Is it better than an open-ended promise? Especially for an entity that will likely hold the significant portion of their reserves in perpetuity (or at least very long duration)?
I see how technically your answer is valid however I still like to see blockchain verification behind the public announcements. Don’t let perfect stand in the way of good.
I know that we as bitcoiners don’t trust the traditional system, but if Saylor didn’t actually have the coins its fraud of the highest order and it would destroy his accounting firm, law firm and custodian in addition to microstrategy. I personally feel very confident that they have every coin they say they do.
I’m more concerned with Coinbase than MSTR specifically. Corporate and government custody has the potential to become a daisy chain of risk spreading…just like the banking system.
I’d like to see more of an effort to leverage these unique attributes of bitcoin to show the market that they actually have claim to a fully-reserved stockpile.
If I was Saylor, I also would believe the markets I am targeting would only value my entity more if I could show (on the blockchain) where my reserves sat. Regardless of the liabilities.
But I’m simply a toxic maxi wanting a bitcoin standard. Maybe I am wrong for barking up this tree. But I’m not gonna stop barking until this gap is addressed.
They’re claiming they are literally buying an entire year’s worth of new bitcoin issuance. More incoming. Their legitimacy matters.
Now that sab 151 is done. Can Microstrategy change custodians to a bank of their choosing?
