|
I think the comparison of mining and how coins are generated is not the biggest factor or difference between Bitcoin and altcoins. I think the key point is the market dominance is Bitcoin is 60% of the total cryptocurrency market cap. I have other threads on my profile about the lack of utility provided by altcoins.
|
|
|
|
I admire the effort and sacrifice you have put into making this book, however definitely be cautious to associate your real identity with your Bitcointalk account. I have no doubt that hackers lurk on this forum looking for new targets they can socially engineer or try recover crypto exchange accounts from. Just a friendly warning. |
|
|
|
By pure chance I recently discovered this independent documentary called "Bitcoinners", which came out on 14th November 2024. To quote the abstract: Bitcoinners is an independent documentary film that takes an inside-look at the grassroots movement of die-hard bitcoin devotees and why they think Bitcoin can save America. Filmed from 2021 to 2023, this film follows a group of bitcoin plebs in Texas, and includes key interviews with well-known bitcoin voices. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcaQ-EifEJYI wanted to share this documentary with everyone here, as the it focuses on the individual stories of people within the Bitcoin community and avoids covering any technical details of the blockchain. Instead it really highlights how Bitcoin influences our lives and ideologies. I feel that this documentary would be engaging and interesting even to audiences that are unfamiliar or don't understand Bitcoin. Are you aware of any similiar documentaries or films that focus on personal stories and ideologies around Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
It also helps to understand that if they can issue debt and shares to buy $42 billion (1/2 each) in bitcoin over the next 3 years that would buy ALL of the new supply of bitcoin for about 18 months at current prices - which is what they announced just before Halloween this year (2024). If they can issue debt to buy $100 billion or something after that they are essentially sopping up a huge amount of the new supply so there is very little for anyone else except from current owners. Either more people will sell or the price will have to go up until they wish to do so.
It almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if their purchases can really impact the market this much and they have. As long as demand continues both from them and elsewhere this can continue.
As far as buying MSTR, it certainly has had a great run and if they can take 70% of the profits from the bonds then that could explain why people are willing to pay a premium.
Wow, I didn't even think about that. MSTR borrowing $$ to effectively purchase all of the Bitcoin supply anticipated to be coming in over the next 18 months, it certainly has a major impact on the price. However, at the same it's a bit concerning. I don't really want to live in a world where a single corporate owns like 1 million BTC out of the entire supply of 21 million. I feel like that will lead to centralisation in a sense. |
|
|
|
|
Think about it, Trump hasn't even stepped in as the President yet and the market sentiment has made Bitcoin go up to $100k USD. There is still 4 years of policies that Trump can make to strength the crypto economy internationally. America doing this first, other countries will follow.
|
|
|
|
MicroStrategy initially was a software company, they have really become a Bitcoin acquiring company, with their company valued based on their cryptocurrency holdings.
Well, they technically are still a software company, just that they have gotten very involved with Bitcoin that it now has a significant impact on MSTR shares valuation. For most traditional investors, the idea of a company which owns Bitcoin as an investment, and doesn't really produce much income, or hold assets that produce income, they would expect that the market capitalisation (value of all shares in circulation sold at current price), would be equal or close to the Net Asset Value (NAV), which is the value of all Bitcoin they hold.
How do you mean "doesn't really produce much income, or hold assets that produce income?" Market capitalization is mostly a reflection of market sentiments and isn't directly correlated with NAV. Yes they are "technically" still a software company, but their company is well known for being a Bitcoin investment company. Most listed investment companies, or exchange traded funds, their market capitalisation is directly associated to their NAV. When I say "doesn't really produce much income or hold assets that produce income", I mean that their primary growth has been due to their investment strategy, not their software sales. Their company has grown not because their software has generated them income (intellectual property or sales generating income), nor is it that they hold other assets which generate income, like stocks which pay dividends, it's purely capital gains of the underlying Bitcoin itself. ---------------------------------------- Why is it so difficult to understand what @Upgrade00 pointed out?
They are more then just a BTC holding company, they were before and are now a very successful software company with clients that include Visa and Pfizer and others.
Yes they are very bullish on BTC with deep investments in it.
But at the end of the day they are also still selling VERY expensive software to a bunch of fortune 500 companies.
Kind of like Boeing, their commercial aircraft are having some issues, their rockets are having some issues. Their military side doing just fine, their satellite (separate from their rockets) is just fine and so on.
MicroStrategy is more then BTC. So comparing their value to just their BTC holdings is pointless.
-Dave
In the financial year 2023 ending in 2024, MicroStrategy only had $0.465 billion in revenue, which is down 7.35% year on year for their software sales. Yes they're "technically" a software company. But their stock price isn't booming because of software sales. Their market capitalisation is more than 200x their total revenue, because of their ability to borrow money and use it to invest in Bitcoin. I disagree to compare their value to only Bitcoin, considering their revenue is only 0.5% of their total market capitalisation. Reference: https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/mstr/revenue/To all other comments in the thread, saying things like, Bitcoin is just their strategy in their background but their company is primarily sales, it's important to look at the actual data. They are not a software company anymore, their primary purpose is to acquire Bitcoin and exchange financial instruments of their stock to get more capital to acquire more Bitcoin. This is very different to them just buying Bitcoin with their excess capital. |
|
|
|
|
Agreed it's a very conservative estimate given the action we have seen recently. I believe end of December, early January there will be another massive pump, particularly around the time Donald Trump becomes the president again in the united states.
|
|
|
|
|
Once this role get's formalised, we will see a Bitcoin pump like we have never seen before. Every nation on planet earth will follow Trump and the United States government so they are not left behind.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of people in this thread have got it wrong. The key difference is that Greg was not a bitcoin "holder". He was a bitcoin "trader". In the early days there was many traders, even I was one of them. There was not enough Bitcoin maxi's that never sold and held forever.
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny because a lot of people think this $95k-$100k range is the "take profits" zone. Trust me. The crypto summer has barely started. We have a long pump to go.
|
|
|
|
|
Damn that statistic shocked me!
"Bitcoin has died 415 times.
If you bought $100 worth of Bitcoin every time, you'd have $95,967,142.33 right now."
|
|
|
|
|
The article does say: "Morocco’s central bank, Bank Al-Maghrib, has prepared a draft law for cryptocurrency regulation, which is currently being reviewed."
So technically this hasn't actually happened yet, but it is good news indeed.
|
|
|
|
MicroStrategy (MSTR) and its Executive Chairman, Michael Saylor, have gained significant attention in the last few weeks alone, mainly due to the company's strategy for acquiring significant Bitcoins, which has ramped up the company share price exponentially. Whilst MicroStrategy initially was a software company, they have really become a Bitcoin acquiring company, with their company valued based on their cryptocurrency holdings. For most traditional investors, the idea of a company which owns Bitcoin as an investment, and doesn't really produce much income, or hold assets that produce income, they would expect that the market capitalisation (value of all shares in circulation sold at current price), would be equal or close to the Net Asset Value (NAV), which is the value of all Bitcoin they hold. However, currently the market capitalisation of MSTR is $90.645 billion USD, whilst they hold 386,700 BTC Bitcoins worth $35.735 billion USD. For most traditional investors, this doesn't really make any sense. They ask the question: "Why is the market capitalisation 2.53x the net asset value?" I am making this post to help answer this question, as like you, I was initially quite confused. The answer ultimately is: Leverage. MicroStrategy is able to borrow money from investors at 0% fixed interest, by giving them convertible bonds, that let them trade the bonds for company shares later (typically 5 years) if the shares become more valuable (typically 30% higher). However, if the value of the MSTR share price does not rise by the 30-50% threshold needed for the bondholders to covert their bonds to shares, the bonds simply remain as debt and must be repaid in the full face value. So what this means is: 1. If BTC Bitcoin's price rises, MicroStrategy's acquired Bitcoin from the borrowed money would rise in value, and therefore improve MicroStrategy's net asset value and investor sentiment, driving up the stock price. This would then exceed the conversion price of the convertible bonds. Bondholder can then convert their bonds to equity (shares), diluting existing shareholders, but reducing MicroStrategy's debt obligations. This could create a positive feedback loop to attract more investors and driving the stock price even higher. 2. If BTC Bitcoin price plummets, MicroStrategy's acquired Bitcoin from the borrowed money would drop, as well as other holdings, and therefore the net asset value would drop. However, MicroStrategy would still be on the hook to cover the bond repayment to the bondholder and need the cash available to make this repayment in full. As MicroStrategy's investment strategy is to be low on cash reserves, this would mean the company would be required to sell off Bitcoin to raise funds for the repayment. However, this could exacerbate Bitcoin's price decline, and hurt investor sentiment, causing Bitcoin to decline even further, making a negative feedback loop. So effectively this just means that MicroStrategy uses financial instruments like convertible bonds with debt and equity, to acquire Bitcoin, which amplifies the impact of Bitcoin's price on it's stock - Leverage. Whilst I am super bullish on Bitcoin, and I do believe that MicroStrategy buying Bitcoin is good for the cryptocurrency industry as a whole, it is not an investment option I will choose, and I will stick to acquiring real Bitcoin myself. The leverage does increase exposure so that Bitcoin price movements will lead to greater earnings, however it's still very centralised, and you are not a custodian of the cryptocurrency yourself. I would rather do this myself. I am interested to hear your thoughts. If you are bullish on Bitcoin, would you rather buy MicroStrategy, or Bitcoin itself? References: 1. https://www.microstrategy.com/press/microstrategy-completes-3-billion-offering-of-convertible-senior-notes-due-2029-at-0-coupon-and-55-conversion-premium_11-21-20242. https://www.microstrategy.com/press/microstrategy-announces-pricing-of-convertible-senior-notes-11-20-2024 |
|
|
|
I'm curious as to what you all think about this article, this idea, or anything related to it. Me? I think it's total BS (though definitely bullish), but I tend to scoff at most crap that gets published online, especially if it's financial news--but I never rule out the possibility that I'm being a moron.
Yes it's published content online, but this Bitcoin federal reserve fund isn't just sensationalist journalism, it's something Trump himself has discussed. I am bullish on it. |
|
|
|
|
The problem with a poll like this is that the sample size is literally only 30,000. I don't think this data is statistically significant for any informed discussions or decision making.
More broadly though, I do agree that there are many people yet to be convinced of the true value of Bitcoin. Once we start saying all NASDAQ 100 companies purchasing crypto to hold their capital, and the US federal reserve acquiring cryptocurrency, we will boom to $1 m USD per coin threshold.
|
|
|
|
Doesn't matter now!! New all time high being reached every single hour this week  |
|
|
|
|
Clarification point on the forum title, they asked them to vote AGAINST holding Bitcoin. Very important distinction for the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Old news, it has been legal tender for a very long time. The president of El Salvador even did a deal with a crypto exchange to give every citizen like $5 of crypto each a few years ago I recall.
|
|
|
|
some people just don't bother learning the ins and outs about self custody, also the learning curve might be steep if we really care about security but honestly, just generating an address and saving it in a paper wallet is easy, if we don't want to care about the ins and outs of security while still trying to self custody we can always use hardware wallet. but despite this, some people just consider learning about a little thing like this to be a pain. even more so for people who aren't really used to technology. so it's understandable.
the thing is, the news about hacker stealing BTC is enough to intimidate many people into thinking that they are just insufficient in term of knowledge to manage their own money, so they decide to just use exchanges's custody.
this self depreciation is the problem I think, where people think self custody have so much thing they need to care about that they feel they just can't do it.
You make a very good point. I think the reason people fear self custody is because they think it's technically complicated and they probably only think of having a hot wallet on a GUI software on their computer, which agreed isn't a safe location to store crypto long term. However in recent years we have seen more and more exchanges be compromised, so the notion that storing their holding with an exchange is safer and easier, is a false sense of assurance. So much easier to just buy a hardware wallet. |
|
|
|
|
I doubt he would actually give Bitcoin to people. I don't recall Satoshi gifting anyone 1 million NYC
If anything I think he would burn 1 million BTC (not that he has that much anyways), so further reduce the total supply with the goal to make Bitcoin worth more.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
