[Melting_Harps]

> Current value January 4, 2021 - $2,238 billion

Seriously... this out paced Microstraegy's core business now in just the last year's investment, and who knows how much Saylor put in of his own money without the need to disclose it. Personally, I think Saylor doesn't understand the tech very well and is more focused on selling the news to his investment Corpo class friends sitting on piles of cheap and depreciating fiat, which has it use but is waste of time as he should be using his gains to focus on development in the ecosystem in things like LN, Schnoor and other critical things like micro loan systems in Africa to really make full use of this tech.

Jack Dorsey, by contrast, has done most and all of those things and more, was actually on his way to Africa prior to COVID to embark on that.

'Badeconomics' should be what we call the advent of central bank based fiat currencies, as that has untold amounts of blood on its collective hands.

[SpicyLemonZest]

It reflects pretty badly on Microstrategy that a speculative investment of theirs outpaced their core business. Publicly traded software companies aren't hedge funds, they're not supposed to be making the kind of investments that can do that.

[1996]

> It reflects pretty badly on Microstrategy that a speculative investment of theirs outpaced their core business. Publicly traded software companies aren't hedge funds, they're not supposed to be making the kind of investments that can do that.

We have a different vision of what traded companies do.

For me, a traded company gives either a dividen, or shows a pattern of growth that is reflected in the share price - in either case, it will give me profits in the end, which is all I care about. I do not care about the "how" - that's the CEO and board job. I care about the profits. And so do you if you are not retired, because without profit, you won't be employed by this company for long.

A company that can adapt to a new trend, cut out bad lines of business, and give me more profit is a company I can consider for investment.

All that matters is the bottomline! Unfortunately many people here focus on useless things like technical debt or CICD pipelines, while they are just tools.

[Melting_Harps]

> in either case, it will give me profits in the end, which is all I care about. I do not care about the "how"

This is perhaps the most telling aspect of the investment class that explains how people so many are starving, being evicted and dying from COIVD in the World'd richest country while people keep pouring into Airbnb and Doordash IPOs.

It's so absurd to me how oblivious some people are about things that will lead to inevitable consequences to Society as a while while justifying any and all practices (not least of which slave labour) because their fake paper wealth number increases--all while the currency its denominated in loses more and more purchasing power.

[1996]

> many are starving, being evicted and dying from COIVD in the World'd richest country

Like every human being, you are entitled to an opinion - however, I fear you are turning that into an emotional argument, instead of logically looking at it. Your emotions are tainting your perceptions.

Most people on HN have a negative view of crypto because of sour grapes. That's fine if you can afford the missed opportunity caused by this kind of luddism.

> fake paper wealth number increases--all while the currency its denominated in loses more and more purchasing power.

Personally, the only "wealth" I believe in is the one that's in a FDIC insured bank, under your name.

As for the purchasing power, it doesn't really matter in isolation: as long as your wealth can increase more in nominal terms than the purchasing power can decrease, it means your wealth increase in real terms.

So what's the problem exactly?

Purchasing power, like everything else, is just one of the "tools" - like CICD or your favorite editor, it's a nice thing to talk about with your friends, but that's not the bottom line.

[xyzelement]

>> I do not care about the "how" - that's the CEO and board job. I care about the profits.

One element is diversification. Consider a hypothetical investor that holds 50% bitcoin 50% stocks may think he's somewhat diversified, but if underneath, his stocks just hold bitcoin on their books, then he's just 100% bitcoin and completely undiversified.

[renewiltord]

It happens all the time. Maybe the most famous is the Porsche/VW saga.

It doesn't reflect badly or any weird moral thing like that. It's just business.

[OJFord]

It's also a risk, since, at least in the UK, after you cross a certain threshold (off the top of my head, obviously not advice, I think it's actually 20% rather than the perhaps more intuitive 50%) it's considered to be your core activity, i.e. you become an investment company that for whatever reason dabbles in <whatever you consider to be your core business> which of course comes with tax implications (or it would be an easy way to avoid tax on your personal investments) and potentially an unwanted regulatory burden.

[jiveturkey]

not an expert (in anything else either), but in the US, bitcoin is not a financial instrument. they might as well be buying tulips or beanie babies (no slam intended), as far as the authorities are concerned.

[OJFord]

Ah true, and certainly that varies in different jurisdictions, I was just responding in general to the 'what are they doing investing when they're a software engineering company' point I suppose.

[Melting_Harps]

> 'what are they doing investing when they're a software engineering company'

Did it ever occur to you they may be accumulating a token that is required to operate on the most secure network devised by Man? And are you so immersed in your own narrative (echo chamber) that the potential value of building systems with this infrastructure at it's core never entered your mind? (Someone on a tech related community tried to relate it to Beanie Babies should say it all, FFS.)

Especially with the endless amounts of leaked information that is seen on a daily basis coupled with a situation where Nation-states (and Corps like Ticketmaster and likely larger ones with valuations that rival many country's GDP) are engaging in ever more Cyber warfare than conventional kinetic warfare, just for context: the International arm's trading racket is ~$100 billion/year Industry. Not to mention the ever expanding amount of Surveillance Capitalism tools that will eventually make it into the hands the blackhats and Cyber Military groups.

I highly doubt Saylor is doing that myself, he seems too short sighted on the media to think otherwise but it may be a facade; large institutional players are now coming with a bunch of inflated fiat holdings wanting to get in and are exploring so many more business models that it won't be long before this happens in my view. IBM certainly tried, failed and lost a lot of its potential because it tried to make its own blockchain while disparaging Bitcoin only to see Ripple (a token it focused on for its Hyperledger ecosystem) get sued by the SEC for selling unsecured securities and BTC sits at greater ATHs.

> Most people on HN have a negative view of crypto because of sour grapes. That's fine if you can afford the missed opportunity caused by this kind of luddism.

I get the sourgrapes, we all went through same regretful delays in buying in when we first heard of it as no one 'get's it' right away; but you make it seem like you can't just onboard right now and what irks me the most is the realization that it's the indignation of not having the astronomical gains from being early adopters that prevents you from doing so. It's fine to accept that mistake, we won't judge you (too much) as we've all been there to some degree and will be entirely if you just admit that mistake when you join in and try to do more than just make it a part of your portfolio and hopefully apply your skill set to earning BTC for your services rather than simply buying it.

That's when it all really sinks in and is the best watershed moment that I know of that makes everything click.