pull down to refresh
If a company is cash-flow-negative, holding real money is probably the best thing they can do. If they can issue shares to do so, isn't that the smartest possible thing?!
no, shutting down is the best thing they can do. Stop destroying capital
Real economics doesn't stop applying just because, like, we've got bitcoin now
Would you consider it "destroying capital" for an individual to take out the maximum loan possible to buy a huge house during times of extremely low interest rates?
I see it as a very similar concept. If a company has the ability to issue shares in order to buy Bitcoin, they should, even if they are cash-flow negative. It's the broken system that even allows such a thing to happen.
Shit, as long as we're living in a fiat-denominated world, I'm not sure that I even acknowledge the concept of "destroying capital" as a real thing. It's all manipulated. Winners and losers are chosen arbitrarily. There is no such thing as "capital" in such a system at all.
So what's wrong with a company taking advantage of such a broken system?
"Real economics" already stopped being relevant the second we allowed a central bank into the U.S.
Nope. Not even remotely similar.
Or, put in that analogy: would it be a good idea to do that, if dude has been out of work for two years and is rolling over credit cards?
deleted by author
I don't think anyone has formulated a "knee-jerk negative reaction" to using credit. What are you talking about?
No, the company should shut down and return the resources they're in possession of to others who can wield them better. That's the drag.
deleted by author
I'm also only a quarter of the way through it.
I think Bitcoiners, in general, continue to call dollars "money" and talk about dollar "profits/losses", and continue to treat Bitcoin as ONLY an "investment".
The way we talk about treasury companies exemplifies this. We don't talk about, or criticize, the companies who hold zero Bitcoin. Our community seems to act as though Bitcoin is a speculative investment. That is the backdrop of Danny's questions, and I feel like Saylor is trying to re-frame it so Bitcoin is the money, not dollars. If a company is cash-flow-negative, holding real money is probably the best thing they can do. If they can issue shares to do so, isn't that the smartest possible thing?! Someone is willing to buy their worthless paper with worthless paper, to buy something real.
It seems to me that Saylor is the only logical one here, actively trying to get the world to move to a Bitcoin Standard. While the Bitcoin community, generally, holds on as tightly as possible to their fiat paper.
The unwillingness of Bitcoiners to actually move to a Bitcoin Standard, is really bothering me. Lots of lip-service about it, but zero real effort.