Well, no, that's not the right metric exactly.

For example, Apple's asset value/share is less than 5% the price/share. Nobody chooses to buy Apple stock based on this metric. The value proposition of buying Apple stock is that Apple will keep building and selling new crap to improve on the share price. There is no right metric to predict this.

Similarly, the value proposition of MSTR isn't its current asset value; it's the expectation that the share price will increase. The difference, of course, is that what drives MSTR price isn't based on what they will be building and selling. Instead, it's almost entirely based on the expectation that future investors will fund the increase of BTC/share of previous investors.

All that said, I would suggest sticking to buying coin. There's no telling when the stream of future investors willing to fund the increase of BTC/shares of previous investors might end; but, a severe bear market would almost certainly trigger it.

As long as the market rebounds relatively quickly, as per previous cycles, Microstrategy would be unlikely to be forced to liquidate its BTC holdings - and thus, itself survive. Its share price, on the other hand, would certainly take a huge hit that may never rebound.

"Stay Humble, Stack Sats"

Honestly, I could see the argument either way. Take the 'website' field for example: it's not a field I personally really care about; but, I suspect there are enough people who do to support it being standardized. Otherwise, users could be forced to maintain both the customized 'website' field that some popular apps choose to use AND the customized 'URL' field that other popular apps choose to use.

He appears to have officially crossed over from the "then they laugh at you" phase to "then they fight you".

If I understand this correctly (and I may very well not), the U.S. gold reserves are priced at about $40/ounce for accounting purposes - a holdover from the old gold standard days. I believe Lummis' proposal is to sell gold IOUs to the Federal Reserve for dollars at the market rate (currently about $2600/ounce). That way, the gold doesn't actually move anywhere, the Federal Reserve balance sheet stays balanced, and the government suddenly has a huge stockpile of USD they can spend on Bitcoin.

Wait... is this him finally acknowledging that BTC will never go to zero.

Yeah, probably just Coinbase IOUs.

Ridley Scott is awesome, but I'm keeping expectations in check: good not great. I'm always guarded about a sequel that no one was really asking for. I mean, I don't remember watching the first one then thinking, "gee, I wonder what happens next". Denzel can make pretty much anything entertaining to watch, though.

Love my UPS so much I almost enjoy short power outages 😬. One time, though, the outage was so widespread that it must have knocked out the power to my ISP's relay station or whatever, as well. So, all I could do was sit and stew about how fragile my ISP's infrastructure is 😡.

Absolutely agree. Though there is a limit to how long bitcoin can keep doing what it's doing. Some people think that limit is when it demonetizes gold. Some people - like Saylor - believe it will demonetize most other savings vehicles as well. For all anyone really knows, it will be sooner rather than later. I happen to believe it will be later rather than sooner. My point, though, is whenever that limit does get realized, there will be an awful lot of people who bought expensive MSTR too late to ever get rewarded for it; and would have been much better off just buying BTC at market place. (in addition to your point about them not owning UTXOs).

I think it's pretty simple. The strategy is to increase BTC per share. To do this it relies on a constant stream of new investors to by new shares at an ever increasing premium (or buy convertible bonds to accomplish the same thing). Inevitably, it will run out of new investors, and the later investors will have effectively bought really expensive BTC so that the earlier investors could have really cheap BTC.

As I understand it: the simplified version of why you would pay a premium for MSTR compared to the underlying BTC is the expectation that the company will continue to increase the BTC per MSTR share; thus, eventually turning the initial premium you paid into a discount for the increased amount of BTC it represents.

That sounds like a great deal, but how does the company increase the BTC per MSTR share?: It issues new shares at the premium price so that it can buy even more BTC at the market price; thus increasing the BTC per share ratio. And/or the company sells convertible bonds that effectively accomplishes the same thing - just with leverage on a longer timescale.

In other words, if the flow of investors to buy new shares were ever to dry up, the later investors who hadn't yet seen their initial premium price turn into a discount price never will. This sounds like a ponzi scheme that must eventually run out of the new investors necessary to keep it going. It just happens to be a legal ponzi scheme without any apparent fraud or deception. Just make sure to go in with your eyes wide open to these realities. "Buyer beware, Freaks"

Is there anyone who ever bothers to audit clients to make sure they verify signed notes (I sure don't. Probably wouldn't even know how if I were inclined to)? If so, are there any popular clients that are known not to be verifying signed notes?

That would be awesome. What would also be awesome is if all nostr apps didn't get confused by a completely virgin npub. You ought to be able to generate an nsec offline, stick it in signer extension, then nostr apps be able to take it frictionlessly from there. Too many clients can't even seem to handle adding follows, for example, unless there's an already established follow list to add to.

Once handling virgin npubs is standardized, I look forward to the inclusion of a fully functional wallet as well.

Soon, I expect them to start limiting views unless you pay for YouTube premium unlimited. There's no end to how they can sabotage their own service in order to extort another seemingly reasonable fee.

Exactly. Markets don't just magically solve problems that we hope they would. Rather, they optimize whatever result is dictated by incentives. There is in fact a market that has fixed this for those who choose (and have the means) to participate. For the vast majority, however - who either don't know, don't care, or have no viable alternative - the dominating incentive is price; not health. And, better prices are overwhelming a result of government intervention in favor of shittier food.

I think you're understating "not completely free market" a little more than you might realize. Calorie prices are overwhelmingly distorted by what the government chooses to subsidize. I don't know what RFK Jr's plans are; but, if I were in charge of tackling the obesity epidemic, one of the first things I would look at doing is aggressively phasing out the massive corn subsidies - thus, taking the govt thumb off the scale in favor of all the unhealthy corn by-products.

Note that Trump essentially threatened this the first time around. His own Department of Justice determined it would require Congress to change Section 230 not to provide immunity from liability to platforms for censoring content they deemed to be, among other things, "otherwise objectionable" (effectively a green light to censor whatever they wanted).

FWIW, I agree with this law as written; but, would also agree that it should be rendered obsolete by ensuring censorship-resistance at the protocol level.