TwentyOne Capital: The next MicroStrategy?

[OmegaStarScream]

So Cantor Group (led by Howard Lutnick who is the Secretary of Commerce right now and who's known to be very pro-bitcoin) with Bitfinex/Tether and SoftBank are launching "Twenty one capital".

The aim of the company is to not only stack more bitcoin like MicroStrategy is doing, but also:

Twenty One also intends to build out several Bitcoin-focused offerings, including Bitcoin debt and equity products, an advisory service, a lending platform and an educational platform.

The company is going to be led by Jack Mallers who is the founder of Strike app. I have seen some of his tweets, and also seeb gul talking at the Bitcoin Conference a couple of times, and I do believe he's a good fit for the position.

EDIT: FOrgot to mention that the plan is launch with 42,000 Bitcoin (3.6 Billion$) and then stack more over time.

Your thoughts?



Source: SEC's website (taken from Cointelegraph's post above).

[cr1776]

So it looks like they're raising around $600 million to buy more bitcoin over an about the $3.6 billion they are with which is another ~6500 which is around 7 days worth of new mining.  Any additional demand is good as are their other projects and certainly the people/groups involved have a lot of experience in the financial area. 

The more companies and startups that do this kind of thing, the better for the ecosystem.  It has the potential to snowball.

So Cantor Group (led by Howard Lutnick who is the Secretary of Commerce right now and who's known to be very pro-bitcoin) with Bitfinex/Tether and SoftBank are launching "Twenty one capital".

The aim of the company is to not only stack more bitcoin like MicroStrategy is doing, but also:

Twenty One also intends to build out several Bitcoin-focused offerings, including Bitcoin debt and equity products, an advisory service, a lending platform and an educational platform.

The company is going to be led by Jack Mallers who is the founder of Strike app. I have seen some of his tweets, and also seeb gul talking at the Bitcoin Conference a couple of times, and I do believe he's a good fit for the position.

EDIT: FOrgot to mention that the plan is launch with 42,000 Bitcoin (3.6 Billion$) and then stack more over time.

Your thoughts?



Source: SEC's website (taken from Cointelegraph's post above).

[Ziskinberg]

TwentyOne Capital has better investment programs, but I still prefer MicroStrategy’s approach. It’s simple, and most (if not all) of its trust is based on Bitcoin’s performance.

For TwentyOne Capital to be managed well, they’ll need a group of experts from different fields they plan to explore. I see they’re also looking to offer a lending platform, which could be risky if not managed properly.

On the other hand, MicroStrategy keeps it straightforward: their main focus is safeguarding assets, and they rely on Bitcoin’s future to drive profits as the value rises.

[Ambatman]

This is the first time I have heard about such name. I guess I ain't really verse in the stock market.

I can't tell how it would pan out but from what is here, I like the direction is going.
The introduction of new programs is a killer move not to be considered a copycat of Microstrategy.
Big Enterprise entering the market is sign they are starting to see the potential and what can be unearthed.

For TwentyOne Capital to be managed well, they’ll need a group of experts from different fields they plan to explore. I see they’re also looking to offer a lending platform, which could be risky if not managed properly.

lending with Bitcoin isn't a first. Shasan and others here do it even sometimes with just reputation and not collateral ( very commendable)
I think it would be easier to be implemented by a firm that would request for KYC.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

So it looks like they're raising around $600 million to buy more bitcoin over an about the $3.6 billion they are with which is another ~6500 which is around 7 days worth of new mining.  Any additional demand is good as are their other projects and certainly the people/groups involved have a lot of experience in the financial area.

In early months of 2024, after Bitcoin Spot ETF approvals in the USA and those ETFs actually started their Bitcoin purchases, for many months, they bought all or almost new bitcoins from mining. Your example is interesting and it's similar effect from Bitcoin ETF purchases one year ago.

The more companies and startups that do this kind of thing, the better for the ecosystem.  It has the potential to snowball.

It's truly snowball effect, and at company scale it started with Strategy in the last market cycle, and at national scale it began with El Salvador in the last market cycle too with their national policy of making "Bitcoin Legal Tender" in their nation and initiated their national Bitcoin treasury.

After a snowball start, more companies and nations have been participating and they will contribute more to Bitcoin adoption and snowball effects will become bigger.

[criptoevangelista]

I wonder if this purchase they made is what caused the Bitcoin pump?
I still believe that sooner or later all companies will add Bitcoin to their balance sheets. Some will use it exclusively, meaning each share will be backed by Bitcoin.

With everything happening in the world, it doesn’t make sense to stay out of it. A single signature or tweet can destroy a company, and that’s not good. But with Bitcoin, the free market essentially dictates the rules, and in the end, it’s good for everyone.

[Darker45]

This is great news! But I wonder why they have to present their grand plan by making Strategy look inferior. They're saying, "We’re not here to beat the market, we’re here to build a new one", but why are they selling their design to investors by comparing it with Strategy, highlighting the latter's weaknesses, shortcomings, flaws, and whatnot? Do they have to directly compete with Strategy? Can they not make a pitch without dragging the name of another company? In the name of Bitcoin, they're supposed to be allies.

[joniboini]

In the name of Bitcoin, they're supposed to be allies.

I don't think that's their goal to begin with. It's all about profits, so of course, they have to provide some assurance that their business can compete compared to other competitors, especially against the most popular ones. Just like how some alts try to convince people that they're better compared to BTC, ETH, and so on.

Anyway, I believe I read that a Japanese-based company also plans to buy Bitcoin and focus its investment activity on crypto a few weeks ago. I'm not sure if it's another bubble or if more companies will follow suit. Hopefully, this doesn't mean more centralization, which allows manipulation to happen more easily. CMIIW.

[hugeblack]

It will most likely lead to something bad, they are accumulating Bitcoin to get more liquidity using collateral, which is something far from what MicroStrategy is doing, which was more like Proxy Solutions for Investment.

[retreat]

Bitcoin is gaining popularity globally, and with the certainty of crypto regulation in the US and Trump's vision of making America the global crypto capital, I think that makes Howard Lutnick optimistic that his company can benefit from this momentum.
Especially he has thoughtfully launched this Twenty one capital with backed by Tether and SoftBank Group and Bitfinex, and with the programs that Twenty one capital has, it might be a new investment company that can grow quickly and attract more people who want to get involved in investing, education, or Bitcoin-backed loans. And maybe if they are successful with the company, it will be a catalyst for more companies to get involved in bitcoin.

[OmegaStarScream]

-snip-

The more companies and startups that do this kind of thing, the better for the ecosystem.  It has the potential to snowball.
-snip-

It would also be harder to spread FUD and cause panic as opposed to how things are now. I wouldn't even want to imagine the state of the markets if bitcoin goes low enough where Strategy finds itself forced to sell some of its holdings.

[aoluain]

I think this was only a matter of time before more companies/entities copied
Microstrategy's playbook to some degree.

Its positive because IMO it normalises Bitcoin investing (its already normal to us!)

On the negative side do you think there will be a time when us minnows wont be able to
accumulate Bitcoin because it will already be in the possession of the Whales?

[Felicity_Tide]

It's quite interesting to see new parties joining the race. It's almost a mirror of Microstrategy, but with more attributes this time, and some of these attributes deviates a little from what Microstrategy has been doing. They are in not just for investment purposes alone, but for other strategic business that will generate more revenue to purchase more Bitcoin. Take the lending platforms for example, where exactly are they going to lend from, from their stack or elsewhere?.

That aside, it's good to see another entity. Microstrategy has done well, but it's best to have other big players in the game as well to level things up.

[EluguHcman]

TwentyOne Capital has better investment programs, but I still prefer MicroStrategy’s approach. It’s simple, and most (if not all) of its trust is based on Bitcoin’s performance.

For TwentyOne Capital to be managed well, they’ll need a group of experts from different fields they plan to explore. I see they’re also looking to offer a lending platform, which could be risky if not managed properly.

On the other hand, MicroStrategy keeps it straightforward: their main focus is safeguarding assets, and they rely on Bitcoin’s future to drive profits as the value rises.

And they might likely not be in competition with the Microstrategy.
Perhaps... Microstrategy is a wealthy institution and their amiable credits is fostered on their approach as the first institution to had adopted the concept of investing on Bitcoin which each institution decided to invest on Bitcoin will have to locate a befitting strategy depending on their financial revenues, sorts of their diversification of assets and mostly based on their economical structures.

Readjust of investment program can always come in the future depending on the accumulated outcomes. Moreso, it is a welcomed news of the TwentyOne Capital institution adopted Bitcoin.

Both institutional investment system has potential to produce food values to Bitcoin which thoughtfully the launched of the TwentyOne Capital may have resulted to the increased Bitcoin price after so long we have been experiencing price resistance of $90K.

[avp2306]

This is great news! But I wonder why they have to present their grand plan by making Strategy look inferior. They're saying, "We’re not here to beat the market, we’re here to build a new one", but why are they selling their design to investors by comparing it with Strategy, highlighting the latter's weaknesses, shortcomings, flaws, and whatnot? Do they have to directly compete with Strategy? Can they not make a pitch without dragging the name of another company? In the name of Bitcoin, they're supposed to be allies.

Maybe to get attention since Microstrategy is big firm and if they have this comparison, then provably that news about their existence will blow up which is currently happening since people talk about them already.

We don't know if they really are but provably they would struggle if they aim that since Microstrategy is already established their company and holdings, then its long way for them to chase up just to come close with that company.

Let see what they can do since somehow they are interesting company to follow.

[death69]

It is not MicroStrategy 2.0. Saylor used boring convertibles and the software cash trickle to hoard 530 k BTC. Twenty One is basically a SPAC-wrapped hedge fund stapled to a Lightning fintech. Different risk curve altogether.

Tether could affect the entire system. If USDT loses its peg or new European regulations (like MiCA) block euro withdrawals, 21C’s main investor could run into serious liquidity problems. Their 42000 BTC doesn’t look so solid if their backer is struggling to cover $30 billion in stablecoin redemptions.

That would be a huge conflict of interest. Imagine the headlines if the Department of Commerce approves a national Bitcoin reserve while Lutnick Jr.’s investment company is also buying large amounts of Bitcoin. The SEC would almost definitely launch an investigation. Is Mallers losing support from hardcore Bitcoiners because of political controversy? Bitcoin maximalists generally reject anything that looks like government influence or control, and they might see him as getting too close to that.

Is there really a market for this product? After FTX collapsed, lending desks still require borrowers to put up more collateral than they borrow. So where is Twenty One going to find responsible borrowers willing to lock up 120% of their BTC, especially when they could just borrow through established platforms like Coinbase or Galaxy? And their advisory service just sounds like a rebranded version of what Cantor is already doing.

My take: price in a fat controversy premium. Fun to track, premature to crown. Wake me when they publish loan-book transparency and their Lightning channels survive a stress-test.

[nemesis_incarnate]

Maybe to get attention since Microstrategy is big firm and if they have this comparison, then provably that news about their existence will blow up which is currently happening since people talk about them already.

We don't know if they really are but provably they would struggle if they aim that since Microstrategy is already established their company and holdings, then its long way for them to chase up just to come close with that company.

Let see what they can do since somehow they are interesting company to follow.

Hype will probably propel them a bit forward, that's for sure.

Anybody would like to have their company talked about in every social due to their moves on the market

[Ziskinberg]

For TwentyOne Capital to be managed well, they’ll need a group of experts from different fields they plan to explore. I see they’re also looking to offer a lending platform, which could be risky if not managed properly.

lending with Bitcoin isn't a first. Shasan and others here do it even sometimes with just reputation and not collateral ( very commendable)
I think it would be easier to be implemented by a firm that would request for KYC.

Of course, it’s easier when a firm is involved since they have standards to follow. But what I’m saying is, the more programs they run, the more complicated it gets. It’s not that the system will fail, but the real risk comes from the people behind the scenes. There’s just a lot to manage and monitor.

Unlike when it’s just simple buy-and-hold, it’s straightforward, and investors can feel more at ease.

[GreatArkansas]

$3 billion Bitcoin investment venture? Good for Bitcoin? - Related topic I created too, before.
I am amazed by this news because before Microstrategy started, a lot of bashers. Like some are making fun of Microstrategy doing about buying Bitcoin. But later on, table turns. Other companies started to follow.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I wouldn't even want to imagine the state of the markets if bitcoin goes low enough where Strategy finds itself forced to sell some of its holdings.

I find it strange that you say that because if I remember correctly you have followed, at least sometimes, fillippone's thread on Strategy. Most bitcoins Strategy has bought since half a year ago have been bought via ATM, basically printing money to buy bitcoin, or if you prefer more specifically creating more shares to buy bitcoin. This is not debt and this move is contrary to what is usually a share capital increase in companies that follow a fiat standard, almost all, because in these a share capital increase is dilutive while buying bitcoin with the money collected from the ATM Strategy's move is accreative. XXI Capital is going to copy him in this.

Strategy's debt is convertible debt, which means that in the normal scenario it will be repaid by converting it into shares at a certain price. If you go to https://www.strategy.com/debt you will see that the share price has already exceeded the convertibility price today. In addition, the first is due in 2028 and is strategically planned in terms of maturities.

Anyway, I don't want to get long, but to summarize, yes, there is a possible scenario in which Strategy would have to sell bitcoin but it is so bearish that none of us on the forum would consider it.