So on BitBonds:
On recent nostr:nprofile1qqs879mhq6kkuzh2wk57xdzanl76uem8d7hlyjd7v4a4jcm4u88d8ygpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet5gnk8re, nostr:nprofile1qqsywt6ypu57lxtwj2scdwxnyrl3sry9typcstje65x7rw9a2e5nq8spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcq37amnwvaz7tmzd96xxmmfdekkz7rfd4skc6tnw3ejummwd35kueg8h22n0 gave the example of rolling $2T in debt and funding with $2T of BitBonds instead. 90% proceeds go to cash and 10% gets invested in BTC, with the issuer and holder splitting the BTC after the term ends in 10 years.
Makes a lot of sense, but in this example what about the $200B of leftover debt that still needs to be refinanced? I think there’s a “use of proceeds” problem here.
This BitBond would make a lot more sense for NEW debt funding deficits. But not refinancing existing debt that needs to be rolled over, unless they are selling other assets to make up the difference.