The
@mattkratter -
@saylor dilution debate looks crypto-native. However, it's the oldest debate in finance.
P/E is incomparable because everyone adjusts earnings. Covenant EBITDA in high yield has been stretched until leverage ratios across issuers aren't the same unit. Every metric ever invented was defined by issuers and it's for investors to criticize and discipline them.
Bitcoin treasury metrics are living that cycle in 18 months, publicly and very transparently - and Saylor deserves full credit for promoting unprecedented transparency, for any public company.
Two separate issues are being mixed. First: different metrics serve different objectives and stakeholders. Bitcoin-per-Share for
$MSTR shareholders - quarterly, nobody underwrites on weekly. mNAV vs. the 1.22x breakeven for issuance discipline (1.20x today, which is why BTC Yield fired). Coverage (asset and dividend servicing) for the credit.
@Strategy's raise last week was a credit action - and scoring a credit action with an accumulation metric produces exactly this dispute.
Second: by Saylor's own admission, BTC Yield predates digital credit, i.e., the business model outran the metric. Definitions now diverge by issuer -
@jackmallers' out-of-the-money convert point - and that's covenant EBITDA all over again.
The treasury sector is still so young and continues to evolve as the market develops. What matters in the end is continued transparency, and that investors truly understand the metrics, can assess differences between companies and how it impacts each part of the capital stack. We'll get there.