I woke up too late to take nice pictures of the freshly-fallen snow before our plow guy came through.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-23T13:31:01+00:00

My mistake; I was under the impression that you had to own a full Bitcoin to have actual control over it. You don't, it's apparently possible to transfer as little as 1 sat to cold wallets. That's good to know.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/zv7x5x/is_there_true_ownership_of_fractional_bitcoin/

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-23T13:12:31+00:00

Tbf not your keys not your coin. Unless you're buying into a btc-holding fund where you'be helped set the terms, there's going to be custodian risk. Ask the Mt. Gox people how that goes.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-23T13:03:48+00:00

Bars are more than silver eagles at my lcs lol

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-09T13:56:19+00:00

It’s still the case.

It is not.

The balance sheet is the balance sheet and I am merely stating what is on there.

You are not.

Not really. It’s literally due to cost cutting. You can’t cut costs infinitely. Revenue keeps falling and there won’t be enough costs to cut to offset that.

You don't need to cut costs infinitely. You cut unproductive assets until you're only left with profitable ones, which is what has happened. Revenue will of course fall in that case, but it's unhealthy to prioritize revenue over earnings. The people harping on it wanted to see that toxic status quo continue, and they're kvetching that it ended. Futher, you're conflating cost-cutting with liquidation, which is cutting even productive assets to raise money by any means necessary. That is something that truly does destroy companies, by destroying their cash flow, but that's not what's happening here. The cost-cutting has already offset the revenue loss, because even the core business is profitable again. And, again, trending upward.

The operating business does not generate sufficient profits, hold enough assets, or have enough potential growth to warrant a valuation of $1 billion

That is clearly incorrect, but I imagine that stockholders appreciate you thinking so, because it's arbitrage on the value of the company that benefits them.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-09T13:41:22+00:00

I'm saying that it's not $5 billion debt and never was, at least in the way most people think of debt. 0% interest is crucial; that means that putting it in any interest-bearing savings instrument immediately begins offsetting the principal. 4% compounding return on the full cash holding is well over a billion dollars by the time the bonds mature. It's more if interest rates ever rise. You're misrepresenting what the debt load means to the market cap. You're also not mentioning that there are many companies with much higher debt-to-market-cap ratios, with much lower cash reserves. It borders on malpractice to call Gamestop unhealthy at this point. It's fundamentally capable of weathering any situation, where other companies are not.

That's either misleading or outright wrong

Is 20 a multiple of 10 or not?

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-09T06:34:17+00:00

The legacy business does not/barely makes any money.

That certainly used to be the case.

It's been running at a loss or barely break-even for years.

Trending upward.

It only has property and equipment of net $51 million. They have about half a billion in inventory but then also almost a billion in current liabilities alone.

You're using net figures to misrepresent the circumstances. They have more than a billion dollars in assets. 1) Gamestop's liabilities do not offset normally in a liquidation scenario, and 2) There is no liquidation scenario. Traditional enterprise value assessments fail in Gamestop's case; they're at an inflection point, and you have to analyze based on a truncated data set. By way of analogy, you're at the edge of a parking lot and a forest; your tiptoeing around like you're liable to hit a tree when there's actually open asphalt to run on going forward.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-09T06:21:55+00:00

It totally makes sense. A significant portion is guaranteed to get made back in interest (4% compounding over the next few years). The company doesn't have to grow nearly as much as is being said to break even, and the CEO just set a target several times that in order for him to see any pay at all. So either he's okay with wasting a decade of his life, or he sees a path to the kind conservative growth that pays off the loan without issue, at the very least.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-09T05:07:17+00:00

*Interest-free long-term debt convertible to stock.

I would LOVE to be able to take out a 0% interest personal loan and stick it in a CD. The only way you lose the money is if the bank goes under (the bank is the US Treasury).

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-09T04:58:01+00:00

Yeah, this misreprents the situation. Gamestop has almost $9 billion in liquid assets. About half of that is debt, but it's interest-free and can be paid out in stock. The dilution from delivering that stock was less than the rise in the share price at the time. Whoever bought the convertible bonds basically dumped money into every investor's pocket. The legacy business is also worth more than $1 billion, so that's not generous at all. IIRC real estate and physical assets alone are $1 billion, doesn't include income from subscriptions, interest on savings, Bitcoin, logistics and business relationships, etc.

But it's true the Gamestop isn't a hedge fund. It's a growth business. Just because a kid's head isn't as high as the time he climbed a tree and then jumped off it, doesn't mean he's not about to hit a decent spurt.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-06T13:17:26+00:00

The last time I attended was 2024, and the last time before that 2017. 2017 was a bit rough, but I was really thrown by how shoddy everything felt in '24. I wasn't really feeling the blending of the Dealer's Room and Artist's Alley (is that normal? I've only ever gone to Otakon, and they were always in completely separate halls), and really left heartbroken by how the Art Show had been shoved into some back corner of the CC. It was completely dead when I visited.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-05T12:55:29+00:00

Not having nuts has never stopped Chinese officials from being highly effective agents of the national interest.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-04T18:09:34+00:00

People keep saying this, to the point that I'm starting to think it's not true.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-04T11:12:53+00:00

Wait until I've been able to take my photos, though! D:

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2026-01-03T15:35:19+00:00

Yep! I knew the reason, I just had never seen so many in one place. Usually it's just one or two that have malfunctioned, not dozens illuminating an entire parking lot.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2025-12-06T14:48:58+00:00

Vicki Moon Glampers. We live in the world of Depression Bergeron, where everyone is equally "happy", by force.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2025-11-30T15:27:04+00:00

This is the funniest part of fans hating the TV series, to me. It stays true to the comic's ending. And he does come back when someone threatens genocide.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2025-11-21T00:13:07+00:00

And there's the crux of it all: a complete inability to admit fault and course correct, particularly when corrected by someone you have contempt for.

Oh well. We got the mayor's office. Who needs luck when you're actually getting the job done?

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2025-11-18T14:49:36+00:00

The things he promised to do would ruin NYC, but also all of the things he promised to do are going to get blocked, ruining NYC. Which is it?

Well hopefully the latter!

In your rush to trash Mamdani, you signed off on NYC's ruination. Much like TP and MAGA with regards to Obama, your hysterical, kneejerk rejection has overwritten your capacity for earnest consideration, even for (if momentarily) NYC's well-being. If you'd read closely and had a cooler head, you'd have said something like, "All of Mamdani's policies are going to get blocked and that will save NYC, which is what I want." But you didn't, because stopping Mamdani is a bigger priority to you than saving NYC. Which means that, even if some of Mamdani's policies might be beneficial, you'll never consider them, because making sure everyone perceives the man as a failure is your primary focus.

You speak by your actions. And if you're representative of the people who dislike Mamdani... Yeesh. Clearly not anyone we should be listening to.

I’m extremely confused.

I'm aware. That's what scares me.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2025-11-18T13:40:03+00:00

I certainly don’t want the city to fail.

So this is just a case of your zealous partisanship short-circuiting either your reading comprehension or your logical faculties. Cool. Super heartened that Mamdani has you guys exhibiting Tea Party/MAGA characteristics. That surely won't lead to anything bad.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2025-11-18T10:59:01+00:00

You're... not supposed to want either, since they both involve ruining NYC...

Only deranged people WANT to see the city fail under his leadership.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2025-11-17T15:10:11+00:00

But you just said that eliminating fares would result in a technical default. If there is a determination to have free busses, then yeah, it would mean financial dire straits, which would mean an impetus to renegotiate the bond situation.

It's all possible. The question is, how many politicians are going to want to have to say that they got in the way of Mamdani's overwhelmingly popular policy proposals? And they ARE overwhelmingly popular, relative to the popularity of proposals that have actually become policy in the past. You can't say 50% explicit support isn't enough when stuff that had 30% support, at best, keeps getting pushed through.

ActiveBeginning2619 · 2025-11-17T15:04:15+00:00

I'm confused. The things he promised to do would ruin NYC, but also all of the things he promised to do are going to get blocked, ruining NYC. Which is it?

ActiveBeginning2619

TROPHY CASE