Unrealized gains absolutely figure into the stock price of a company. Berkshire has a public stock portfolio in the billions of dollars, and the stock price of Berkshire absolutely reflects the unrealized gains and losses of those assets.  It applies to every company.  Microstrategy has unrealized bitcoin gains, and MSTR's stock price rises and falls with the price of bitcoin because of how much they hold.  I agree with you that I don't see Tesla's investment in Bitcoin being enough to significantly move the needle for them when Bitcoin rises or falls, but investors still take into account Tesla's assets when make a valuation decision on the business.

London has long been the stock-trading center of Europe, but post-Brexit losses continue to siege traditionally strong British industries.  From the Financial Times:


This happened only 1 month after Brexit went into effect.  Other industries have seen even worse consequences:

• UK Fish Exports Fall 83% in January
• British Exports to EU Fall 40% in First Month Since Brexit

GDP was down 2.9% in January as the supply chains have been thrown into havoc and business disruptions have been described as "endemic," and it turns out the government didn't do an economic assessment on the trade deal despite it being the most consequential trade agreement in memory.  It's one thing to have the economy torpedoed by global macro economic conditions, it's an entirely different one to steer the ship headlong into the iceberg as Britain has done.

What do you actually "own" here? Cuz it's not a digital image, which can be replicated infinitely and anyone can access or view. What you own is some signature in a blockchain and a bunch of people who agree that has some special properties that give it value. However, if you don't have property rights over the digital image, you don't own it. It's absurd people believe you could own something that is infinitely replicable.

Also there is an expatriation tax related to renouncing citizenship, and the amount of Americans who live abroad who renounce there citizenship is around 0.06%, suggesting that it's just not worth it financially to undertake such an extreme measure. U.S. citizenship is worth a lot, which is something people who gripe about taxes don't appreciate fully.

Yeah, there's two things you have to consider.  These calculations above only make up the lost interest, so you have to have MORE than 1.3 btc on site to eventually make up the lost interest.  Then you also have to recoup the cost of the investment in FUN.  That's where WOF comes in.  You won't hit the minimum amount every time, but sometimes you're going to hit lottery tickets too, which honestly are worth 0 because you're so unlikely to win. So there are times when your WOF spin, for all practical purposes, translates to 0 gain.

This is my main issue with it. It's an entirely arbitrary ownership over a digital form of something. The only thing that that gives it value is people agreeing that 1) NFT ownership connotes actual ownership over something that only digitally exists, and 2) this is valueable.

But then again, that's cryptocurrency in a nutshell, so it's quite ironic that people think bitcoin has value but NFT "goods" don't.

This isn't true, the government literally can't run out of money because it creates the money supply. The way to move forward isn't wealth confiscation, it's either austerity to get the deficit under control, or monetizing the debt by having the Fed continue to buy treasury issues which increases the money supply. There will not be confiscation in the US, property law is too much ingrained into the system and undermining that would be far worse than any benefit of confiscation.

The problem with the last metric is it assumes that bitcoin is a perfect replacement for the global money supply and has no other competitors as to where to allocate dollars, so it seems faulty to me to assume that bitcoin's value has to be proportionally equivalent to the total money supply in the world.  In reality, as an asset class it competes against all other asset classes for an allocation in a portfolio, so people who don't want to hold dollars will choose between real estate, gold, equities, debt instruments, crypto and any other type of asset.  Bitcoin could never represent all of it because it's not the only asset class.

Not necessarily because unrealized gains don't show on the income statement, and debt holders are first in line in liquidation, so bonds are a safer investment than equity from a risk perspective.  The P/E ratio takes into account profits, but the unrealized gain from btc is kind of a double whammy from a P/E perspective.  First, it causes the stock price to rise (because the stock price takes into account the total value of the firms assets) but the stock price rise happens without a corresponding rise in profits, so P/E gets out of whack.  But if you're a bond owner, you look at the firm's total assets and say "P/E is 500 but there are $5b in liquid assets on the balance sheet" and decide that it's a safe investment.  The risk to the bond holder is that bitcoin price drops and the assets you were counting on with it, leaving the firm with a lot of debt and not enough underlying business to service debt obligations.  In essence, the bond holders are counting on btc not to lose value by continuing to buy MSTR's debt offerings.


I'm not explicitly familiar with the bonds in this case, but usually the bonds are convertible at the option of the bond holder.  The bond holders could decide they'd rather have cash than equity in the company, and even if they don't, the PE ratio is still rather irrelevant because the company is valued on its assets at this point, not its cashflow.

Does he actually provide any proof he made these moves other than just some tweet yelling into the internet?  Honestly just looking at his twitter profile and the website he links to, he looks like a scam artist.  The profile is all bluster and posturing, nothing of substance, and the same with the website where's he's offering to "teach" you how to be as successful as him.  My man, people who are actually as successful as he claims to be don't need to hustle their "expertise" for a fee.  He's trying way too hard to convince people he's rich and successful to actually be rich and successful.  Lol, his website says "Get money. Get women. Get fit."  Whole thing looks like a scam.

There was only one party in the United States that politicized the pandemic.  Republicans turned it into a "muh freedoms" rebellion and the talking heads on fox news actively agitated people into blinding anger over commonsense measures meant to curb the spread of the virus. Even the limited shutdowns were effective in controlling the spread of the virus, so we know that more effective shutdowns would have curtailed the spread even more.  The problem was republicans obstructed every attempt to have a cohesive shutdown and attempts to compensate people the required amount to have an effective shutdown, forcing people to resist the shutdowns out of economic necessity.  Unity was needed, but that's a one-way street where republicans are solely at fault.  There was nothing the democrats could unite with republicans over because the only way to stop the virus from spreading is for uninfected people to stay away from affected people and the republican position was actively to undermine that.

Yeah, this is a good example of idiots who just ignorantly jump on whatever Musk says without the smallest inkling of what they're doing. The fact that a totally unrelated company got pumped so hard by investors who mistook it for something Musk was talking about is exactly why his cult of personality is dangerous to lemming investors.  Musk is not emotionally or mentally stable enough for people to be basing investment decisions on things he says, so I don't feel bad any of those people FOMOing into Signal Advance got burned.

The US technically can't default on the debt because the Fed will just print as much money as is required to redeem the bonds.  So the risk of default is effectively zero.  The consequence is the dollar becomes devalued, but that's not a default.  Betrayal of the citizens, yes.  Default, no. 

All that aside, tech stocks will still trade inversely to treasury yields because that's just what they do.

Yes, this is exactly where I was going with my point about the program has to generate more revenue than costs otherwise the benefits are going to be scaled back.  Look at the interest the site pays as an example. The site pays interest on deposits because it generates loyalty and keeps people playing on the site.  Paying interest is a loss leader, the site doesn't make a profit on paying interest, it relies entirely on the goodwill it builds to drive gambling activity which is how the site actually makes money.  If paying interest was costing more than the revenue the site generates from gambling, it would have to scale down the interest or discontinue it because it wouldn't make business sense to pay it.  That's my same point with the FUN program.  If the program doesn't generate extra revenue enough to offset the new added costs of running the program, then the benefits have to be scaled back to prevent the site from losing money on it, and if the benefits are scaled back, that increases the breakeven point for anyone who bought tokens and is trying to calculate when that decision makes financial sense for them (if ever).

That's absolutely not what happened. Board members are insiders and can't just sell their shares without making filings with the SEC about it. Since this didn't happen, we know that this "theory" is 100% wrong. Tesla is pulling back because all tech stocks are pulling back as treasury yields rise. There is an inverse relationship between the 10 year treasury yield and tech stocks.

Yeah, it's definitely related. Risk is associated with volatility, so things with lower volatility are considered "safer." Gold doesn't have the volatility of other asset classes, so by definition it's not going to rise as high in good economic times but it's not going to fall as low in bad economic times. But it's why it's a bad investment if you're trying to make wealth and not protect it.

PayPal has announced you'll eventually be able to withdraw it, they're building out the capability. So OP's concern is largely theoretical since it won't exist in actuality. As a public company, PayPal wouldn't be able to get away with selling something to the public that they couldn't back up though, so even if they weren't building out the capability, their crypto sales to users would have to be backed by crypto purchases in order not to get in trouble with the SEC.

I don't know how this doesn't make crypto look like a bubble. This is simply "registering" virtual ownership of nonexistent goods. A tweet isn't something that can be owned, or even sold by someone. Yet people are buying into the notion that if we register ownership of this thing that exists on the internet, other people will consider you the "owner" of it.

Yet NFT doesn't grant ownership in any practical way, the ownership is entirely artificial. If you have no property rights over what you own, you don't own the property. You can't stop people from viewing the media you "own," you can't stop people from reproducing it. You have zero real world control over whatever NFT dupes you into thinking you "own."

It's different if you're registering ownership of things that exist in the real world and it creates a legal right of ownership. But that does't exist for things like buying tweets or "owning" the Nyan cat meme.

Having more assets than liabilities just means you have a positive net worth, it doesn't mean you're rich. If you've got $1,000,000 in cash and $999,999,999 in liabilities, your net worth is the same as a guy who has $1 and no liabilities. Neither of these people is rich.

God, I know it's not simple for you, you've made that abundantly clear. You keep arriving at conclusions I didn't argue for, so that's on you for your inability to understand. You're conflating two different perspectives, one about how the program operates for the site and the other how it operates for people who hold FUN.  These are two different things but you keep trying to jam them together and you're confusing yourself. More troubling, you apparently can't understand how the FUN program increases operating costs for the site, and that's by far the simplest idea I've even brought up. If you can't understand that, there's absolutely no upside to continue to engage with you because it's just going to be you continually not understanding my two different points and arguing against them because you don't understand them.  Let's just agree to stop here.