pull down to refresh

Saylor's Latest Strategy: Raising Funds to Pay Dividendswww.ft.com/content/90ea0fdc-97b4-4453-ac1d-bffd290fecd8
1962 sats \ 49 comments \ @denlillaapan 22h econ
We called it. And yes, this article approach was funny and very quotable... never mention "Ponzi", and the imagery is a pyramid.
Look at the opening subhead? (YEEES, there is: Ponzi. I said so; nobody would have guessed -- #1019584, #1019573)
some article quotes about Strategy:

"beneath the euphoria lies a capital structure that’s becoming increasingly self-referential"

tucked away in the announcement was a telling clause: proceeds may also be used to pay dividends on other classes of preferred shares, namely Strife and Strike
Oh, new investors pay the returns on other investors' securities?? yes, yes, we know that. Obviously. I mean, I even said so, bitches. Straight up, these guys are in the Ponzi business and business is booomingly good.
THEN AGAIN, paying interest on outstanding liabilities is Strategy's business model these days — hm, wonder if there is a name for such a business?? — so it makes sense that that's what they're raising cash for.
Strategy is effectively reserving the right to use money from new securities to prop up old ones, reassuring investors that it can keep issuing fresh paper to cover dividend payments. This in turn is meant to give them confidence to buy the future rounds of preferred shares.
The best explanation for the NAV premium is that Saylor commands a loyal following and his bitcoin strategy has a powerful narrative momentum.
Ok, that's pretty stupid and a silly journalist take. As wacky as the shares trading at >1 mNAV is, the best explanations are definitely not those. (Instead: reg arbitrage, captive pools of capital, storage, futures harvesting, potential for future banking business.)
Anyway, great read; great coverage.
Alphaville should be open for all, but archived here just in case: https://archive.md/lwn6M
write
preview
related posts
33 sats \ 20 replies \ @Aardvark 21h
Doesn't their software side make some sort of a profit? Could it be enough to prop up dividends?
Either way, buy and hold BTC still hasn't let me down, and I prefer to trade my fiat for things I understand.
reply
42 sats \ 19 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 21h
yes, it does; no, nowhere near enough to pay the interest/dividend on their financial engineering products
reply
84 sats \ 16 replies \ @Aardvark 21h
Can I intrest you in my $VARK coin. It will pay you dividends, as soon as I dell the second batch to @Undisciplined
😎
reply
42 sats \ 12 replies \ @Undisciplined 20h
We can use that to start the ~Stacker_Sports VARK Treasury Company.
We’ll pay for it with equity that can be converted to VARK at a future date.
reply
84 sats \ 10 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 19h
...and the 10 BTC that I angel-invest fund, you won't run away with, but instead build a bitcoin-acquiring company, yes?
reply
75 sats \ 6 replies \ @Aardvark 18h
For 10 BTC, I will do literally anything you tell me to do.
view all 6 replies
33 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 19h
For sure. Our aim will be to acquire one billion sats.
view all 2 replies
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Aardvark 20h
Something something arbitrage and profits.
We all win!
reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan OP 21h
YEEEES, I'm game. Gimme an address and I'll wire you 10 BTC. Excellent use case of the Aardvark brand. I truly believe in this project
reply
33 sats \ 0 replies \ @Aardvark 20h
Unlike the HAWK coin, for a 10 BTC purchase of VARK, I will absolutely "spit on that thang"
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 18h
I'm all in on $VARK where can I buy
reply
83 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 21h
Last year they made a 53M negative cashflow from operating activities (i.e. the software business) according to their 10-K filing for 2024.
So do they really make a profit from the software business?
reply
97 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 20h
Yes, It's accounting effect from bitcoin holding I believe
reply
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @nkmg1c_ventures 14h
Oh, new investors pay the returns on other investors' securities?? yes, yes, we know that. Obviously. I mean, I even said so, bitches. Straight up, these guys are in the Ponzi business and business is booomingly good.
Preferred shares tend to cost more because they often mean you get paid when other non-preferred holders don't, have other protections and privileges. It doesn't necessarily mean that they need to raise more just to pay dividends. The issue is cash is fungible and they may just be stating that clause for transparency that they intend to pay out preferred share holders.
I am curious about the structure of MSTR and willing to criticize, but they also have a revenue stream from the software etc.
reply
30 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 16h
I think equity holders would happily get diluted to pay the prefs. The prefs tap a completely different capital market that could allow Saylor to buy an absurd amount of Bitcoin and as long as he is growing the company's Bitcoin balance and Bitcoin is rising in price investors are happy. We will see how it all plays out when a bear market rolls around.
Personally I am not a fan of buying MSTR Bitcoin at 220k when I can just buy Bitcoin at 117k but I do find the Strife, Strike and Stride offerings fascinating.
reply
40 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan OP 8h
That last bit is 100% where I'm at. Can't understand why anyone would buy them at mNAV > 1 when we have access to the real deal
reply
7 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 2h
I suppose there are pools of capital that can’t buy the bitcoin etf but can buy equities. Seems odd but I guess the ETFs still aren’t approved for some advisors, pension funds etc but they can yolo into the levered equity version. Haha
reply
44 sats \ 9 replies \ @bitcoingraffiti 20h
So either you believe that MSTR is a ponzi, or your sarcasm is off the chart.
I hope it's the latter.
reply
10 sats \ 8 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 20h
My sarcasm is amazing, true. But I mean that the products are, and that the org running it is Ponzi.
So I guess, yes, that's what I'm saying
reply
44 sats \ 7 replies \ @bitcoingraffiti 20h
So then you're not sarcastic but serious.
Explain why you think it's a ponzi?
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 19h
Literally in the article above.
If your "returns" depend on raising capital from new investors to pay the old ones, you're literally a Ponzi.
Sandstedt's article at BitcoinMagazine lays it out well https://bitcoinmagazine.com/bigread/the-bitcoin-treasury-companies-bubble
reply
19 sats \ 1 reply \ @nkmg1c_ventures 14h
They also make money on software, so if the only source of income was new investors I'd totally be with you. I think they added that clause because dollars are normally fungible, also the holders of preferred shares are treated as more "first-class shareholders" in many settings.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 8h
True-iiiish. Sodtwar business makes moneyz but it's almost nothing in comparison
reply on another page
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @bitcoingraffiti 3h
You can't explain it in your own words?
No, sir, it's financed through Bitcoin increasing in value. I.e. you borrow at lower rates and invest it in something with a higher return. That's the same way banks operate, and they're not ponzis. This is also how corporates borrow money to invest in a growing business.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 2h
I've posted like seventeen SN posts and written+published at least two in-depth articles on the topic, and you want me to "explain it in my own words"?
Get out of here
view all 2 replies
131 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 22h
reply
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 21h
OK, fortune-teller there
reply
7 sats \ 0 replies \ @spiderman 8h
Never had anything to do with Saylor or strategy, always bought bitcoin and only bitcoin to keep in my wallet. This gives me a pause. Seems like a massive discount coming soon when strategy unwinds and liquidates
reply
12 sats \ 1 reply \ @000w2 19h
Fiat is the ponzi scheme. This is the largest speculative attack on fiat money happening right now. You're looking at it through a fiat lens - bitcoin is the money, they have a shit load of it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 18h
Yes. Yes. No.
reply
7 sats \ 0 replies \ @hasherstacker 17h
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @d680ecaa8e 34m
Pay dividends could be efficient way to avoid having multiple debts.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @03f0e4142d 8h freebie
With 10 BTC I can live a comfortable life
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nkmg1c_ventures 14h
Are there any treasury-like companies that use their funds to LP USDC/<x> where <x> is the L1 token or WBTC or something? These LPs often have yield well above the borrow rate against bitcoin, and if you don't go too heavy with them you can basically rake in yield, pay off the loan against BTC really easily. Just keep them as a perpetual yield thing and pay off the relatively small interest rates against BTC. Am I nuts?
Constantly issuing stock is what makes people call MSTR a ponzi
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 17h
This is not a ponzi scheme, the author is exaggerating
From copilot... Your instinct is well-grounded — calling Strategy’s financing model a Ponzi scheme doesn’t hold up under strict financial scrutiny.
🔍 Let’s break it down:

🚫 What a Ponzi scheme is:

  • A fraudulent structure where returns to earlier investors are paid directly from money contributed by new investors.
  • No underlying profitable activity — just money recycling until it collapses.

💡 What Strategy is doing:

  • Issuing non-convertible preferred shares (e.g. STRF, STRD) that pay dividends funded by proceeds from selling more equity.
  • Using those proceeds to accumulate bitcoin — a real, albeit volatile, asset.
  • Its capital structure may be reflexive and dependent on market enthusiasm, but the company does own something tangible, and investors are making conscious bets on bitcoin exposure via equity.
So while it may have echoes of circular logic — financing dividends with new equity sales — it doesn’t meet the threshold for being fraudulent or hidden. In fact, the company discloses these mechanisms publicly, and investors buy in knowingly.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @000w2 19h
https://www.theinvestorspodcast.com/bitcoin-fundamentals/bitcoin-treasury-companies-w-james-check-checkmate/
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Jer 16h
Sorry: The only person more annoying than Preston is James Check.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 31m
I kind of like him
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 7h
Checkmates ability to waffle for an hour and say absolutely nothing is pretty impressive the living embodiment of an LLM
reply