Saylor's Strategy
Money is a liquid and fungible asset, therefore it can be classified into three types. In today's business world, these types of money can be used to strengthen or boost a company's treasury. Each has distinct characteristics:
One of them is quite volatile, which means its value can fluctuate significantly. It is not suitable for impressionable mindsets.
The other two are more stable, but they have hidden costs associated, which can make them seem safe but involve certain disadvantages, such as counterparty risk, loss of purchasing power, confiscation, and mandatory taxation. It is the most common preference.
The three forms of money are:
Short-term U.S. Treasury bonds. Money of the 20th century (Convertible into Stablecoins USDT|USDC).
Tangible gold or paper gold. Money of the 19th century (via ETFs).
$BTC as Financial Fixed Assets. Money of the 21st century.
The first two capitalize slowly and with some stability, but only the third revitalizes and explosively increases the equity balance sheet. Globally, in the medium term and perhaps in a very long-term delay in Venezuela, companies will only have to choose between two options:
Option 1: Cling to the past. Conventional financial strategies based on bank credit, issuance of bonds/securities in the stock market, buying treasury bonds, stock buybacks, offering dividends.
Option 2: Embrace the future.
Innovative financial strategies based on $BTC as liquid digital assets transformed into convertible notes, redeemable bonds, preferred, common stocks, warrants.
The 1st option is a regression subject to the atavisms and trends of the past, with stable growth, but with a loss of purchasing power in the long term. The 2nd option is a progression with volatile patterns, ups and downs, and latent losses in the short term but with greater compounded capital in the long term. The choice, although it seems obvious and makes sense, ends up being always the least obvious but perceived as the safest. Why?
Because in terms of money, the attachment to what is perceived as stable has a strong component of anchoring and calm, which is preferable to the chaos and all the turmoil unleashed by the volatility of an asset. The money pattern with which we have grown leaves an indelible mark on the vast majority of people. The internal capacity and strength necessary to remain unperturbed while observing latent money losses in their liquid assets are nullified.
Business schools teach that volatility is bad. All business managers leave their MBAs with the mission of eliminating volatility from the balance sheet and income statement. It could be said in that sense that they have done a good job, and perhaps it qualifies as a Pyrrhic victory.
But do you know who has more volatility than S&P 500 companies? Every rich person you look at or admire, quote, or reference as an enviable paradigm. They have more volatility than those companies because they have neither eliminated nor will eliminate it from their balance sheet. Bernard Arnaud, Jeff Bezos, Marc Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and others like them have massive volatility with latent losses and gains, not in thousands, nor in hundreds of thousands, but in millions of dollars on their balance.
The only way to eliminate that volatility from the balance sheet is by giving away money. Something that the rich often do when they donate to charity to avoid paying taxes while collateralizing the gains or latent revaluation of their assets to obtain liquidity in the form of debt, in order to live and cover their expenses with peace of mind. They are experts in enduring volatility while accumulating assets.
Why do the rich who lose a fortune due to a bad business later recover their money and even increase their size?
It's easy, but not obvious. They never lose their main ingredient, the most important one: their rich mindset, which functions as a financial thermostat set in the correct position to generate thousands, hundreds, and millions of dollars despite volatility, while most have their thermostat frozen below zero with no slightest idea why their finances are always precarious.
