pull down to refresh

I hope I didn't skim over too fast, but it didn't seem to surprise me that there was not even acknowledgment of the reality that I thought was that, corporate/accredited investors not only would have difficulty getting exposure, you simply cannot gain exposure to Bitcoin through non-FCA regulated markets. Pension funds, for example, are not simply able to open a Coinbase account. Isn't this where MSTR came in?
One more sustainable source of bitcoin-holding companies’ premium valuation is that they are a particularly easy way to gain bitcoin exposure. In the UK, for example, getting bitcoin exposure can be fiddly. Buying bitcoin itself leaves you with the problem of storing it.
Or this article by FT's Robert Armstrong is only talking about retail. I don't have a full-time job writing for the FT, so I'll assume I'm wrong about something and assume the FT is impartial and exceedingly astute.
Hahah nice assumptions you've got there ... be a shame if something would happen to them.
Nah, but srsly. Yeah ok, why can't the pension funds hold the ETFs...?
reply
19 sats \ 2 replies \ @xz 11 Jun
Yeah, I might be a bit cavalier with my assumptions but, was really odd read. Well, I was under the impression not just just pension funds, but any company wanting to buy Bitcoin because.. it's supadupa risky asset. Right?
reply
Or something. But then who's buying all these MSTR-derivatives?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @xz 11 Jun
Institutions first then retail? I'm not sure I even understand the difference in the different tickers, but that's what I understand. MSTR was just a regular equity (later backed with a Bitcoin treasury.) The derivative? tickers were first offered at huge denomination buy ins that is not for retail.
reply