateralized and when the BTC price was in the upper $30ks, they mentioned that they would have to add more collateral if the BTC price went below $22k or something like that, and so when the BTC price went below $22k, they added more collateral, which they then proclaimed that the BTC price would have to go below $3,200-ish before they would have to add more collateral to some of their then outstanding loans.... including that they ended up having to renegotiate and to pay off Silvergate loan terms when Slivergate was being attacked by USA regulators, which certainly caused them to question the extent to which to use BTC as collateral in future debt arrangements.  Even though MSTR's costs per BTC were in the $30ks while the BTC prices were in the $15ks, I think that the closeness of their being liquidated was overly exaggerated, and more of a fantasy of the bitcoin and MSTR naysayers rather than a reality.

MSTR's current set up does not use collateral, so they would be hard-pressed to get into issues of being liquidated based on BTC price drops, yet surely their recently setting up bitcoin-related yield instruments, in which the bitcoin is paid in dollars, these could be problematic towards causing them to continue to have to pay such yield, even during periods in which BTC prices might be quite low.

I personally have been ongoingly concerned about whatever custodial relations that they have, and surely I have my own doubts about if Coinbase has the coins that they claim to have, and I have my doubts about Coinbase's solvency and/or their abilities to manage money well.. since they have been shitcoiners for a long time and for years they have also been engaged in various attacks on bitcoin, yet MSTR supposedly custodies its coins in a few different places..

I don't see tether falling in anyway since it rated as one of best assets with the highest transactions rate because of it's low fee even more than Bitcoin.

It's interesting to now constantly talk about the newly emerge institutions to compete with both microstrategy and Metaplanet investment companies,

Absolutely, MSTR has been in the game, and let's watch how XXI will try as much as possible to surpassed the already existing institutions,

Anyways, let's watch ;)

MSTR is in good standings with reasonable asset to liability ratios and the leverage is indeed underleveraged according to some. This is from a month ago but relevant:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoRe86obcAADb7I?format=jpg&name=medi

I think Saylor said they are cranking up leverage again after they did the last ATM round, we will see updates on earnings on this plan.

So basically BTC would need to dump below $15k to see real stress for MSTR, and they would still have ways to manage that. Yields for STRK would be adjusted to the situation. Converts have good timing and have enough time for BTC to run to get to the target goals. I think eventually the FED will cut rates and even go back to ZIRP, this may cause some turbulence but here MSTR will be able to get more debt at even cheaper rates. I wonder if we will see 0%'s again. And we will see BTC run bigly after that as it is the ultimate liquidity sponge. MSTR just must survive the turbulent times and in the end it will outperform every stock again.

Well, relatively speaking. Most bitcoins have been bought by MSTR in the last 6 months, and their average acquisition price is already at $66K. Depending on the buying war going on between the two companies the difference in average acquisition price may not be very significant. MSTR has an advantage, though, obviously.

Regarding the latter, by diluting the stock so much, Saylor has had less than 50% voting rights for some months now, and the trend is going to be less and less. Although in both companies I believe that the main investors are not going to sell. They do know it's the key of success.


Thank you very much for your response. I saw the question earlier when I wasn't logged in, and now I see that you have saved me from having to reply to the FUD.


If you are referring to MSTY, my understanding is that there is no fixed obligation of paying that 8%, what has happened is that the last 12 months have been fabulous for MSTR and consequently MSTY has done extremely well, paying more than 100% annual dividend yield, but depending on how MSTR and the options market do, that 8% could be greatly reduced or not paid at all. I have not thoroughly researched the matter but from what I hear from the information I have been going by. If anyone knows the issue in more depth please share.


If we look at this news (https://cointelegraph.com/news/arkham-intelligence-microstrategy-bitcoin-fidelity) from a year ago, MSTR held bitcoins in two companies and it seems that the one with more “risk” in that sense would be Fidelity Custody, which kept bitcoins in a pool together with other customers, while Coinbase had them separated. I understand that this can be audited and Saylor is not going to be fooled easily. Besides, as I think I already commented at that institutional level I think it is better to use custodials because there will be insurance and the possibility of legal action in case of mismanagement. It is not like a forumer with 0,3 bitcoin, that the best way he has to custody them is himself in his HW.

Both of your inputs will be the concern of this company and I really like what they can do especially if there's a bearish market trend would come since this will test the strength of their company and belief on their long term investment plans with Bitcoin.

Lets find out to if we can see 21 capital official will have the same stance with Michael Saylor about not selling their Bitcoin whatever happens on the market.

But for sure they will not play fool around since somehow they are experience individual and also know what's best approach to do towards on investing on Bitcoin.

Does anyone know the reason for today's steep rise? I've looked and I don't see anything, other than the expectation that the new stock will make good profit, but today's rise is just crazy.

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/05/01/U25J2c.png

I don't know if they have already started buying more bitcoins or if they are insiders pumping the price.

Well their marketcap and float is pretty small in perspective, so when you add assets that are going up in price like BTC to a low marketcap and low float company the price per share will skyrocket because the base multiplier is low, that is what happened with Metaplanet too, the japanese company that is running the Strategy playbook and become like most the traded stock in japan in options and im not sure if in volume on common shares too, but something is clear, this works great for companies that are stuck with cash doing nothing and want to turbocharge their stock, it's instant free press as well. When this happens a lot of people start frontrunning, and XXI has good connections to raise money to buy BTC so that is being priced in. I still believe MSTR is the #1 proxy by a long shot, they just need to come up with a safe way to show proof of reserves for those that don't trust the audits.

This object now has a 500 Million market cap, or 5 times the original.
The founding shareholders entered at 10 USD.
This is pure speculation: when the business combination is completed, these stocks usually fall toward a more reasonable multiplier (like 2x as in Strategy).
Now it's pure gambling.

In case anyone was wondering when will launch XXI looks like it will be a while. In the following interview, Jack Mallers, at minute 30:30 specifies that what they announced was the filing, but it has not been approved yet. I don't think they have a problem with it finally being approved but from what he says in the interview it doesn't seem to be imminent. In the meantime, MSTR continues to buy bitcoins.

'Brink Of Sovereign Debt Crisis': Why Jack Mallers Is Launching A 42,000 Bitcoin Company (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9ffOg0DYSI)

On the OP, I stated “a few months”.
I bet we will get some clarity in the following weeks. Business combinations aren't easy.
In the meantime, gambling in CEP and Strategy is gaining a larger headstart.
For sure it will be interesting.

I am not very convinced that XXI will be able to catch up to MSTR very easily, yet they do have quite a bit of potential capital to put into bitcoin, whether from their own revenue streams or from revenue that they can raise by using other people's money... but yeah, if MSTR might be able to get up to 1 million bitcoin in the coming couple of years, and XXI might be able to reach similar quantities of bitcoin, then between them, they would be holding a lot of the bitcoin supply, and perhaps the ETFs are going to continue to accumulate at a similar rate, so that might be another 1 million to 2 million bitcoin... and then we have governments who would not want to be dwarfed, so there might not be very many bitcoin left (without engaging in fractional reserves, and sophisticated players are likely going to want to make sure that their custodians have the coins that they claim to have).

Apart from buying bitcoin no other investments seem to be forthcoming.
A bitcoin maxi bitcoin investment in bitcoin. Yuppi.  ;D

The point is that the more aggressive 21 Capital is, the more difficult it is to catch up with Strategy due to the increased price pressure.
The less aggressive, the less momentum they gather with investors.
For them, the playbook is relatively narrow, and execution is critical.

Even though companies, governments and/or rich people are engaging in hoarding of bitcoin practices, it still seems that many of us are going to be better off to make sure that we have our own bitcoin stashes, even if we might choose to invest some percentage of our bitcoin holdings (that we would not be holding) into 3rd parties who are holding them and even potentially leveraging various debt systems to accumulate more bitcoin for themselves.  We know that there are also kinds of entities that have difficulties holding bitcoin themselves, so they are going to both be more comfortable and perhaps even legally in compliance to be buying bitcoin exposure through various entities such as 21 Capital and MSTR and ETFs rather than buying bitcoin directly (which would be quite difficult, if not impossible for them to accomplish).

Let's also not forget that Cantor Fidgerald invested in Q4 last year $1B in MSTR. I don't think they are going to unwind that position lightly. If they thought XXI was going to outperform MSTR they would dump the position right now and move that money into XXI but it looks like they are going to hold shares in the Coke and Pepsico of bitcoin.


Right. The best course of action for an individual investor is to manage your private keys. If you want to invest a little bit in XXI or MSTR, or if you want to use like 5% of your stash to get bitcoin-backed loans or some yield I think it is OK.

The only way they can do that is if they can secure massive funding's for their next Bitcoin accumulation and they can accumulate huge volume of Bitcoin which is close to the numbers what Microstrategy got. But for sure its not going to happen since for sure they would also thing doing good strategy for their accumulations like doing DCA so that they won't get hurt so much if there's a correction or a market crash will happen.

Its just people have this over comparison between these two companies but for sure 21 company will work on its way. But I really like to see them accumulating since if both companies will post their accumulation for sure that it will bring lots of interest for other investor to buy Bitcoin to. For sure 21 capital knows its hard to chase what Microstrategy achieve since they built their portfolio for many years while them they are just starting up doing business with Bitcoin.

I am not suggesting that XXI cannot be successful, yet they would have to give a certain high level of dedication to establish that their fund is a serious competitor to MSTR, and surely they could use their own money to build such confidence, especially since Tether by itself generates a lo tof ongoing income, and at the same time, I understand how there is a preference to use other people's money to buttress the position, and so the more confidence they build then the more that other people will also invest into their product as either a supplement of MSTR or as alternative to investing in MSTR.


XXI purposefully is trying to market the comparison.. to force the conversation in the comparison direction, and XXI is also trying to proclaim that they are a better product, even though so far they have no track record with this particular product, even if they might have other products with track records.


In recent times, Tether itself is a behemoth when it comes to cashflow... and yeah, MSTR has set itself in such a solid way that it would be difficult to take market share from them, and largely MSTR is likely thrilled to death that other companies are coming in to follow similar leveraging systems that essentially pump the value of MSTR's already acquired bitcoin.

I could only think of some huge companies with massive cash balances being able to get more BTC that Strategy at this point. Im talking about MAG7 companies basically, because the rest don't have enough liquidity, but none of these companies are going to do it since they are doing ok as it stands, and they don't want the volatility, while Saylor has made a business out of volatility. These big companies just don't need this strategy because they are ok having all their cash in money market funds, t-bills and so on, so for now they don't see the point and they think the volatility is not worth it, this is what makes Saylor a pioneer and now it's unlikely anyone will catch them. Others don't have the cash so they will need to get debt to get the money like this 21 Capital company and they will to take on more risk to get near MSTR.

I disagree with you and I think the reason why you said apart from Bitcoin investment no other investment is forthcoming is because you are into Bitcoin and I don't blame you because anyone will always say good about there field and the state they are. But believe me, outside the Bitcoin world there are a lot of investment that one can actually do and make out something from it and one thing about investment is consistency/commitment. Me personally, everything in my thought is just Bitcoin and I can start  to think outside it before I get distracted but what I want you to know is that there are other nice investment outside Bitcoin investment.

Actually you are mistaken. I own 0 Bitcoin, maybe some sats I still have left but I prefer Litecoin.
the entire crytocrowd is basically blind about the reality of the economy. Or at least most read like that.
A wallet is nothing like a bank, not even like a bank account.

Crypto is not about raising values but about passing around coins.

Who cares about crypto.....?   Let's focus on bitcoin, and sure this thread is about a bitcoin derivative product, and I believe that it is better to hold the actual bitcoin rather than investing into derivative products, even though surely there are some folks, institutions and/or governments who might not be able to so easily hold the bitcoin directly so they invest into derivative products in order to get bitcoin exposure.
 
Too bad that you, on a personal level, had not been investing into bitcoin, since you could have had accumulated a decent number of bitcoin by now, after nearly 7 years registered on the forum.

If you had invested $200 per week into bitcoin for the past 7 years, then you would have invested right around $73k and you would have had accumulated close to 5.25 bitcoin (https://dcacryptocalculator.com/bitcoin/?start_date=2018-04-01&finish_date=2025-04-11&regular_investment=200&currency_code=USD&investment_interval=weekly&exchange_fee=0.02).. which surely would be a good place to be financially and/or psychologically.

Sure, your point about custodying bitcoin through a third party, there may be some advantages in that, yet there are also advantages in holding your bitcoin directly.  On a personal level I probably would not hold more than 20% of my exposure with third parties, yet surely I do understand that some folks do not have any other assets besides maybe their personal residence and their 401k.. which does not allow them to self-custody, so sometimes there may be some value in terms of investing beyond merely holding a 401k and/or investing into a personal residence, even though many of us recognize and/or appreciate that bitcoin is many times better than real estate as an investment (and bitcoin is superior money, too - more liquid, scarce, verifiable, transportable, divisible and without as many extra costs and/or liabilities).

There are financial realities and most endeavor I have to maintain don't take Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is pretty slow, pretty expensive if you won't send it over the lightning bridge.
Stacking requieres excess of dosh, billete, FIAT. Stocks bring a higher return.
Being fixed on Bitcoin closes many other income streams. 

You sound lost WillyAp in terms of what it is that you might be wanting to get out of bitcoin (or any other places that you are placing value), and if you invest into bitcoin then you don't necessarily need to worry about the medium of exchange ideas since bitcoin serves those purposes sufficiently well in terms of just moving it with finality within an hour or less, depending on how much you might want to spend on fees, yet of course, fees on bitcoin have varied through the years too, but if you are investing into bitcoin, you may well not necessarily be transacting a lot in it as you suggest some kind of needs to transact, which surely is not necessary with an investment that might be 4-10 years or longer, and you are delusional to the extent that you suggest that there would have had been any better place (whether in stocks or otherwise) that you could have had put value as an investment. 

Of course, anyone investing needs to have a discretionary income and if he does not have discretionary income, then he is not in a position to invest, yet you are both talking about investing but also suggesting that you need the money, so you likely have to figure out if you are ready, willing and/or able to invest into something like bitcoin for 4-10 years or more, or maybe you don't know the difference between trading and investing, and you seem to believe that trading is investing, or you cannot resist temptations to get in and out of assets (which also can be referred to as trading/gambling). 

Surely there may well be measures that are needed to be taken to protect a person's bitcoin stash as he grows it, especially if any of us might be holding bitcoin directly rather than holding through a third-party, and surely a lot of folks are hacked from their coins when they hold them on exchanges by their security measures in connection with the exchange (or the third party).

In terms of going forward from here, surely you have to figure out for yourself whether to invest into bitcoin, and perhaps you also have to figure out what it is that you want and/or your priorities, and if you are planning to invest in bitcoin, then how much you are willing to set aside in regards to if you might consider bitcoin as an investment that is 4-10 years or longer or if you are merely going to dabble with trading (gambling), which I, personally, recommend against trading bitcoin, yet you have a right to make your own choices and to act upon your choices.. and also to experience  the consequences of whichever choices that you make (and have made). 

I doubt that your other investments, to the extent that you made any in the last 7 years, have faired better than investing into bitcoin over the past 7 years, as I outlined where you would have had been if you had invested into bitcoin over the past 7 years using a DCA kind of an approach, even though surely your level of discretionary income may have been different from the $200 per week example that I provided and you may or may not have had lump sum amounts available at various points in the past 7 years.

People should only talk about what they know.
Do you know me? I guess not.

The game between the two companies will be exciting to watch.
Of course, XXI has to compare with Strategy to make itself understood by the market.
On the other hand, Strategy has little incentive to openly support XXI: Of course, they tweet and applaud them, as they are playing the same game, but nothing more. I think that if the market appreciated XXI too much, then the selloff in Strategy would be massive.

I know the posts that I responded to, and I responded to them.  You might need to attempt clarify if you believe that I might have said something that overly assumes facts that are not in evidence.  

If you are registered on the forum for nearly 7 years, but you are still naysaying on bitcoin while at the same time acting like you know bitcoin is a supposedly inferior investment to stocks and implicitly other places that you might be able to put time, energy and value, it could well be the case that you failed/refused to learn about bitcoin in those nearly 7 years, especially given the seemingly dumbness of your posts in this thread, so far.

I don't need to know you in order to make comments about the contents of your posts, and many times we cannot really know other forum members beyond the contents of their posts in which some members share more than others, so sometimes we can get the sense of learning about forum members through their posts.


Strategy/Saylor has spent more than 4.5 years building good will in the specific context of offering bitcoinp-related financialized products, education, and largely following through with its promises and/or representations.  Sure some folks don't like some aspects of Saylor's failure/refusal to promote and/or emphasize self-custodying of bitcoin and/or even the practicalities of transacting through bitcoin without intermediaries or even his failure/refusal to significantly invest into development and/or abilities to transact and/or abilities to use lightning network.  Surely there sometimes can be value in terms of folks picking their areas of specialty, and Saylor has sometimes ended up walking back some of his denigration of self-custody and transacting on bitcoin, even though for practical purposes, surely we see accounting and even taxability problems that disincentivize transacting on bitcoin, yet surely some attacks on privacy and/or transactability in bitcoin don't seem to be defended by Saylor/MSTR.

XXI comes to the space proclaiming to be better than Strategy and maybe they are also wanting to give some emphasis to transact-ability on bitcoin, yet before they even seem to have had gone live, they also start revealing their intentions to offer bitcoin loan related products that are hardly compelling, and I doubt that Mallers has as much credibility as Saylor, even though sure, each of them may have credibility in different ways over the years, yet when push comes to shove, a lot of credibility can be built through a combination of both actions and words and with the passage of time, and not getting blown up or not rug pulling clients. 

Yeah, still, you are right that it could be interesting to see the extent to which XXI might be able to gain market share in regards to MSTR/Saylor offering, and there could be some value to provide competing products that also vary in what they are offering, and by the way, I had seen that the corporate bond market is 100s of trillions of dollars in size, and the fact that Saylor/MSTR might have tapped into $50 billion of that particular market, at most, seems to provide evidence that the corporate bond market is likely not even close to being saturated to the extent that more of that market might be interested in investing in better performing variations of corporate bonds (as compared to the crappy non-performing bonds that they are used to buying holding), and Saylor/MSTR frequently experiences oversubscription to many of the products that they offer, which likely show s that there is room for more entrants of similar and/or competing products, whether they can take any share from Saylor/MSTR or just give further credibility to Saylor/MSTR since Saylor/MSTR has honed some pretty compelling products, so far, in the time that they have been offering them.

and so let's see how XXI does to the extent that they are able to garner confidence to both attract other people's money while at the same time managing the money in a competitive way in terms of hopefully not overpromising and/or underdelivering.. which I think that already Mallers has been guilty of some of the variations of overpromising and underdelivering when it comes to some of the historical Strike products...and a lot of folks don't seems to be so far impressed with the XXI loan products that seems to have come out the door with pretty high interest rates while using one of the most pristine (if not the most pristine) of possible collaterals (namely bitcoin)... which does not get me excited to see those kinds of interest rates on a collateralized product, even though I would get excited if some companies could start to knock some points down on the interest rates to get the interest rates down into the 8% or lower territories.  Someday? Someday? perhaps? perhaps?

MSTR came in earlier so they can't compare there so they are trying to compete with what they can offer.
Well I agree on the sell off if investors feel 21 is getting remotely better
But if they go too strong into the market with a desperation to exceed MSTR
They would fail without MSTR even trying to be better 
But an healthy competition like this would be better in the long-run
XXI just have to be strategic in their purchase.

I'm curious on what stock has an higher return and what timeframe.
There's Real Estates, Gold, some stocks, getting a job, selling your service or been self employed
How does focusing on the best in cryptocurrency closes other doors?

Well, it seems it will be three companies now.

Strive to become Bitcoin treasury company (https://cointelegraph.com/news/strive-to-become-bitcoin-treasury-company)


This is big, really big. There is institutional FOMO now.

I see that you are a shitcoiner and is blind about the potentials of bitcoin. Bitcoin is censorship resistance and is beyond institutional control due to it's decentralized nature and you say that you prefer some garbage to the one and only unique coin which is bitcoin. Can you see that majority of people are going to bitcoin and not litecoin because it has been considered as a store of value. Wake up and don't mess your chances in the cryptospace.

That was the main purpose of Satoshi creating bitcoin and nothing else but you wouldn't blame people for holding their bitcoin because we can do whatever we like with our bitcoin.

I don't blame anyone, nor have I attacked anyone.
But somehow our maxis do what they do best, dishing out personal attacks where arguments fail. 

I am not him, but 200 dollars a week is about my entire salary lol. So I can tell you that I am not making that much. In fact, it's a bit more than what I make, considering not all months have 4 weeks, so it's clear that not all of us can do that. You are forgetting that not only that would be more than my salary, but if you dropped it lower, then I still have to pay and live. That is the most important part. So that means, I could probably put 100 bucks a month at most, nothing more.

I have been in crypto since about 2013, that means, if I have put 100 dollars a month into bitcoin since 2014 (just to make sure because I do not remember when I got in during 2013), I would have invested 13.6k dollars in total, and would have 871k dollars worth of bitcoin.

Seems easy to calculate right, what would happen if I had huge debts, because I did, would I solve the issue like I did now, or would I find it simple to just cash out bitcoin? Basically, calculating from the past ,is easy, I could have bought apple stock when it was at the bottom too, 20 years ago or whatever, doesn't mean I did, no reason to stick to past like that.

it seems to me that you had not been personally attacked, you dweeb (throwing in a gratuitous personal attack for funzies)

So far, your dumb ideas have been attacked, and you have provided hardly any (if any) defense for your various already made assertions.  That is why they can be labelled as dumb, ill-thought out or perhaps you are merely trolling with your so far bitcoin naysaying proclamations (and your attempts at shitcoining and/or asserting that stocks are better investments than bitcoin).


There is no reason that you would have to use the exact amounts in order for the point to still be valid, and surely over a period of the last 7 years, any guy could have had invested right around 15% of his salary into bitcoin and by now, over 7 years, he would have had invested about the equivalent of 1 years of his income and largely he would have had been able to live off of bitcoin at the same rate of his salary.

Let's just use approximately your stated income as an example and suggest that your income over the last 7-ish years has been almost steady at that same rate, so $200 per week would be about $10,400 per year, yet since you seem to be claiming that your salary is even less than $200 per week, let's just say that it is almost $9,600 per year, which is about $800 per month and right around $184 per week, so if you were investing 15% of your income amount into bitcoin, then you would have had invested $27 per week into bitcoin over the past 7 years.

We can even use the same website and template that I had previously provided for our example and to adjust the numbers to your income level to show that if you had invested $27 per week over the past 7 years, you would have had invested right around $9,910 into bitcoin, which is right around the same amount of your annual income.  With that you would have had accumulated right around 0.70456 Bitcoin. (http://We can even use the same website and template that I had already provided for our example to show that over the past 7 years, you would have had invested right around $9,910 into bitcoin, which is right around the same amount of your annual income.)  

The 200-WMA value of 0.70456 bitcoin is nearly $33k, and the spot price value is $72,623 (https://bitcoindata.science/withdrawal-strategy?U2FsdGVkX1935Jji4B/zO732WR3nIG9f7S2ZH5eEm4arlHsWLzIQZSpjjiXX0oiphpgdbF0meFzFnn+iLB3vYQ==).  From my own estimates, you would not yet be at a place to replace your income, and the most prudent amount of income that you could get from 0.70456 bitcoin would be right around $3,300 per year, which is ONLY around $63 per week, but you are still making progress in order to potentially be able to get to a point to replace your income within the next cycle or so, especially if you continue to invest into bitcoin at right around the same rate, and even if you stop investing into bitcoin, as long as you do not withdraw from your bitcoin, the rate of your ability to withdraw will likely double within 2-4 years (sure there are no guarantees, but still you would be on the right path in the event that you would be able to continue with a 15% investment rate into bitcoin).  


Ok.  I did my above calculations with $27 per week, which is $116 per month, but it does not really change the conclusion, even if the numbers are lower, if you were to be able to invest 15% of your income per year into bitcoin.  Of course, some folks are not able to invest 15% of their income into bitcoin, and so I concede that 15% might be a bit aggressive, and so each of us has to figure out what we are able to do within our discretionary income, in the event that we are not able to increase our discretionary income by increasing our income and/or by decreasing our expenses.


O.k. Let's say that you got into bitcoin right at the beginning of 2014, and then you invested $100 per month from then until now.

Like you said, you would have had invested $13.6k into bitcoin, and you would have had accumulated right around 10.57 BTC (https://dcacryptocalculator.com/bitcoin/?start_date=2014-01-01&finish_date=2025-04-11&regular_investment=100&currency_code=USD&investment_interval=monthly&exchange_fee=0.02), which would give you a 200-WMA value of nearly $495k, and a spot price value of nearly $1.1 million (https://bitcoindata.science/withdrawal-strategy?U2FsdGVkX19HbDPEQ4GoRCviK8+0M9idK08KTcygIlbuLtwBf2Ct/0mC7D18JrO2a+cbgWOd0ElcizOnDtZxTA==).  

I like to go by the 200-WMA to figure out a reasonable withdrawal rate, so then such quantity of 10.57 BTC would give you a possible income of $49.5k per year (which is 10% of the current dollar value of the 200-WMA) or $4,125 per month, which truly is around 5x your current monthly income, and many times folks will not allow their bitcoin investment to get to such levels prior to starting to withdraw from them, yet of course, there will be personal variance too..
 

With any attempts at prudent cashflow management, you have to deal with whatever your situations are as you go, so if you start out investing in bitcoin and then you work on reducing your debts at the same time, and also you work on building your emergency funds, you may well not be able to start out investing at $100 per month since you might end up using $33 to reduce your debt, $33 to build your emergency funds and $33 to invest in bitcoin.  Of course, you have to figure out the right balance to both invest in bitcoin and reduce your debt and to build your emergency funds at the same time.  
 

You do come off a bit pessimistic I must admit, but there is still time to save yourself from yourself... hahahahahahaha

You are correct that past performance does not equal future results, and some of us might be engaging in a bit of a fantasy to attempt to assess what we could have had done if we had been smarter, yet we can also learn from the past to identify bitcoin as currently among the best of places to put time, energies and money, yet at the same time, we have to work with our current financial and psychological situation (which I like to refer to as our 9 individual factors (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5376945.msg58719590#msg58719590)) in order to attempt to tailor our bitcoin approach, whether that is investing $100 per month or some other amount that we have determined to be sufficiently aggressive for our own personal circumstances, including that as we strengthen our cashflow management systems and back up funds, then we are also likely in a better position to invest more aggressively into bitcoin, if we have determined to prioritize our bitcoin investment over other ways that we might choose to spend our time, energies and money.

There is also likely one advantage that you have right now, as compared to an overwhelming majority of the world's population, is that they have not become enlightened about bitcoin, and they have not started to buy it, so it surely seems that we are still in early days, yet there still is a need for any of us who might be low coiners or no coiners to act upon our knowledge to attempt to start accumulating bitcoin through ongoing buying as persistently, consistently, regularly and perhaps as aggressively as we are able to do without overdoing it.  Some of the parameters and the exact execution details you have to figure out for yourself and to apply it to your 9 individual factors (including reassessing your 9 individual factors from time to time).

Dude! You don't have to blame anyone neither should you attack anyone because what they are telling you is the fact and I consider it as a best advice and suggestion someone who knows about Bitcoin and someone who wants you to succeed in this investment of a thing will give to you. How will you prefer Litecoin to Bitcoin, do you actually know what is Bitcoin? Do you even see the potential? Do you even know the value? Litecoin is very small to be compared with Bitcoin as a matter of fact the so called Litecoin you preferred still depend on Bitcoin to grow or appreciate perhaps Litecoin is the first coin you knew or the first coin someone told you about, but we are telling you for free now that Bitcoin is the best and the greatest of all coin.

if own 0 bitcoin that means you have not yet started a serious investment and you have fail to understand the potential of bitcoin, bitcoin is best assets to own, because it is a store of value with potential returns when you buy and hold for long term, the litecoin you mentioned is one of  the most shitest coin out there, the earlier you start making bitcoin your priority the better for you.

https://talkimg.com/images/2025/05/14/UU75YG.png

XXI capital has bought a huge chunk of bitcoin again but this time, they bought it directly from Tether. Tether bought the bitcoin and sold it to XXI capital. The bitcoin worth $458.7M was transferred to XXI capital wallet, saying this purchase is just the beginning of the iceberg.

https://www.blockhead.co/2025/05/14/cantor-backed-twenty-one-capital-buys-458-7m-bitcoin-in-first-treasury-move/

The race of accumulating bitcoin aggressively by these institutions and big tech firm has just begun.
Bitcoin to the moon...see ya at $120k by the end of this month.
keep stacking.

This is the first tranche of the PIPE financing of XXI Capital.
I guess those bitcoin were bought by Tether a long time ago, and were part of their bitcoin fund, so no immediate price impact.
Tether will contribute to XXI Capital with those bitcoins, and in exchange will obtain a capital share of the newco.

According to this article https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1865602/000121390025042647/ea0241786-8k425_cantor.htm they bought their Bitcoin at $95,319.83, so that means this purchase made if I'm not wrong earlier this month.


And maybe their purchase made create good movements and contribute on the situation that's why we see Bitcoin cross at $100k again. There's lots of things we can learn for reading that article about the actions done by 21 capital.

This is interesting: I would have assumed that Tether would have used some of the bitcoins already in their reserve to finance 21 Capital.
Of course, the open market buy helps a positive price development!

I think for a structure like 21 Capital,which is a newly formed Bitcoin-native investment company created via a SPAC merger with Cantor Equity Partners and  backed by Tether ($1.6B BTC), SoftBank ($0.9B BTC), Bitfinex ($0.6B BTC), and Cantor with CEO Jack Mallers positioning it as a direct rival to MicroStrategy, but with a more aggressive and potentially scalable Bitcoin-denominated approach and jack Mallers,Known for Strike and lightning network evangelism. His credibility in the BTC community may attract talent, attention, and liquidity faster than traditional suits
But my question is with Jack Mallers' transition from Strike to public markets. Can he handle the governance and investor pressure?

With regulatory overhang around Tether and Bitfinex.and execution risk on maintaining low dilution and high BTC performance.
I think 21 Capital is a pure-play Bitcoin equity that may rival or even eclipse MicroStrategy, if they can execute repeated debt-equity cycles and maintain BTC-denominated capital growth.
If it trades publicly soon, 21 Capital would instantly become 3rd in BTC corporate holdings (after MSTR and Tesla) and the first to be BTC-native from inception.

This is a very good question but I believe that before Jack Mallers signed up for that I think he is capable of handling everything. Moreover, he has Strike, The Bitcoin Lightning Based payments app, which has unveiled a new crypto lending program.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theblock.co/amp/post/353319/jack-mallers-bitcoin-payments-app-strike-is-moving-into-the-crypto-lending-business

Even if one entity buys from another entity (meaning XXI buying from Tether), there does not necessarily need to be a market impact, so Tether could have had sold the bitcoin to XXI... so that on paper, XXI shows that they acquired the BTC at the price of $95k-ish each...  even though like you said, the funds were largely seeded from Tether's earlier purchased coins.  

Is XXI restricted from engaging in those kinds of arrangements or do they have to have "arm's length" relations when it comes to coin acquisitions?

Yes they and here are the figures contributed by Tether and other companies.


Here you can read it here another interesting details about it https://bitcoinnews.com/markets/cantor-fitzgerald-bitcoin-21-capital/

We could really see that they are well prepared and funded that's why 21 capital is really another big institution next to MicroStrategy which is worth to follow. Also for sure their presence would provably bring good help for Bitcoin to gather more exposure also future demands.

With participation of big institutional investor like Strategy recent years, then companies from Wall Street behind Bitcoin Spot ETFs, and now 21 Capital, there is very hot races among institutional investors for accumulating bitcoins. They will no longer be able to purchase bitcoins only from OTC markets but will have to do their accumulations on Spot market more often.

This an avoidable purchasing change from institutional investors will contribute many considerable things on Bitcoin Spot Market from trading volume to price and it will kick off FOMO effects in the crowd too.

Psychological pitfalls of market cycle. (https://advisor.visualcapitalist.com/psychological-pitfalls-market-cycle/)
Euphoria phase will come but it's not a thing to be fearful and I'd like to note an important point that Eurphoria phase has brought Bitcoin price to higher and higher, new ATHs cycle by cycle.

Unlike MicroStrategy which accumulates bitcoin as a reserve asset, 21 Capital's goal is to bridge traditional finance (TradFi) with decentralized finance (DeFi).

Brandon Lutnick who is leading 21 Capital recently gave speech in Consensus 2025. He emphasized how to integrate blockchain technology into mainstream financial systems. Him together with his company Cantor Fitzgerald has already been advocate for bitcoin awareness and adoption for some years now.

https://talkimg.com/images/2025/05/16/UUldCf.jpeg
Source (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/cantor-fitzgerald_consensus2025-activity-7328861339500621826-Si6V?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAFrFeJwB9Ikai3zlliw5HiTNHwidb-MEmQo)

I don't think so.
This first buy is still meant to be a "capital building" event through a PIPE agreement.
While I am typing this, I think it would not be a positive development if Tether acted as a "market arm" of XXI Capital, selling them its bitcoin.
However, I hope this is not the case.

Steps are being made on XXI capital.

Today CEP- Cantor Equity Capital, announced the completion of the sale of 485 million USD 1% Convertible Notes, which was aimed at raising capital for XXI Capital.


https://talkimg.com/images/2025/05/29/UX6dRv.jpeg (https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001865602/000121390025048514/ea0243793-8k425_cantorequity.htm)


In another communication (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1865602/000121390025048518/ea0243793-8k425_cantorequity.htm) they declared the "Prospectuses and communications, business combinations" (https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1865602&owner=exclude)

Just to remember that currently, CEP is a firm owned by:

• 21,9% Cantor EP Holdings, LLC
• 21,9% Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P
• 21,9% CF Group Management, Inc.
• 21,9% Howard W. Lutnick
• 12,4% Others <5%

Twenty One Capital has once again been able to purchase a large portion of Bitcoin as we can see that Bitfinex has transferred 7,000 Bitcoins to Twenty One Capital's address. It It is very likely that Bitfinex has transferred so many Bitcoins in more than a month. As part of its investment in the company, Tether transferred 14,000 bitcoins and they had previously sent over 4,000 bitcoins.
I think that collectively XXI Capital's business coordination and Bitcoin journey is progressing well.

Tether Group & Bitfinex Transferred 25,812 BTC to Jack Mallers’ Twenty One Capital (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/news/tether-group-bitfinex-transferred-25812-btc-to-jack-mallers-twenty-one-capital)

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/06/03/UXh6z2.jpeg (https://x.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1929601943535526382?t=7ojxjlJ9iCmnat1hRXAMAA&s=19)

Great initiative made and we could see that they are being help by multiple entities like Bitfinex to make their investment became more smoother.

For being transparent on the transactions they made also with their holdings it will show confident that 21 Capital will deliver. Excited about following them and see if they could really made more good shots than MicroStrategy since it seems that they are also doing well for focusing their investment on Bitcoin.

Also this is another good plan they want to create when I read the link you provided.


There's provably lots of good things will happen in 21 Capital in future.

Tether moves $3.9B in Bitcoin to Twenty One Capital
Tether and Bitfinex moved $3.9 billion in Bitcoin to Jack Mallers’ Twenty One Capital, now the third-largest corporate BTC holder after Strategy and MARA.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/tether-bitcoin-transfer-twenty-one-capital

Gradually they are able to accumulate more Bitcoin, their Bitcoin holdings are increasing over time. Holding Bitcoin in this way is a sign of holding more aggressively in the future, the more Bitcoin they hold,
the more other companies and countries will show interest in holding Bitcoin, and this is a strong green signal to hold Bitcoin for the long term.

A very important table, numerating the KPI for a Bitcoin company:

https://talkimg.com/images/2025/06/18/UuuU2d.png (https://x.com/bitcoinforcorps/status/1934928406157905944?s=61)

I will analyse them all in the future, trying to describe the cross-correlation between each of them.

XXI Capital just announced a detail on their accumulation plan:

Twenty One Expects to Add 5,800 Bitcoin Before Planned Listing, Increasing Holdings to At Least 43,500 BTC (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250729447172/en/Twenty-One-Expects-to-Add-5800-Bitcoin-Before-Planned-Listing-Increasing-Holdings-to-At-Least-43500-BTC)


The game in Bitcoin Treasuries has just begun, and the best has yet to come.

The treasury companies that have started accepting Bitcoin must have previously announced that they will invest in Bitcoin. And the treasury companies that have now expressed interest in holding Bitcoin are likely to see the price of Bitcoin increase several times as soon as these treasury companies start investing in Bitcoin. So I would like to say that we must pay more attention to holding Bitcoin very soon.
Those who sell as soon as the price of Bitcoin increases are basically weak hands, and weak hands will decide to sell Bitcoin investments very soon. Keep collecting Bitcoin investments like the current of the river, and be inattentive to selling Bitcoin holdings.

As it's clearly stated in the article about what this plan potentially makes of them as "the third largest corporate holder of the asset".  No doubt if such an aggressive bitcoin treasury increment if well sustained for the rest part of this year could boost 21 Capital to the second largest closer to Strategy, a competition healthy for the growth of bitcoin future price.

One interview by Jack Mallers about XXI Capital:

https://talkimg.com/images/2025/07/31/UHs2IC.jpeg (https://youtu.be/Jc5J-5cXpsM)

It’s one of the best Bitcoin speaker out there, together with Micheal Saylor.
You cannot love him, even if he has a clear agenda in mind.

I wondered why you didn’t leave a link even after introducing him as one of the best speakers about Bitcoin and instinctively I clicked the image and yeah, it had a link to the YouTube interview. Of course it’s more clear now that I’m quoting to respond.

He clearly has some interesting ideas with the matrix they are coming up with, trying to measure the worth of its investors in Bitcoin per share (BPS) rather than have that relative value in dollar amounts which still gives fiat some relevance to the system. Someday this would come to be a thing and it would indeed stem from 21 Capital with Jack Mallers and his co-founders.

It’s rather an encouragement to how much a young company can do and the vision is straight to the top which is something they’ve continuously worked towards and it’s being archived.

I liked the way he explained definitive scarcity of Bitcoin in response to how many Bitcoin out there and how some of these corporations are acquiring more and more in respect to what is left their for the rest of the world. It all just comes down to prices, what are you willing to pay and as, Bitcoin is always available in the market which tells you the potential of it to increase and keep increasing as per demand and what you are offering.
That’s why those holding in today would be doing themselves some huge favor in years to come, these corporations understands this and go huge.

To me, the biggest news here is that XXI capital is not going to be only a treasury company in Bitcoin, but a proper Bitcoin development company. Something that reminds me BlockStream in a sense, and casually, also Adam Back, BlockStream CEO, is going to head another Bitcoin DAT.
Things will be moving fast very soon.