21 Capital: A Bitcoin Native Company

[takuma sato]

The crucial question remains: Who should buy MSTR shares if 1) one can buy Bitcoin directly and 2) one can buy ETFs if you want a leveraged exposure or don't have access to BTC spot, if both of these options are cheaper than MSTR regarding the risk premium? 21 Capital should have the same problem. The only really important reason I can see is indeed volatility just due to the risk premium, but you could simply increase your leverage on ETFs.

If you buy MSTR, beside the leveraged BTC product, you are buying the biggest BTC holder with a corporate infraestructure and free cash flows from being index funds bought all over the world. They have the possibility of becoming the world's biggest Bitcoin bank in the future. It's the nationality of what being the #1 holder gives the company to do things. The best investments are usually monopolies. And MSTR is a monopoly because they simply were there first and took the risk, they are not shady monopolies like Google or Facebook which constantly try to screw up competition. Saylor is doing the opposite, he is teaching competition how to replicate their model if they want. It's all open sourced.

[d5000]

If you buy MSTR, beside the leveraged BTC product, you are buying the biggest BTC holder with a corporate infraestructure and free cash flows from being index funds bought all over the world. They have the possibility of becoming the world's biggest Bitcoin bank in the future.

Yes, that's more or less in line from what I read that in the future they could lend or "stake" their Bitcoins (ETFs can't do that, to my knowledge; some ETP however can). But would that be enough to justify such a high premium?

Apart from that we could also question if having big "Bitcoin banks" is desirable or even viable, if Bitcoin was made and provides features to reduce the importance of banks (and bailouts, see genesis block).

Of course for the question I'm asking here Satoshi's ideology doesn't matter, what does matter is the commercial viability of a "Big Bitcoin Bank". But would people need Bitcoin banks and pay fees for their services? Maybe for some use case where Bitcoin credits make sense, but would they need big banks, i.e. centralization? We talk all the time about decentralization, so would people continue to support Strategy also in the future just because they're "the biggest one"? Or would that business model eventually erode?

The best investments are usually monopolies. And MSTR is a monopoly because they simply were there first [...]

I agree that a part of the investments in MSTR probably was attracted because the business model was unique and that in fact they were a monopoly.

But now we return to the topic of the thread: they aren't alone now, 21 Capital is one of the first of a potential larger group of competitors. So the "monopoly bonus" doesn't apply already. There's still a first mover advantage for MSTR. But in the banking sector for example, the oldest banks aren't necessarily the biggest banks, so they can't rely on that in the future.

I guess that once the market has been more populated we would see smaller premiums, and that means that the earlier investors would tend to lose money in comparison to direct BTC investments or leveraged ETF exposure.

[Free Market Capitalist]

The crucial question remains: Who should buy MSTR shares if 1) one can buy Bitcoin directly and 2) one can buy ETFs if you want a leveraged exposure or don't have access to BTC spot, if both of these options are cheaper than MSTR regarding the risk premium? 21 Capital should have the same problem.

Due to the bitcoin yield. MSTR gave a 74% bitcoin yield on 2024 and a 14% this year so far. If I bought 1 bitcoin or 1 bitcoin through an ETF a year ago now I have 1 bitcoin and in a year I'll have 1 bitcoin whereas if I spent the same money on MSTR at 2 NAV premium I almost have 1 bitcoin exposure now and will have much more than one bitcoin in a couple of years.

The only really important reason I can see is indeed volatility just due to the risk premium, but you could simply increase your leverage on ETFs.

Comparing leverage on ETF to be able to borrow billions of dollars at 0% with no margin call is like comparing an elephant to a mosquito.

The comparison with Bitcoin demand here doesn't make sense in this context because the Bitcoin (circulating/total) supply is predictable. The focus of my post was the influence of the market entry of 21 Capital, not some other factors which could influence demand.

So what if the supply is predictable. What MSTR has demonstrated with facts is that it has created products that no one could even imagine a few years ago and that it has a growing demand for them, such as bitcoin bonds, which are the most profitable in the entire bond market. To think that demand is going to remain fixed when it has not stopped increasing is an unjustified assumption. And the fact that bitcoin has a predictable supply has nothing to do with it, Litecoin also has a predictable supply and its demand has not increased.

[fillippone]

-snip-

Thanks for the stats. My source was an article on investing.com which was skeptical about MSTR's prospects. They didn't claim that institutionals were the majority of the investors, but that a sub-group of institutionals depending on fixed-income products seem to be important for the company's business model because they can't access to other (cheaper) means to gain exposure to BTC, so MSTR has (had) a monopoly in that field.

One of the main sources in the Microstrategy business is the convertible bond trading community.
Michael Saylor has been riding the volatility of his stock to sell a lot of volatility to the hedge fund community, which bought the cheap convertible bonds, selling the shares (or better, selling bitcoin) and gaining when volatility in MSTR price goes up (and the multiplier grows).
This is why Michael Saylor has been quite profitable in selling very low-priced debt and keeping his debt costs low. Selling volatility to institutional investors, operating in a delta neutral way.

[d5000]

Due to the bitcoin yield. MSTR gave a 74% bitcoin yield on 2024 and a 14% this year so far. If I bought 1 bitcoin or 1 bitcoin through an ETF a year ago now I have 1 bitcoin and in a year I'll have 1 bitcoin

I was talking about buying ETFs in a leveraged manner in that sentence, i.e. via call options.

Comparing leverage on ETF to be able to borrow billions of dollars at 0% with no margin call is like comparing an elephant to a mosquito.

What is exactly the advantage for the investor? These billions are only invested in BTC.

So what if the supply is predictable. What MSTR has demonstrated with facts is that it has created products that no one could even imagine a few years ago and that it has a growing demand for them, such as bitcoin bonds, which are the most profitable in the entire bond market. To think that demand is going to remain fixed when it has not stopped increasing is an unjustified assumption. And the fact that bitcoin has a predictable supply has nothing to do with it,

Maybe I expressed my point in a wrong way. I was comparing the market entry of 21 Capital, a "supplier increase" in the "bitcoin bond" market, and its influence on MSTR and the market in comparison to the steady, but diminishing increase of Bitcoin's supply.

I think it's quite a trivial effect I want to describe ... Let's have a simplified example: let's speculate that demand for MSTR-like bonds increases 10% per year, and that 21 Capital achieves an 20% market share (regarding income via bonds) after a year. That means that after a year, MSTR has lost 10% of its income via bonds, in comparison to the starting point of our comparison. Thus, if the competitors itself do not bring additional demand into the market, the original monopolist suffers. I don't know why this simple principle should not be valid for this particular market too.

We can of course speculate that the demand increase for these bonds is higher than 10%, and thus both competitors win. But as a monopolist, MSTR could have achieved a higher growth.

The market entry of 21 Capital does not per se increase the demand for Bitcoins, because 21 Capital competes with MSTR's demand, the ETF's/ETP's demand, and even the demand on the BTC spot market (and a lot of informal products like "BTC staking" offered on Bitcoin exchanges). It only increases demand for BTC if it doesn't take market share from these existing "suppliers" away, i.e. if it is able to convince new investors which wouldn't have invested neither in MSTR, nor in ETFs, nor in BTC directly.

The point about the predictable Bitcoin supply was a bit misleading perhaps, let's just ignore it, it isn't important for my point.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Comparing leverage on ETF to be able to borrow billions of dollars at 0% with no margin call is like comparing an elephant to a mosquito.

What is exactly the advantage for the investor? These billions are only invested in BTC.

The fact that there is no margin call, no risk of liquidation (or if you prefer a risk so low that is extremely unlikely, especially compared to a leveraged position in an ETF, that can be margin called).

One of the main sources in the Microstrategy business is the convertible bond trading community.
Michael Saylor has been riding the volatility of his stock to sell a lot of volatility to the hedge fund community, which bought the cheap convertible bonds, selling the shares (or better, selling bitcoin) and gaining when volatility in MSTR price goes up (and the multiplier grows).
This is why Michael Saylor has been quite profitable in selling very low-priced debt and keeping his debt costs low. Selling volatility to institutional investors, operating in a delta neutral way.

Given the success that MSTR has had with this product, it is not incompatible for me that demand will continue to grow even if XXI goes on to offer a similar product, as it offers security, which is what a bondholder is looking for, as well as the highest yield in the entire bond market, which is why demand has not stopped increasing.

[laspol65]

At Twenty One, our mission is simple: grow Bitcoin per share (BPS).
We’re not here to beat the market, we’re here to build a new one.
We measure success in #Bitcoin, not fiat.

Source and video link

[Synchronice]

A competitor for Strategy after all  
Interesting to see Tether, which was always quoted as the next to fall, being a giant and extremely profitable company

Tether was always quoted as the next to fall because Tether is a privately owned company, their audits are questionable and there is a big chance that USDT isn't as backed as they claim. To say on the other hand, 1 USDT is not 1 USD and if there is a sudden spike in demand, tether might be the next to fall but it doesn't mean that thether isn't profitable or can't be profitable and to be honest, this decision of theirs is very wise and beneficial for strengthening the company.

Comparing leverage on ETF to be able to borrow billions of dollars at 0% with no margin call is like comparing an elephant to a mosquito.

What is exactly the advantage for the investor? These billions are only invested in BTC.

The fact that there is no margin call, no risk of liquidation (or if you prefer a risk so low that is extremely unlikely, especially compared to a leveraged position in an ETF, that can be margin called).

Didn't MicroStrategy face a liquidation risk in 2022 when Bitcoin sharply fall? It was very close to liquidation if I remember correctly but I might be wrong because I didn't pay too much attention to this fact.

[arwin100]

Didn't MicroStrategy face a liquidation risk in 2022 when Bitcoin sharply fall? It was very close to liquidation if I remember correctly but I might be wrong because I didn't pay too much attention to this fact.

Nearly since they experience losses before due to market downturns https://coinpedia.org/news/will-microstrategy-liquidate-its-bitcoin-holdings-if-btc-price-drops-to-12k/

Many people thought that they get dissolve when that situation occurs, but Microstrategy manage to survive and their belief on Bitcoin bring them on where they are right now. if this situation happen to other company for sure they already file a bankruptcy. So let see if 21 Capital could also do what Microstrategy done and they have the same level of belief and understanding since if they don't know how to handle well the situation maybe they are the first one will get dissolve.

[fillippone]

Didn't MicroStrategy face a liquidation risk in 2022 when Bitcoin sharply fall? It was very close to liquidation if I remember correctly but I might be wrong because I didn't pay too much attention to this fact.

Nearly since they experience losses before due to market downturns https://coinpedia.org/news/will-microstrategy-liquidate-its-bitcoin-holdings-if-btc-price-drops-to-12k/

Many people thought that they get dissolve when that situation occurs, but Microstrategy manage to survive and their belief on Bitcoin bring them on where they are right now. if this situation happen to other company for sure they already file a bankruptcy. So let see if 21 Capital could also do what Microstrategy done and they have the same level of belief and understanding since if they don't know how to handle well the situation maybe they are the first one will get dissolve.

I think this is the mayor hurle for 21 Capital.

Currently i see two weakness in 21 Capital:

• Higher entry price in Bitcoin: the market can test the "pain level" of 21 Capital, much quicker and easily than Strategy's one. They will eventually do that. Bear in mind the 85K level.
• Commitment: Saylor said he would never sell any bitcoin and would take his stash to his grave. 21 Capital is a sum of different players; hence, agendas could diverge sooner or later.
  

[fredericktaylor]

Didn't MicroStrategy face a liquidation risk in 2022 when Bitcoin sharply fall? It was very close to liquidation if I remember correctly but I might be wrong because I didn't pay too much attention to this fact.

Nearly since they experience losses before due to market downturns https://coinpedia.org/news/will-microstrategy-liquidate-its-bitcoin-holdings-if-btc-price-drops-to-12k/

Many people thought that they get dissolve when that situation occurs, but Microstrategy manage to survive and their belief on Bitcoin bring them on where they are right now. if this situation happen to other company for sure they already file a bankruptcy. So let see if 21 Capital could also do what Microstrategy done and they have the same level of belief and understanding since if they don't know how to handle well the situation maybe they are the first one will get dissolve.

I think this is the mayor hurle for 21 Capital.

Currently i see two weakness in 21 Capital:

• Higher entry price in Bitcoin: the market can test the "pain level" of 21 Capital, much quicker and easily than Strategy's one. They will eventually do that. Bear in mind the 85K level.
• Commitment: Saylor said he would never sell any bitcoin and would take his stash to his grave. 21 Capital is a sum of different players; hence, agendas could diverge sooner or later.
  

I agree with you. MicroStrategy has crossed the ocean in the face of adversity, and the way they are buying Bitcoin makes it clear that their goals and foundation are very strong.
It is not yet clear whether 21 Capital will be able to withstand the waves of the river and cross over. How strong their goals and foundation are has not yet been proven. It is very important that 21 Capital highlights two of its main weaknesses. From my perspective, if 21 Capital really wants to be a bitcoin native company, they need to take care of these three things properly, unity, patience and transparency, otherwise there will be no profit in accumulating bitcoin.
This is my wish for 21 Capital to overcome all obstacles and develop into a bitcoin native company.

[takuma sato]

If you buy MSTR, beside the leveraged BTC product, you are buying the biggest BTC holder with a corporate infraestructure and free cash flows from being index funds bought all over the world. They have the possibility of becoming the world's biggest Bitcoin bank in the future.

Yes, that's more or less in line from what I read that in the future they could lend or "stake" their Bitcoins (ETFs can't do that, to my knowledge; some ETP however can). But would that be enough to justify such a high premium?

Apart from that we could also question if having big "Bitcoin banks" is desirable or even viable, if Bitcoin was made and provides features to reduce the importance of banks (and bailouts, see genesis block).

Of course for the question I'm asking here Satoshi's ideology doesn't matter, what does matter is the commercial viability of a "Big Bitcoin Bank". But would people need Bitcoin banks and pay fees for their services? Maybe for some use case where Bitcoin credits make sense, but would they need big banks, i.e. centralization? We talk all the time about decentralization, so would people continue to support Strategy also in the future just because they're "the biggest one"? Or would that business model eventually erode?

The best investments are usually monopolies. And MSTR is a monopoly because they simply were there first [...]

I agree that a part of the investments in MSTR probably was attracted because the business model was unique and that in fact they were a monopoly.

But now we return to the topic of the thread: they aren't alone now, 21 Capital is one of the first of a potential larger group of competitors. So the "monopoly bonus" doesn't apply already. There's still a first mover advantage for MSTR. But in the banking sector for example, the oldest banks aren't necessarily the biggest banks, so they can't rely on that in the future.

I guess that once the market has been more populated we would see smaller premiums, and that means that the earlier investors would tend to lose money in comparison to direct BTC investments or leveraged ETF exposure.

I don't know who satoshi was, but Hal Finney was a solid proponent and in case someone that was in constant conversation with satoshi. It was predicted decades ago by Hal Finney how this Bitcoin bank model could be useful in the future, where you would have a free market of interest rates by banks.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211

I made a thread about this discussing this topic:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5529621.msg65044294

As far as why people should or not should invest in MSTR. Well that comes down to personal preference. Of course holding your own BTC will always give you more control over your money, but there will always be businesses and people trying to come up with ways to beat the market. This is like claiming people should not invest in MAG7 companies because it's already very centralized there. People will invest in whatever they think will return the most on their investment. If they can predict MSTR will continue to outperform BTC, they will keep investing. There will always be people that want a BTC proxy because they don't trust themselves with holding the keys and they may trust Saylor's team above Blackrock and so this could be an ETF alternative with some extra perks. It's a free market after all. And in any case, the concept of Bitcoin banks would be very different from regular banks. I would personally own both, have a BTC stack and then have some MSTR proxies for better liquidity. You can buy and sell millions worth of MSTR shares at any moment, but BTC is very cumbersome to deal with banks as you need audits and so on.

[JayJuanGee]

A competitor for Strategy after all  
Interesting to see Tether, which was always quoted as the next to fall, being a giant and extremely profitable company

Tether was always quoted as the next to fall because Tether is a privately owned company, their audits are questionable and there is a big chance that USDT isn't as backed as they claim. To say on the other hand, 1 USDT is not 1 USD and if there is a sudden spike in demand, tether might be the next to fall but it doesn't mean that thether isn't profitable or can't be profitable and to be honest, this decision of theirs is very wise and beneficial for strengthening the company.

I don't claim to be an expert, yet Tether's supposed insolvency has been quite exaggerated, and they have made it through a variety of attacks, while still remaining amongst the most profitable companies in the world.  Even their level of supposed "non-backing" has been questionable at best.  Many of us probably recall their getting robbed $800 million or more by one two of their custodians in Panama, while at the same time they were being attacked by NY prosecutors - resulting in some settlement agreements.  They also switched over to being backed by assets that were other than dollars (such as corporate papers, and they were criticized for that, and in the last several years they have been buying a lot of bitcoin for their corporate treasuries but also various kinds of US T-bills (mostly short term, I believe).

Comparing leverage on ETF to be able to borrow billions of dollars at 0% with no margin call is like comparing an elephant to a mosquito.

What is exactly the advantage for the investor? These billions are only invested in BTC.

The fact that there is no margin call, no risk of liquidation (or if you prefer a risk so low that is extremely unlikely, especially compared to a leveraged position in an ETF, that can be margin called).

Didn't MicroStrategy face a liquidation risk in 2022 when Bitcoin sharply fall? It was very close to liquidation if I remember correctly but I might be wrong because I didn't pay too much attention to this fact.

MSTR's being close to being liquidated was also greatly exaggerated.  They had some loans that were collateralized and when the BTC price was in the upper $30ks, they mentioned that they would have to add more collateral if the BTC price went below $22k or something like that, and so when the BTC price went below $22k, they added more collateral, which they then proclaimed that the BTC price would have to go below $3,200-ish before they would have to add more collateral to some of their then outstanding loans.... including that they ended up having to renegotiate and to pay off Silvergate loan terms when Slivergate was being attacked by USA regulators, which certainly caused them to question the extent to which to use BTC as collateral in future debt arrangements.  Even though MSTR's costs per BTC were in the $30ks while the BTC prices were in the $15ks, I think that the closeness of their being liquidated was overly exaggerated, and more of a fantasy of the bitcoin and MSTR naysayers rather than a reality.

MSTR's current set up does not use collateral, so they would be hard-pressed to get into issues of being liquidated based on BTC price drops, yet surely their recently setting up bitcoin-related yield instruments, in which the bitcoin is paid in dollars, these could be problematic towards causing them to continue to have to pay such yield, even during periods in which BTC prices might be quite low.

I personally have been ongoingly concerned about whatever custodial relations that they have, and surely I have my own doubts about if Coinbase has the coins that they claim to have, and I have my doubts about Coinbase's solvency and/or their abilities to manage money well.. since they have been shitcoiners for a long time and for years they have also been engaged in various attacks on bitcoin, yet MSTR supposedly custodies its coins in a few different places..

[Josefjix]

A competitor for Strategy after all 
Interesting to see Tether, which was always quoted as the next to fall, being a giant and extremely profitable company

Could it be that in a few weeks or months we'll see posts from Strategy saying they've bought a few million BTC and then XXI also posting that they've bought a few million more?

I don't see tether falling in anyway since it rated as one of best assets with the highest transactions rate because of it's low fee even more than Bitcoin.

It's interesting to now constantly talk about the newly emerge institutions to compete with both microstrategy and Metaplanet investment companies,

Absolutely, MSTR has been in the game, and let's watch how XXI will try as much as possible to surpassed the already existing institutions,

Anyways, let's watch

[takuma sato]

MSTR is in good standings with reasonable asset to liability ratios and the leverage is indeed underleveraged according to some. This is from a month ago but relevant:



I think Saylor said they are cranking up leverage again after they did the last ATM round, we will see updates on earnings on this plan.

So basically BTC would need to dump below $15k to see real stress for MSTR, and they would still have ways to manage that. Yields for STRK would be adjusted to the situation. Converts have good timing and have enough time for BTC to run to get to the target goals. I think eventually the FED will cut rates and even go back to ZIRP, this may cause some turbulence but here MSTR will be able to get more debt at even cheaper rates. I wonder if we will see 0%'s again. And we will see BTC run bigly after that as it is the ultimate liquidity sponge. MSTR just must survive the turbulent times and in the end it will outperform every stock again.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Currently i see two weakness in 21 Capital:

• Higher entry price in Bitcoin: the market can test the "pain level" of 21 Capital, much quicker and easily than Strategy's one. They will eventually do that. Bear in mind the 85K level.
• Commitment: Saylor said he would never sell any bitcoin and would take his stash to his grave. 21 Capital is a sum of different players; hence, agendas could diverge sooner or later.
  

Well, relatively speaking. Most bitcoins have been bought by MSTR in the last 6 months, and their average acquisition price is already at $66K. Depending on the buying war going on between the two companies the difference in average acquisition price may not be very significant. MSTR has an advantage, though, obviously.

Regarding the latter, by diluting the stock so much, Saylor has had less than 50% voting rights for some months now, and the trend is going to be less and less. Although in both companies I believe that the main investors are not going to sell. They do know it's the key of success.

MSTR's being close to being liquidated was also greatly exaggerated.  They had some loans that were collateralized and when the BTC price was in the upper $30ks, they mentioned that they would have to add more collateral if the BTC price went below $22k or something like that, and so when the BTC price went below $22k, they added more collateral, which they then proclaimed that the BTC price would have to go below $3,200-ish before they would have to add more collateral to some of their then outstanding loans.... including that they ended up having to renegotiate and to pay off Silvergate loan terms when Slivergate was being attacked by USA regulators, which certainly caused them to question the extent to which to use BTC as collateral in future debt arrangements.  Even though MSTR's costs per BTC were in the $30ks while the BTC prices were in the $15ks, I think that the closeness of their being liquidated was overly exaggerated, and more of a fantasy of the bitcoin and MSTR naysayers rather than a reality.

Thank you very much for your response. I saw the question earlier when I wasn't logged in, and now I see that you have saved me from having to reply to the FUD.

... yet surely their recently setting up bitcoin-related yield instruments, in which the bitcoin is paid in dollars, these could be problematic towards causing them to continue to have to pay such yield, even during periods in which BTC prices might be quite low.

If you are referring to MSTY, my understanding is that there is no fixed obligation of paying that 8%, what has happened is that the last 12 months have been fabulous for MSTR and consequently MSTY has done extremely well, paying more than 100% annual dividend yield, but depending on how MSTR and the options market do, that 8% could be greatly reduced or not paid at all. I have not thoroughly researched the matter but from what I hear from the information I have been going by. If anyone knows the issue in more depth please share.

I personally have been ongoingly concerned about whatever custodial relations that they have, and surely I have my own doubts about if Coinbase has the coins that they claim to have, and I have my doubts about Coinbase's solvency and/or their abilities to manage money well.. since they have been shitcoiners for a long time and for years they have also been engaged in various attacks on bitcoin, yet MSTR supposedly custodies its coins in a few different places..

If we look at this news from a year ago, MSTR held bitcoins in two companies and it seems that the one with more “risk” in that sense would be Fidelity Custody, which kept bitcoins in a pool together with other customers, while Coinbase had them separated. I understand that this can be audited and Saylor is not going to be fooled easily. Besides, as I think I already commented at that institutional level I think it is better to use custodials because there will be insurance and the possibility of legal action in case of mismanagement. It is not like a forumer with 0,3 bitcoin, that the best way he has to custody them is himself in his HW.

[arwin100]

Didn't MicroStrategy face a liquidation risk in 2022 when Bitcoin sharply fall? It was very close to liquidation if I remember correctly but I might be wrong because I didn't pay too much attention to this fact.

Nearly since they experience losses before due to market downturns https://coinpedia.org/news/will-microstrategy-liquidate-its-bitcoin-holdings-if-btc-price-drops-to-12k/

Many people thought that they get dissolve when that situation occurs, but Microstrategy manage to survive and their belief on Bitcoin bring them on where they are right now. if this situation happen to other company for sure they already file a bankruptcy. So let see if 21 Capital could also do what Microstrategy done and they have the same level of belief and understanding since if they don't know how to handle well the situation maybe they are the first one will get dissolve.

I think this is the mayor hurle for 21 Capital.

Currently i see two weakness in 21 Capital:

• Higher entry price in Bitcoin: the market can test the "pain level" of 21 Capital, much quicker and easily than Strategy's one. They will eventually do that. Bear in mind the 85K level.
• Commitment: Saylor said he would never sell any bitcoin and would take his stash to his grave. 21 Capital is a sum of different players; hence, agendas could diverge sooner or later.
  

Both of your inputs will be the concern of this company and I really like what they can do especially if there's a bearish market trend would come since this will test the strength of their company and belief on their long term investment plans with Bitcoin.

Lets find out to if we can see 21 capital official will have the same stance with Michael Saylor about not selling their Bitcoin whatever happens on the market.

But for sure they will not play fool around since somehow they are experience individual and also know what's best approach to do towards on investing on Bitcoin.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Does anyone know the reason for today's steep rise? I've looked and I don't see anything, other than the expectation that the new stock will make good profit, but today's rise is just crazy.



I don't know if they have already started buying more bitcoins or if they are insiders pumping the price.

[takuma sato]

Does anyone know the reason for today's steep rise? I've looked and I don't see anything, other than the expectation that the new stock will make good profit, but today's rise is just crazy.



I don't know if they have already started buying more bitcoins or if they are insiders pumping the price.

Well their marketcap and float is pretty small in perspective, so when you add assets that are going up in price like BTC to a low marketcap and low float company the price per share will skyrocket because the base multiplier is low, that is what happened with Metaplanet too, the japanese company that is running the Strategy playbook and become like most the traded stock in japan in options and im not sure if in volume on common shares too, but something is clear, this works great for companies that are stuck with cash doing nothing and want to turbocharge their stock, it's instant free press as well. When this happens a lot of people start frontrunning, and XXI has good connections to raise money to buy BTC so that is being priced in. I still believe MSTR is the #1 proxy by a long shot, they just need to come up with a safe way to show proof of reserves for those that don't trust the audits.

[fillippone]

Does anyone know the reason for today's steep rise? I've looked and I don't see anything, other than the expectation that the new stock will make good profit, but today's rise is just crazy.



I don't know if they have already started buying more bitcoins or if they are insiders pumping the price.

This object now has a 500 Million market cap, or 5 times the original.
The founding shareholders entered at 10 USD.
This is pure speculation: when the business combination is completed, these stocks usually fall toward a more reasonable multiplier (like 2x as in Strategy).
Now it's pure gambling.