What's your objection to how much they are accumulating?
Discussion
1) Held with a trusted third party which increases risk.
2) Saylor is an ossification proponent, could introduce governance risks.
3) There is an element of leverage - could increase sell-off risks if BTC price doesn't go up for 5 years.
Converts are Unsecured
Don't worry about 2), he'll find out it leads nowhere in February 2106 at the latest. 🙂
Those make sense to me. I wonder if "6102 honeypot" shouldnt be added to the list. He would be such a fat target to a desperate govt when fed printing is checkmated by the Btc omega candle.
I'm surprised I havn't heard the MicroStrategy 6102 risked talked about more. Perhaps influencers think that talking about it would increase the likelihood of it happening?
Coinbase 6102 risk in general is terrible. Combination of exchange, ETFs, and other institutions like Microstrategy.
Not to mention straightforward hacking risk. Obviously their track record is very good, but everything breaks eventually.
(though I agree the 6102 risk is worse)
It is weird to me saylor supposedly does not want to softfork in covenants. He does not want reactive security on all that btc he owns? Same goes for Coinbase or all the other custody players in the space, you'd think it would potentially lower insurance costs and stuff no?
Part of me things Saylor just wants to avoid any potential FUD during what he feels is this pivotal moment.