pull down to refresh
I bought STRC at 99 and sold it at 95. In the meantime, I´ve received dividends twice. Let´s say that I´ve got even, but considering that I could use that investment in other thing. But also, the reason I left was that the par was not respected and I was assuming that something was wrong. In addition, the platform charged me with Non-Resident Tax on each time, so the real dividend was not 11.5% but 8%.
I think that Strategy must recognize this is not a Bitcoin product but just a stock with a high yield. It is better if they buy everything back and just keept MSTR.
No. I´ve heard of many power models, but not the 4 years cycle. Does it describe also velocity over intra day variations?
Do you have the feeling that the variations in price of bitcoin are coming very fast? like 5k in 1 week I think it´s a lot. I know that if the price is higher this variations would be higher as well. Example: if price is 650k we could have daily variations of 10k. But still, coming back to present, I think the velocity is very high.
I´m reading lots of comments for and against about Saylor´s thoughts on selling Bitcoin to pay STRC dividends and I still cannot come to an own conclusion, nor imagine the impacts of any decision, and to act in consequence.
- Bitcoin falls to $40K
- [$MSTR] issues $100M of [$STRC]
- Buys $100M of BTC
- MSTR pays 11.5% to borrow with STRC
- Bitcoin back to $126K in 2029
- MSTR pays $38.6M dividend on STRC
- BTC holdings up 215% by 2029
- MSTR shareholders up $176.4M on BTC purchase
- STRC holders get their dividend and stability
- MSTR holders get their volatility + high returns using other people's money
If a real estate fund were to do this, most investors would be saying it's an excellent idea because "they're using other people's money"
But they call MSTR a Ponzi scheme for using the exact same strategy
Why?
Because they don't understand how STRC, MSTR, or BTC work
Usually, they hold zero BTC and think it's a speculative investment
Argentina wins a claim for the state petrol company and avoids paying 18 Billions USD! Half of its Central Bank Reserves! This weekend, every argentinean is a little bit more relaxed.
This article from Alvaro Di María is exactly what happening with the Economist in Argentina. Even Milei (although he once mentioned the powerfull value against politicians).
Why Economists Are the Ones Who Understand Bitcoin the Least
“There is no choice but to admit that opinions about money are harder to pin down than clouds deformed by the wind.”
—J. A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis
I often share a meme that reads: “Economists have the worst understanding of Bitcoin. Change my mind.” Over and over again, I find this to be true. Economists, as a group, consistently have the poorest grasp of Bitcoin. And it doesn't matter what school they come from, whether they’re professors or banking executives, whether they lean left or right, whether they follow the Austrian School or Modern Monetary Theory. After four years immersed in Bitcoin —conducting hundreds of interviews, attending conferences, and participating in debates— I can count on one hand the economists who truly understand it.
Bitcoin Challenges Beliefs
Bitcoin confronts deeply held beliefs, and as Ortega y Gasset observed, we are held by our beliefs, we interpret the world through them and instinctively reject ideas that contradict them.
What’s Wrong with Economists?
Undoubtedly, Bitcoin operates in the economic realm —though not only there— so how is it possible that something so economically significant could go unnoticed or misunderstood by economic theorists?
“It’s a bubble! Just digital tulips!” they say, ignoring the fact that while tulips went up 22-fold, Bitcoin has increased over 60 million times. “That can’t be right,” they think, “the market must be wrong.” But what are they missing?
Bitcoin solves a set of long-standing problems in the digital world. In the digital realm, we lack privacy by default, because every interaction requires a service provider. Privacy means the ability to reveal oneself selectively, but this becomes impossible if you're forced to share your data with someone who can betray your trust.
If you hand someone a letter, the contents remain private. If you send an email, that privacy depends entirely on the provider, who can access or leak the contents. The same is true with physical cash; when you pay with a banknote, the shopkeeper doesn’t know who you are, nor does the central bank know what you bought, where, or when. But in digital transactions, that anonymity disappears. Your bank knows everything, and that data can spread far beyond.
Electronic Cash
Bitcoin, as described by Satoshi in the whitepaper, is “electronic cash.” However, this phrase has led to a series of mistaken assumptions, assumptions that are at the core of why economists fail to grasp Bitcoin. It’s not, as Saifedean Ammous suggests in The Bitcoin Standard, merely a better alternative to fiat or central banking. The misunderstanding goes deeper.
Bitcoin solves two core problems in the digital world: the double-spending problem, and the trusted third-party problem.
In the digital space, duplication is easy and nearly free. You can send the same image to ten people at once. That ability to replicate means digital items can’t be scarce or worth storing.
The Trusted Third Party
Moreover, to prevent this duplication from corrupting a monetary system, a third party is typically used to ensure that a transaction happens only once. Just as streaming platforms prevent you from endlessly sharing content, banks prevent digital money from being “double-spent.” But this introduces massive dependencies and risks: loss of privacy, censorship, reliance on the provider’s competence, exposure to attacks, regulatory compliance, and the risk of collapse or state seizure.
The Breakthrough: Solving Double Spending Without Trust
Bitcoin is the first and only digital asset to solve both double spending and third-party dependency, making it the world’s first truly digital, real asset, a digital commodity. Yes, Bitcoin is a real asset. It is nobody’s liability. It has no issuer, no company managing it, no one generating value on its behalf. Recognizing Bitcoin as a real asset is the first stumbling block for economists.
The second difficulty is understanding its role relative to payment systems. Bitcoin is not a great payment method, not due to technical limitations, but because that’s not what it’s designed for. Most of us already have easy ways to pay for things, so its use in day-to-day payments isn’t especially compelling. On top of that, it increases transaction costs —as Ronald Coase would note— for regular payments. And since its supply is fixed, any change in demand reflects directly in the price. There is no way to adjust supply to stabilize it, so Bitcoin is inherently volatile.
Payments and units of account require stability to enable economic calculation. But stability comes at the cost of long-term asset appreciation. So what value does Bitcoin actually offer?
A Redefinition of Property Rights
The most important thing Bitcoin does is redefine property rights. Until now, property has always depended on systems upheld by coercive power. Bitcoin removes the need for a trusted third party and creates a global, autonomous system where people can own and transfer control of a real asset, digitally. In this way, Bitcoin functions as a global system of absolute private property rights.
This is a historical shift. Ownership becomes dependent not on institutions or governments but on knowledge, knowing a set of words. For the first time, people anywhere in the world can own assets, store value, and pass on wealth privately, without censorship, and without dilution, with unprecedented accessibility.
That’s no small feat.
Deterioration, Divisibility, and Custody Costs
If Bitcoin is a real asset, then its value depends on the demand for the properties it possesses. Since it’s not anyone’s liability, it cannot be censored or easily confiscated. It also drastically reduces the cost of saving and transferring value over time.
Its deterministic supply schedule, which is essentially deflationary due to lost coins, means your share of the total supply grows over time. There's no risk of dilution, and your wealth concentration increases naturally.
Moreover, Bitcoin avoids the information asymmetry involved in choosing where to invest. It's like buying gold, you don’t have to pick the right company or fund. But unlike gold, Bitcoin is easy to divide, verify, and transport. Gold is costly to store, verify, and protect. It deteriorates slightly each year through dilution—about 1.6 to 2%. Over time, that’s significant.
Real estate has similar issues. It deteriorates, has high custody and maintenance costs, carries legal and regulatory risks, and is difficult to liquidate. Bitcoin doesn’t have those problems. It’s durable, portable, divisible, and not subject to location-based taxation or expropriation in the same way.
Bitcoin’s Superior Design
Compared with traditional “store of value” assets, Bitcoin’s design is superior in nearly every way. It is built for hoarding, not spending. With a fixed supply, it gains value the more people want to save it, not spend it. And as a real asset, it carries no counterparty risk. It doesn’t need to be “backed” by anything, and it cannot default.
Ask yourself: What are the odds that states will stop devaluing their currencies? What are the chances that regulation will loosen in the coming years? What’s the likelihood that taxes on illiquid assets like property won’t increase? Will politicians leave private pension funds untouched? Have banks ever failed to return depositors’ money? Have states or companies ever defaulted?
Bitcoin may not answer all these questions, but it changes the context in which we ask them.
Economists Must Do Their Homework
Economists still haven’t done the necessary work. The task is not to interpret Bitcoin through the lens of existing theories or beliefs, but to rethink those theories and beliefs in light of Bitcoin.
That’s where the work begins.
The other day I was talking with a friend about the 20M bitcoin mined and scarcity.
He told me that the derivates from ETFs and other sintetic assets around Bitcoin generates more friction on scarcity, saying that it is now not sure there are 20M but more, and this is one of the things that the market see and one of the many reasons we are not above 100k.
What do you think?
Didn´t realized but 95.02% of all bitcoins were mined already. Only 5% left to go. How can I check the distribution today?
Today AWS is down.
This answer from Richard Stallman (in Spanish) about the (fake) ¨cloud¨ is all that we need to teach to everyone.
And we we learn this, we will understand why Bitcoin has solved all these problems.
All currencies are based on trust, and trust is give by different factors. In the case of US, it is given by world coverage. Custom Tariffs may reduce the interational transactions, reducing also the usage of USD. This means that it may affect the value against other currencies, including gold and BTC. We´ve already faced Eras of protectionism in the last 2 centuries, but never, with a global currency like BTC that is the thermometer of the situation. This is a new scenario for BTC.
BitBox - Sebastian - 2 Oct 2025
Why is there a Bitcoin-only edition of the BitBox?
The decision between the Multi and Bitcoin-only edition is one that every BitBox customer has to make. Let’s explore the technical differences between them.
https://blog.bitbox.swiss/en/why-is-there-a-bitcoin-only-edition-of-the-bitbox/
Strategy has acquired 196 BTC for ~$22.1 million at ~$113,048 per bitcoin. As of 9/28/2025, we hodl 640,031 $BTC acquired for ~$47.35 billion at ~$73,983 per bitcoin. $MSTR $STRC $STRK $STRF $STRD
Whenever all is falling I check the bitcoin price and if it is falling then I am relieved that it was the same for everyone
mempool.space TLD is having issues
use http://mempool.holdings as a temporary alternate hostname for http://mempool.space
Did I tell you how much I´ve invested? Did I tell you how long I´ve invested? I did a small test and didn´t work. There was no damage for me, I´ve left even.