Você deve gastar 4% do seu BTC por ano na aposentadoria? @MorgenRochard diz NÃO, mire em 2%, aqui está o porquê | BitcoinPierre no Binance Square

Página Inicial

Artigos Populares

Favoritos e Gostos

Centro de Criador

--

Você deve gastar 4% do seu BTC por ano na aposentadoria?
@MorgenRochard diz NÃO, mire em 2%, aqui está o porquê

Aviso Legal: inclui opiniões de terceiros. Não se trata de aconselhamento financeiro. Poderá incluir conteúdos patrocinados. Consulta os Termos e Condições.

BTC

105.500

+0.48%

324

0

Fica a saber as últimas notícias sobre criptomoedas

⚡️ Participa nas mais recentes discussões sobre criptomoedas

💬 Interage com os teus criadores preferidos

👍 Desfruta de conteúdos que sejam do teu interesse

E-mail/Número de telefone

Criador Relevante

@BitcoinPierre

Explorar Mais do Criador

Fiatbros: “bitcoin treasury companies have destroyed the ethos of Wall Street. The system is supposed to be about financing private equity dentistry rollups and burrito food deliveries, not just holding unproductive bitcoin out of cynical greed. Elizabeth Warren was right.”

--

In a theoretical world of costless arbitrage, mNAV > 1 could plausibly be shorted down. But in the real world, shorting the premium is expensive with borrow fees, has squeeze risk, can be slowed by ATM pause or buybacks, and is capital-intensive with BTC long. Add in upward volatility skew, potential positive carry of BTC on balance sheet, and the company’s option value of future leverage. These are durable structural factors for mNAV > 1 mean-reversion after bear markets.

--

I don’t understand Nic’s perspective. Why is it good for institutional Authorized Participants to earn a spread arbing IBIT create/redeem, but it’s bad for a company to accrete BPS for the benefit of its retail shareholders by doing the same? Seems like a double-standard.

--

Equating GBTC premium with bitcoin treasury company mNAV >1x doesn’t really work: the economics of creating GBTC at par accrued to third parties competing with each other and thus no self-limiting factor, and BPS drifted down with the fee. With a bitcoin treasury company it’s the common stock that accrues BPS from creating at par (ATM) and the self-limiting factor is that the company has a monopoly option on its own stock issuance, so it maximizes value by self-restraining issuance to balance its sell pressure (negative mNAV impact) with expectations of future BTC yield (positive mNAV impact). Add on top of that zero-coupon converts. Of course these companies have/can/will trade at <1x mNAV in a bear market, but that’s not a wipeout if the mNAV subsequently expands back to >1x in a bull market.

--

Bitcoin 2025 in Las Vegas felt like a family reunion, political convention, shareholder meeting, military muster, religious jubilee, trade show, and clandestine ops briefing all wrapped into one. The movement has never been stronger.

--

Últimas Notícias

Institutional Buyers Lead Bitcoin Demand in 2025

--

Virtual Token Holdings Surge Among Top Investors

--

ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF to Undergo 3-for-1 Stock Split

--

Australia Implements New Regulations for Crypto ATMs Amid Rising Scams

--

Tether Transfers 14,000 BTC as Part of Investment Strategy

--

Preferências de cookies

Termos e Condições da Plataforma

Termos e Condições da Plataforma

Preferências de cookies