Thoughts on Bitcoin Treasury Companies (BTCs)

POSITIVES:

1. BTCs are inevitable at this point in monetary history. Many of us saw them coming many years ago.

2. BTCs put the theory of "Speculative Arbitrage" or "Speculative Attack" into practice. That is, they sell/short depreciating US dollars and go long/buy appreciating bitcoin. -- This is a *nearly* surefire way to increase purchasing power over time.. and will hasten the transfer of purchasing power from traditional fiat assets into the Bitcoin network.

3. Done well--by employing shrewd levels of leverage and well-constructed financial instruments at opportune times--BTCs may outperform bitcoin over a multi-year period.

4. Many current and future strategies of "mining fiat" by BTCs will perform well during a bull market, and should serve to increase "bitcoin yield" over time... benefitting bitcoin-focused shareholders.

NEGATIVES:

1. The more BTCs that exist, the more downward pressure will build upon their respective mNAVs.

2. Many current and future strategies of "mining fiat" by BTCs will perform poorly during a bear market, likely resulting in extreme declines in share price and--more significantly--loss of balance sheet bitcoin via margin calls and/or outright sales to maintain solvency.

3. The management of many current and future BTCs will inevitably deploy "too much" leverage "too late" into a bull market and will put their operating company and bitcoin and shareholders at risk.

4. Poor management decisions and fees will lead to chronic underperformance of many BTCs.

5. Trusting BTC managers (and their custodians) to safely custody their (and their shareholders) bitcoin is its own risk over individual custody in cold storage. Though more convenient, there will be more points of failure.

6. Most importantly, Bitcoin isn't just some speculative fiat asset... IT IS, LITERALLY, A COMPLETELY NEW AND BETTER FORM OF MONEY, WITH IT'S OWN FINANCIAL ECOSYSTEM AND GLOBAL ECONOMY. Intertwining, fiat assets and Wall Street products with the Bitcoin monetary and financial network continues to empower and encourage the traditional fiat system, with its perverse incentives and power structures.

--------

OPINION:

I don't begrudge those OG Bitcoiners who are participating in BTCs... which seem to be the darlings of the current Bitcoin bull market. In fact, as a traditional hedge fund manager-turned-Bitcoiner, I have one foot in the fiat world and one foot in Bitcoin... so I am the Chief of Hypocrites.

But I think that we--and future generations--would be best served by simply removing ourselves from the current fiat economy and focusing our TIME and ENERGY into building better products and services on the (completely separate and sustainable) Bitcoin network.

This will hasten the separation of Money and State and will allow us to more quickly engineer a better tomorrow.

--------

Just my two sats. Hope it helps.

Onward and upward.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Dr. Bull is the best.

mmmm....pBTC

In principle, if Bitcoin is the future sound money, then what BTCs are doing is simply put its energy into a better system. So I suppose it’s just good for themselves and also for everyone? I suppose the current dilemma is that they usually borrow cheap fiat with problems in the fiat world to buy bitcoin. So will it be a problem in the future? Anyway, everyone should put time and energy into bitcoin as it’s a honey money system.

Thanks, Dr. Jeff. I highly value your thoughts. I’m currently early in my career fortunate enough to be building RIA financial services for bitcoiners (bridges between fiat and bitcoin in my mind) but think often about if my time may be better spent building exclusively on bitcoin (cashu/fedi). Curious your thoughts here - thanks for your time!

Drop the fiat nonsense

Similar to you, I think about this all the time. I blame nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqgdwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkcqpqs05p3ha7en49dv8429tkk07nnfa9pcwczkf5x5qrdraqshxdje9sgew2ua for it... since his words and wisdom constantly haunt me! šŸ˜‚

Someday, I will build solely on the Bitcoin network, but I still have a commitment to my long-term clients.

šŸ˜‚

Hi Jeff

I have a dormant operating business - no employees and I have invested its cash into a few bitcoin. It’s a significant amount.

I’ve read almost every book including yours listened to every podcast but I am not tech savvy but I do have low time preference so I’m all in and have been 5 years - I’m 56 and have kids who are 8 and 7 - I’m assuming by the time they are 18 they will be tech savvy enough to understand bitcoin and build a business using what I’ve saved .

I really respect your views

Do you have any pointers / guidance that will help me guide them ?

Truth

And of course, we will get the MMM utter shock and horror when the inevitable BTC deleveraging trap door opens once again on these speculators losing everyone’s ’investment.’

I just hope these leverage machines are prepared for a big dump and we don’t have to wave goodbye to the likes of Saylor, Back, and Mallers (Pomp doesn’t count cause he already shit the bed last cycle)

SHaSS

I agree with your opinions for the most part but I would push back on that more BTCTCs entering the space pushes down their mNAVs. I should lead by saying that there are multiple types of Bitcoin Treasury Companies and that mNAVs are not going to be same for each. On a long enough time horizon all businesses will become BTCTCs just like how all businesses have phones, bank accounts, email addresses, and websites.

I like to use 3 buckets when thinking about BTCTCs

1. Buy & Hodl (TSLA)

2. Leveraged Bitcoin Equities (MSTR, MTPLF, SWC)

3. Bitcoin Operating Companies (XXI)

With a buy and hodl company like TSLA their mNAV is irrelevant because a majority of their earnings is from their core business (although their BTC yield will intensify)

The net asset multiplier has a bunch of variables associated with it. One of the most important is the amount of bitcoin on the company’s balance sheet. Under a 1,000 and the company can demand higher a mNAV because it is much easier for them to cover their premium (mNAV time to cover) We saw SWC trade at a 20 multiple because they started with a single bitcoin and were able to cover their premium in days opposed to months. Between 1,000-10,000 the mNAV should adjust downward. The more bitcoin these companies accumulate the longer and harder it becomes for them to cover their premiums. If we look at MSTR holding 600K+ corn it will take them 18 months if they are lucky to cover their current 1.8x premium. In my opinion the more bitcoin the company holds the lower the mNAV. I'm not saying that all sub 1000 bitcoin companies deserve a high mNAV but ones starting with a small amount of bitcoin, a strong team and a strong core business can justify double digit mNAVs in the early stages.

Number three on your negative list seems to be an outdated argument. Most BTCTCs now are now selling equity instead of taking on debt. I agree there will be poor execution from management teams but that risk applies to all businesses not just BTCTCs

We should also distinguish the differences between BTCTCs with a strong and thriving core businesses versus failing core businesses versus BTCTCs with no core business at all. If the core business has strong cash flows they can DCA through the bear markets and can justifiably attract a higher multiple compared to a business that can not acquire bitcoin through their business operations during a bear market.

One thing is for sure is that BTCTCs have found a product market fit. Also Bitcoin in its current form doesn't scale to billions of people. BTCTCs are serving as an "Uncle Jim" of sorts so to speak by custodying their shareholder’s bitcoin. That's one of the main reasons why I think it's better that there are more BTCTCs. I hope that we see more of these BTCTCs take custody of their bitcoin and that we see more custodians in the space so all these BTCTCs are not relying on Coinbase.

Bitcoin in Cold Storage is obviously the best option but BTCTCs for the sheeple is better than nothing, this will get their foot in the door and get them researching BItcoin once they have skin in the game.

Good thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

MSTR/MTPLF/SWC are bitcoin operating companies. I believe SWC doesn’t have any debt, so they aren’t technically levered

By operating companies I meant companies that earn and transact in bitcoin.

How exactly does XXI transact in bitcoin?

Well they funded the company with bitcoin not dollars so there’s that. Plus Jack mentioned that XXI will offer bitcoin services which yield bitcoin.

Bruh…..

Good points

Agree.

Small side note on the OG Bitcoiners. I don’t resent them or anything, I just can’t fathom why on gods green earth you would spend your precious time chasing more of this shitcoin alchemy when you’ve liberated multiple generations from the financial rat race by simply understanding and holding bitcoin.

It’s fiat mindset in my eyes.. Makes me think of Josh Brolin in the Wallstreet remake. His liberating net worth target? ā€œMoreā€

🚨 Bitcoiners, wake up! This is the harsh reality of ā€œBitcoin-friendlyā€ apps still chained to the old financial system. Big shoutout to @DrJeff for calling it out in your post – spot on! šŸ‘

I’ve been all-in on supporting companies like @jack’s @CashApp that embrace #Bitcoin. DCA’d for YEARS, watched my stack moon… but now? I can’t even self-custody it all in my #Bitkey wallet! 😤

Why? Arbitrary daily/weekly limits that NO ONE can lift. 1.5 years of endless support calls, begging for escalation – nada. No concierge, no mercy. Just friction designed to keep you trapped.

Buyer beware: Escaping the legacy system ain’t easy. Who’s with me? Time to demand better! #Bitcoin #SelfCustody #CryptoFreedom

nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m nostr:npub1cashappn03s3cl2ljsdntv0v28e2um5lgx4vjctqjt23pcwzjhsqmtdg5l #cashapp nostr:npub1tkey6tcfk0jf2ageje7xvqnnph4443h4pc4aqesuqjeywyke073qfmwral

I agree with the philosophical view point here, but from the fiat mining perspective I find myself wondering about the long-term trajectory of MSTR ...

MSTR is different, a class of thing onto itself ... I don't mean the Saylor factor or the singular efficiency of its fiat mining operations ... both impressive, sure ... but rather the sheer weight of its bag.

Under this weight MSTR's BTC yield must mathematically decline over time, with that decline consistently accelerating and its BTC yield never returning to levels of yore.

... it's that pesky digital absolute scarcity thing ...

Not to say that MSTR's transition to a BTC bank, or other strategy, won't be wildly successful (I think it will), but even acting as the global central bank (for want of a better description), it can't continue to grow its BTC yield.

So in the future an investment at any meaningful positive mNAV can never deliver more BTC per share than the equivalent entry point.

So what is it at this point?

It can still deliver fiat yields, sure, but if this can't be expressed in BTC terms due to digital absolute scarcity and if the fiat experiment comes to some sort of inevitable end, what is MSTR then?

A minefield for naked shorting.

I'm not touching any of them, because I have the ability to buy Bitcoin on the blockchain side and the ability to buy IBIT on the wall street side. I'm seeing the hype cycle that reminds me of the dotcom bubble, and I want that to play out.