Oh. Now you want to proclaim yourself as some kind of expert, even though you made stupid ass and seemingly out of touch kinds of statements.
Difficult to consider you as any kind of expert based on what you have already said, and also your apparent failure/refusal to account for clear analysis and discussion that I pointed out to you.
Lol, the dumbest and most out of touch thing in this thread is the assertion that companies that don't invest in bitcoin are going to face lawsuits from shareholders of those companies.
You are overstating the claim in order to get caught up in the weeds...
You do have fiduciary responsibilities when you are handling other people's money, and surely claims are made based on industry standards, whether you are going along with standards, whether you have reasonable basis for the various investments that you make and how well you are making disclosures to those people entrusting you with their money.
So yeah, compared to how ridiculous you have to be to believe that, I'm an expert compared to you.
Great. I am looking forward to you saying something smart and/or helpful.
For everyone else, I'm just someone with a couple decades of experience in the industry and the slightest bit of common sense.
We surely need people with experience and common sense to be contributing ideas, that's for sure.
I was counter responding to your assertion of plausibility of lawsuits against Microstrategy, that you seem to have proclaimed without knowing specifics about how microstrategy had gone about their BTC purchase(s).
It doesn't matter how microstrategy bought all that bitcoin, all that matters is they bought all that bitcoin.
I was talking about disclosures and allowance for any bitcoin skeptics to get out of the company before the company entered into the bitcoin investment.
Furthermore, this particular company seems to have had a decent amount of additional flexibility beyond regular companies since it seems that Saylor holds a majority voting share, so in essence, he is able to do whatever the fuck he wants - and surely, he is covering his ass extra when he both discloses to shareholders and his board of directors what he is planning to do, gives the board opportunities for input and gives both shareholders and board members sufficient and adequate opportunities to get the fuck out (even at a then premium), if they so choose.
The risk of owning bitcoin is not mitigated by how it was purchased.
Are you distracted? What does that have to do with anything?
If bitcoin drops 20%, as it is prone to do, and Saylor decides to exit the position, you'll see shareholder lawsuits. And what will not be a valid defense to breach of fiduciary duty is how the bitcoin was purchased.
As I have already discussed, we can agree to disagree on this aspect, mr expert.
Refusing to recognize the company has taken a boatload of risk here and that it's not all automatic upside just because they bought BTC... man, that's extreme. I'm far too sensible to be that extreme.
Who said that I am taking that position, you?
Are you admitting it then? Because then you need to reconcile the fact that you
do think this is a boatload of risk with the tone of the rest of your post, which treats a bitcoin investment as automatic upside so much so
that you think that companies that don't invest in bitcoin could be sued for not doing so. Pick a lane dude.
I don't need to pick any lane. People can decide what the fuck they want to do.
Of course, Saylor and Microstrategy took a way more aggressive position than many companies or individuals would do.
I generally recommend that people start out by assessing bitcoin in terms of their overall quasi-liquid investment portfolio and that they take somewhere between 1% and 10% allocation in bitcoin. Of course, higher up is more aggressive and lower down is a lot more conservative, but in the end of the day, each person has to decide for himself where they want to start and if they feel that they are justified at any point of the range or going beyond the range.
There is no fucking exact one stop objective answer regarding how much to allocate into bitcoin, exactly.
They have to calculate based on their own situation to figure out the extent that they are adequately balancing their risks based on the variety of factors, and of course, companies might have some factors that go beyond what individuals would consider, but they are going to be similar to the individual factors which are: cashflow, other investments, view of bitcoin as compared with other assets, timeline, risk tolerance and time, skills and abilities to plan, learn along the way and tweak along the way which includes reallocating and trading if suiting.
You either think this is such a slam dunk no-risk investment that companies that don't invest in bitcoin could face shareholder lawsuits for not doing so, or you think there's a ton of risk here that you haven't previously admitted.
I think that if as time goes along, and a lot of BIG ASS companies and traditional financial people are both taking positions in bitcoin and putting information out there regarding their reasons for doing so, and if you are a fiduciary who keeps his/her head in the sand and failing/refusing to consider certain kinds of investments, such as bitcoin, then you may well be found to be fiducially irresponsible at some future date.. especially the more and more that information is out there and becoming more mainstream and you as a fiduciary are burying your head in the sand. You better at least look into the matter.. and maybe we are not close to that kind of necessity yet, but down the road, you might start to look like a goddamned fool if you keep your money in cash and fail to protect the value of your investment when it appears quite likely that cash is NOT a great place to keep your value in the longer term.. especially looking at a timeline of at least a few years.
I wasn't even responding to your post though, so no, I haven't had a chance to listen to the podcast you posted yet. I do, however, appreciate the point you made about giving forewarning to investors and offering to buy any out before proceeding.
Fair enough. So, perhaps we can either postpone further reaction to the matter for now. Of course, there is no reason for you to necessarily agree with the analysis of the guests on the podcast.
I've looked into this whole situation more and I'm even more convinced this is going to end poorly for microstrategy.
Well, I am glad that you at least looked into the matter. Better than just spouting out random ideas without even looking into the matter, as you had done previously.
Regarding your still being convinced that bitcoin is NOT a good investment or that Microstrategy took too strong of a position in bitcoin, that is your choice.
I had heard those kinds of nonsense claims plenty of times in the past nearly seven years (that i have been watching this space) regarding bitcoin not being a good investment, and it seems that bitcoin's investment thesis is even stronger today than it had been 7 years ago, 4 years ago or even 2 years ago.
Seems to me that the longer that bitcoin is in existence and continues to be developed upon with a variety of strengthening network effects under metcalfe principles and
even Trace Mayer's outlining of network effects, the more compelling that the investment thesis of bitcoin seems to become.
The guy running microstrategy is flailing as a leader.
He seems pretty articulate on the bitcoin topic, and seems to have studied up on it pretty quickly...
I think that he asserted that he first started looking into bitcoin in about mid 2019 after he had sold one of his domain names (Voice.com).. but then it seems that his research into the bitcoin matter ramped up after the mid-March 2020 liquidation situation... and witnessing the extreme of the money printer go bbbbrrrrr reaction that was being taken.. that seems to have caused him considerable lack of confidence in regards to the seeming impending robbing of value of the about $500 million that his company had in cash reserves.
So, yeah, he was trying to figure out some ways to deal with the situation that he was perceiving and communicating that to his board members and share holders.. and his quick study of the matter does not appear to be flailing as a leader, even if your assessment of the proper direction differs from the direction that Saylor took to try to figure out the matter and to try to create some strategies and plans to go forward based on the cards that he has (rather than the cards he wished that he had).
The business's revenue has been falling for 5 straight years. He was previously accused by the SEC of overstating company performance, a charge he settled without admitting or denying the charges, which decimated the company's stock.
Sure. Those matters might be relevant, regarding his character and his competencies, perhaps. He still seems to have a pretty decent grasp of bitcoin, and sure each of us have to come to our own assessment, including him, if he was the one that was leading the charge towards his allocation (or perhaps overallocation) in bitcoin.
As someone who works in this industry, nobody agrees to the settlements when they're innocent and the SEC only allows them to neither admit or deny the charges because the SEC isn't interested in prolonged court battles except in the most egregious of cases.
Sure, they likely had evidence that some of his past behaviors were violative of SEC standards, and for the most part, previous settlements are not allowed to be brought into future cases, unless there are some kind of exigent circumstances.
In any event, I am not sure what you are getting at, here? You believe that Saylor might be engaging in some kind of legally problematic behaviors? Maybe he was able to get better legal advice this time around in terms of learning from past errors that he may have made? I doubt that you can really proclaim that currently, Saylor is violating some kind of SEC standard in terms of his recently having taken a seemingly aggressive investment stance in BTC, merely because he had some issues with the SEC in the past.
You do realize that CEOs who are majority shareholders tend to be pretty eccentric kinds of creatures and maybe even arrogant and gambler types, but that does not necessarily mean that they are necessarily making bad decisions or that they might not have adequately balanced the various factors in these circumstances for themselves (or their company) even if you, personally, would have decided those matters differently, less aggressively and/or more conservatively.
It's much quicker to let them pay a fine for their bad behavior and believe their promises that they learned their lesson.
Not unusual, and seems to be a pretty decently BIG "so what?"
On top of all this, all the lofty bullshit you're heaping on him about "investing for the next 100 years" or being a visionary is all hype and it's your baggage your lambo hopes and dreams you're putting on the situation.
Huh? I don't remember doing any of that.
Bitcoin will do fine with Saylor or not..
Honey badger does not give any shits, but surely, the news is surprisingly bullish for bitcoin, even though such happenings is no kind of condition precedent for bitcoin.
Bitcoin is quite likely to have very decent upside whether Saylor et al get on board or not, even if the contagious behavior of saylor's action might cause BTC to have pumpenings that end up being greater than expected.
Who know?
Personally, I hardly give any shits.
Sure, I become more richie if BTC prices go up, but I am pretty well off already, including in terms of my BTC investment and I have other investments too... yet the fact that BTC's 200 week moving average continues moving UPpity does seem to be quite bulllish too, on an ongoing basis...
Right now Bitcoin's 200 week moving average is about $6,700, so that remains quite amazing with the passage of time continuing to go up.
Saylor himself says he's not a crypto diehard and he's not married to this investment. If it turns bad, he's stated he's prepared to liquidate it "any day of the week, any hour of the day."
Good. Let him do whatever the fuck he wants to do... If he wants to shave off some profits on the way up, then he has that choice, because bitcoin is pretty damned liquid.
Even if you are trying to suggest that Saylor might have bad intentions to dump on the market and to buy lower, he does not really seem to be playing that game, but whatever, those are his bitcoins (of course his company's) and he can do whatever the fuck he wants.
This is an incredibly stupid hill to die on.
Who's dying? I accomplished the vast majority of my initial BTC accumulation in 2014, so I have largely been in a BTC maintenance stage ever since late 2014. Sure, I have accumulated some additional BTC after late 2014, and I have even engaged in some trading strategies with some of my BTC stash, but I am NOT like in any kind of desperate position on any kind of personal basis.
Regarding other investors they have to decide for themselves what they are going to do in regards to investing in bitcoin, if at all. That is their choice. Like I said, I suggest a 1% to 10% allocation into bitcoin as a starting point, but of course, any person investing into bitcoin needs to figure out his/her individual circumstances - regarding what their BTC accumulation goal is and how to get there and how to manage such BTC once they get into a maintenance stage - and sure some people will go into liquidation stages too.
Currently, I personally consider BTC to be a longer term investment with a minimum of a 4 year investment time horizon, and of course, the longer the investment time horizon the better. When I got into BTC, I was quite a bit more hesitant about how much confidence regarding investing beyond one or two years, but these days there seem to be a lot more developments and even underlying confidence building in the strength of bitcoin's foundations that should allow a large number of folks to create and to practice at least a 4 year investment timeline - and surely, if they do not have 4 years, then surely they have to adjust their strategies accordingly because that seems more like gambling rather than investing, which personally I do not recommend.
Of course, no one who gets into bitcoin is necessarily locked into the investment, so they should ensure that they have ways to get out of the investment, if they so choose, do not invest more than they can afford to lose, and also appreciate that they can liquidate (some or all) at any time of their own choosing, even though I am recommending to come into bitcoin with at least a 4 year investment timeline... people ultimately have to choose for themselves and they are responsible for their own investment choices including whether they feel that they need to tweak their investment strategies, or to diversify in or out of bitcoin within their own determinations and discretion.
But you're welcome to continue embarrassing yourself with your hyped up statements about how committed Miscrostrategy is to Bitcoin (they're not, by Saylor's own words) and how any companies not investing in Bitcoin are going to face shareholder lawsuits (they won't, for the same reason you can't sue a company with excess cash 20 years ago for not investing in Amazon).
You seem to be a petty twat, jaysabi, who fails and refuses to appreciate the forest for the trees.
There remain all kinds of factors beyond the one that you are focusing upon, so if you merely want to frame my various ideas on the topic in that way, then that seems to reflect more upon your own myopic stance, rather than my own.
Hopefully you, on a personal level, have NOT failed or refused to take any kind of actual position in bitcoin rather than spouting out what seems to be ongoing nonsense that nocoiners tend to spout out.
Are you recommending any kind of modest position in BTC at all rather that what seems to be Microstrategy's more aggressive BTC approach, or what exactly are you recommending in regards to BTC? Or are you just maniacally focused upon whether a future lawsuit against fiduciaries staying in cash rather than taking a position in bitcoin would be a viable possible lawsuit, when it hardly even matters in the whole scheme of things whether such future possible lawsuit might be viable or not.. hardly even a center of focus, or shouldn't be from my point of view.
