I wonder if SAYLOR ever wonders at what level his control of Bitcoin becomes a liability.
For sure, I can appreciate what Saylor is doing in terms of using various kinds of debt to leverage into bitcoin, yet even his very first sets of BTC purchases that were like more than 70% of their then cash reserves started to challenge my own thinking regarding how much allocation into bitcoin would be too much.
Actually looking at cash reserves, I started to understand that many of us would not necessarily need to have a lot of cash reserves so long as we can project out our cashflows for 6 months to 24 months and have various contingency plans if some of the incoming cash were to dry up... so in a large number of cases we do not have have even close to 100% out as far as 24 months, yet of course, the closer the timeline (such as within the next three months) it is probably best to have those 100% covered, and for a business or a more complicated cashflow situation, it may even be prudent to have 100% covered for up to 6 months.
Otherwise, when looking at cashflows, there would be needs to look at how liquid is the asset, so how long would it take us to liquidate various kinds of assets in the event that various aspects of our anticipated cashflows were to dry up, and so having 100% covered for several months does end up giving lead time, so if some kind of negative events were to start to happen, we would already be working on shoring up converting some of our assets into cash further out on the timeline that our reserves are getting bought into... and of course, there should be some appreciation for Gresham's law principles in terms of spending the less likely to appreciate assets first.
I understand that your questions are a wee bit different cAPSLOCK, and you are kind of getting at the mere size of the MSTR holdings, and we likely realize that even though Saylor has been quite public about what he has been doing, there are going to be some difficulties for any other companies or individuals to amass so many bitcoin's without moving the BTC price, and frequently the really BIGGER players systematically seem to aim to not only attempt to get cheap coins but also to NOT move the market in the UPwards direction while they are getting them. A public company does have to disclose quite a bit more of the details in a fairly timely manner, but they do not necessarily need to disclose all of their acquisition of BTC details so long as shareholders cannot validly accuse them of engaging in deceptive practices by leaving out material information from their disclosures.
For sure we can appreciate that we do not know who owns which coins except if they have disclosed at one point or another, and so there are some ideas about some of the BIGGER of the coin holders.. and surely Saylor would be quite high on any list - even if some entities and individuals might not be revealing their holdings and secretly attempting to accumulate large quantities like Saylor/MSTR has been doing.
By the way, in around August 2020 when Saylor disclosed that he had front run his company and personally acquired around 17k bitcoins, it seems that he was disclosing that level of detail out of an abundance of caution, but now that MSTR has been in the BTC accumulation practice for a longer period of time, he likely does not need to continue to disclose various aspects of his personal BTC accumulation to the extent that he may well be continuing to personally accumulate more BTC on an ongoing basis.
Regarding risk of acquiring so many BTC.. I do seem to get your points..and you seem to be referring to a kind of variety of risks in terms of both systematic risks and personal risks, and there is likely no way that I can really answer that question nor do I really want to.. because surely there would be some scariness in terms of how to spread out the coins to maybe attempt to maintain control and even figure out if there might be ways to avoid any small number of people running off with the coins risk in terms of glitches in the systems that are implemented or maybe even glitches in some kind of software that ends up allowing one person or a small group to gain control.. and maybe even then they could claim that it was a hacker.
Some of those supposed hacked 119k Bitfinex coins have still not moved, but I had sometimes come across some posts or threads that claim that some of these older hacked coins from x, y or z location are moving, and maybe even people lose interest in following whether hacked coins are moving after several years.
Say he bought ALL the Bitcoin.
Well it would be worthless because he will have taken all the ability to coordinate away from the system. And obviously this will never happen, but at what point is his stake "too big"?
10% or more would be pretty damned BIG.. even assuming that he could get a hold of that many coins.
Let's say that there are only about 14 million BTC in total in circulation. .due to lost coins ...
Currently his company's 124k acquisition is barely getting to 1% of the coins if we were to throw in his personal coins too. By the way, we also know that the structure of MSTR does give Saylor a lot of control over MSTR and therefore those coins.
Personally I think there are no issues with the size of their stake currently. But is there a point at which there WOULD be issues?
For sure, it could be argued that their current stake size is already problematic in a variety of ways, and some folks have already presented some of those kinds of claims in this thread.
(I assume this topic has been previously covered in this thread somewhere...)
Some variations of the topics have come up in this thread, and of course, there is a difference in terms of talking in theory and then seeing that he is getting up to 124k.. I think that I heard him say that he wants at least 200k coins .. or maybe he said that he wants 2%? Maybe Saylor believes that some of his protections come from being so damned public and giving so many interviews, and cannot completely argue with that strategy, either. So maybe sometimes he might also contradict himself, and would that be a bad thing in terms of OPsec? Surprisingly he has been considerably consistent given his so many interviews and also his variety of ways of disclosing and attempting to provide a variety of interesting spins on matters. Of course, he is likely the brainchild behind a lot of his own words and his decent ways of articulating matters, but he has to have some pretty decently smart and creative folks on his team too to pull off some of his research into various legal, strategic, public relations, execution and even rolling with the punches matters.
