Over the previous few days, traders have been re-engaging with the most straightforward criticism of Michael Saylor’s huge bitcoin treasury firm, MicroStrategy (MSTR). On Reddit, YouTube, Nostr, and X, followers and skeptics are combating over whether or not MicroStrategy is a Ponzi scheme.
Andy Constan triggered the newest spherical of this multi-year debate when he earned tons of of hundreds of views throughout numerous claims that MSTR is “mostly a Ponzi scheme.”
Inside a day of his hottest submit on the subject, Lyn Alden began to have interaction in a threaded debate. Their disagreements finally left X and continued with a verbal debate.
By August 11, Constan and Alden had appeared on Danny Knowles’ What Bitcoin Did podcast. For over an hour, the duo debated the rational pricing for MicroStrategy inventory and whether or not MicroStrategy may service perpetual dividend payouts with out elevating capital.
Their debate merely fueled extra weeks of escalating tensions that reached a fevered pitch this weekend.
Lyn Alden challenges Andy Constan’s declare of a Ponzi scheme
Specifically, Constan referred to as out MicroStrategy’s use of the phrase “earnings” and earnings multiples to explain the corporate’s capital appreciation from holding bitcoin (BTC).
Constan didn’t mince phrases, calling executives’ use of that phrase “completely, 100% fraudulent.” He decried executives’ invocation of price-to-earnings (P/E) multiples or P/E comparisons to different corporations with non-appreciation-based, conventional, recurring earnings.
Alden responded, “I agree the comparison [of bitcoin appreciation to earnings] is not valid. I wouldn’t go so far as to say fraudulent.”
After that episode aired, social media customers shared clips and quotes, additional spreading and inflaming the talk.
By yesterday, Select Wealthy Nick clowned one other viral iteration of this debate, incomes over 600,000 impressions for predicting MicroStrategy will grow to be “the largest Ponzi of all time.” Tens of hundreds of further quote-tweet views amplified the controversy.
One quote-tweet requested the Irresponsibly Lengthy MSTR group whether or not Saylor may sue Nick for slander.
The essence of the talk is whether or not the corporate’s plan to pay most well-liked shareholders’ dividends with the proceeds of subsequent capital raises satisfies the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
Certainly, MicroStrategy has many collection of perpetual most well-liked shares whose dividends are payable in USD—as their identify suggests—in perpetuity.
The definition of a Ponzi scheme
In accordance with Constan’s simplistic characterization of a Ponzi scheme, MSTR is a Ponzi scheme as a result of funding dividends with share issuance meets the definition of a Ponzi scheme, and executives perpetuate the scheme by redefining BTC capital good points as if they’re conventional phrases like “net income” or “earnings.”
“The reason why original Ponzi investors are outperforming is because of the investors that have come after,” reiterated Constan.
In fact, hundreds of individuals disagree with that characterization. For instance, Alden recited an inventory of SEC purple flags that MicroStrategy doesn’t exhibit, similar to lack of public disclosure (MicroStrategy religiously information full public disclosures with the SEC), unregistered securities (MSTR is absolutely registered), guarantees of no threat (MicroStrategy prominently discloses funding dangers in its prospectuses), overly constant yield (MicroStrategy has diversified its pricing phrases to mirror market situations), or problem receiving fee (MicroStrategy has paid all dividends on time).
In Alden’s and hundreds of different traders’ view, MSTR shouldn’t be a Ponzi scheme. However, the talk continues on-line.
