Replying to Ben f

Long term there will be not need for an MSTR token. It will go to zero relative to BTC. People are paying for his "wall St. wrapped BTC." But get it twisted: MSTR wrapped BTC is not BTC. His goal is the same as all token sellers: take your BTC and sell you his token. This is not a personal judgement: this is just an economic reality.

I do not think MSTR is good for bitcoin (increasing price). Same reason I don't think ethereum is good for bitcoin. Ultimately these "counterfeit" or "affinity scam" or "custodial" or "paper" assets are leading to price suppression. They are buying the fake BTC or instead of buying real BTC. Real BTC: meaning withdrawn to personal wallet. This lowers the actual BTC supply, increasing price.

If you want to say "michael saylor is good for increasing visibility of bitcoin" possibly, perhaps there are some normies out there who got into BTC because of him. He also causes people to buy MSTR. Then when MSTR crashes, they will be burned from buying BTC. Compared to Paul Sztorc or Peter Todd or anyone who is actually involved in actual BTC coding, his contribution to the information space is nothing.
Avatar
BitcoinBadger 1mo ago

These are all fair arguments that I can agree with (especially increasing visibility vs actual contribution).

I also worry about honey pot. And I do worry about MSTR investment behavior following the typical skittish investor behavior of "buy high, sell low".

I do not own MSTR, but I do own STRC. But I treat STRC not as a BTC proxy so much as a replacement for bonds to have some dividends...in an IRA that is already "irresponsibly weighted" in BTC ETFs because that is my option.

And yes, I also have real BTC IRA in a multi-sig. I can't move any funds from that other IRA because of the early retirement distribution I take (IRS rules prevents me from adding/moving assets from it).

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.