Entirely dependent on the leverage on the company. One would expect an unleveraged company to trade price to book, so MNAV of 1, assuming no operating company. If there is leverage one could expect a premium to 1 in bull markets, and maybe a discount in bears due to the expect dilution of paying for the leverage during that time.
0, because of this thing we used to tell each other: Not your keys, not your coin.
Treasury companies are a way to make Bitcoin compliant and Bitcoin was made nor meant to be compliant, it was meant and made to be non-compliant. To not need a middleman. To not depend on some permission from some asshat that is friends with some other asshat that declared themselves the ruling class and most of them are only there because of the family they were born into.
Fuck these guys. I don't need their permission, and neither do you.
Remember that not everyone can use Bitcoin, and not because of technical difficulty, monetary knowledge, or ideological indifference.
Even assuming everyone was sufficiently competent, most are still mathematically excluded. The supply is too scarce relative to the population.
7.8 billion or so of the global 8 billion population cannot hold keys because there's not enough sats for them to go around to actually transact with.
Treasury co's, ETFs, fake L2s, Mints, Pubs, or even national currencies where the nation has Bitcoin on its balance sheet to support them, all just become a sliding scale of lesser evils.
7.8BN people need to chose one of those since they cannot use the chain directly.
So while Treasury co's now I believe deserve a <1 mNAV, since anyone should be able to find enough couch nickles to open a Lightning channel, that won't always be the case. If ETFs, Pubs/Mints, and Fake L2's need to charge a some 10ths of a percent to transact, treasury co's that may be able to more than offset those costs via other revenue streams may warrant an mNAV >1 becoming the new P/E.
Entirely dependent on the leverage on the company. One would expect an unleveraged company to trade price to book, so MNAV of 1, assuming no operating company. If there is leverage one could expect a premium to 1 in bull markets, and maybe a discount in bears due to the expect dilution of paying for the leverage during that time.
0, because of this thing we used to tell each other: Not your keys, not your coin.
Treasury companies are a way to make Bitcoin compliant and Bitcoin was made nor meant to be compliant, it was meant and made to be non-compliant. To not need a middleman. To not depend on some permission from some asshat that is friends with some other asshat that declared themselves the ruling class and most of them are only there because of the family they were born into.
Fuck these guys. I don't need their permission, and neither do you.
Remember that not everyone can use Bitcoin, and not because of technical difficulty, monetary knowledge, or ideological indifference.
Even assuming everyone was sufficiently competent, most are still mathematically excluded. The supply is too scarce relative to the population.
7.8 billion or so of the global 8 billion population cannot hold keys because there's not enough sats for them to go around to actually transact with.
Treasury co's, ETFs, fake L2s, Mints, Pubs, or even national currencies where the nation has Bitcoin on its balance sheet to support them, all just become a sliding scale of lesser evils.
7.8BN people need to chose one of those since they cannot use the chain directly.
So while Treasury co's now I believe deserve a <1 mNAV, since anyone should be able to find enough couch nickles to open a Lightning channel, that won't always be the case. If ETFs, Pubs/Mints, and Fake L2's need to charge a some 10ths of a percent to transact, treasury co's that may be able to more than offset those costs via other revenue streams may warrant an mNAV >1 becoming the new P/E.