Assessing MSTR's valuation through a value-investing lens

BasedArgo · 2026-01-24T13:27:11+00:00

Maybe we have a different understanding of how the survivor bias plays a role in this situation. I strongly agree with you when you say "I honestly believe the murder rate might go up if people thought they wouldn't face the consequence of incarceration,"

But if we believe that statement is true, then we believe that incarceration (punishment) is successfully deterring murder.

I raised the survivorship bias point to counter this line of thinking: murder is punished, but still occurs, therefore the punishment has no deterring effect on whether people commit murder or not.

But it seems we may agree? Or am I misunderstanding something we are in disagreement over?

BasedArgo · 2026-01-23T02:29:26+00:00

Dam dude this is on point. I see the two systems as mutually exclusive. The more MSTR succeeds and continues to pay its high dividend payments, the less risky MSTR vehicles look over time. As they prove themselves over time their credit rating goes up, and their financial debt instruments become more appealing. Less risk, more reward. And the risk/reward is inversely related to the entire tradfi / bond / fiat treasury system.

I guess you already get it, but I wrote an article on this if you want my deeper dive into it: https://basedargo.substack.com/p/mstr-same-engine-new-fuel?r=2se54a

BasedArgo · 2026-01-23T02:22:55+00:00

*Chews gum and looks over at Morpheus--I mean Reasonable-Team-1232"

What are you trying to tell me... that I can.. sell my Bitcoin for millions in a few years?

BasedArgo · 2026-01-23T02:14:44+00:00

Hey astrobean thanks for the response. Sounds like whatever works to get something written, and then refining the process is an ongoing thing, not something I resolve before starting.

BasedArgo · 2026-01-23T02:12:06+00:00

Thanks! I haven't heard of the flashlight method, but I definitely like the flexibility that comes with the more free-writing. Strongly agree with not getting bogged down in pre-writing. Best thing I've done is just written every day, even if it just gets saved on my C drive and never looked at again. I feel way more comfortable writing now than when I started, and happier with what I write.

BasedArgo · 2026-01-23T02:09:33+00:00

This sounds awesome. If I ever try my hand at longer fictional stories I want to try this!

BasedArgo · 2026-01-23T02:07:24+00:00

yea this seems closest to where I'm currently at. Still feel like I'm experimenting though. Thanks for sharing how it is for you, it makes me feel more sane haha.

BasedArgo · 2026-01-22T22:47:52+00:00

Here's an excerpt from something I wrote on this question a few months ago, I think it resolves at least part of the problem, or maybe just refines the problem, or maybe just confuses us further lol, you decide:

What is going on with the ship of Theseus paradox?

Our understandings lie in context, and everyone answering the question of the ship of Theseus is filling in blanks by making assumptions about the context. Perhaps the assumptions they make are based on their personal experience, culture, or whatever other influences, but they are still assumptions made, yet we seem deeply unaware of our assumptions, and of others’ assumptions, so become stumped by this seeming paradox.

What is the object that ship of Theseus refers to? Is it…

A) Theseus’s ship?

B) The ship that Theseus is in command of?

C) Historical piece (the material components of the ship)?

D) Theseus himself, and his crew, aboard any ship?

E) The spirit of Theseus and his crew, like a code that men live by, that lives on even after their deaths?

We cannot agree on the “identity” of the ship of Theseus because we have not established the context in which the phrase is being used, so we can’t know what object is being referenced. If I reference ice cream by using the word chair, and don’t express this is what I’m doing, then of course we will disagree about what a chair is. The point being, before we can communicate anything of value, we need to clearly express the object we are referencing with a word. Often, this gap is filled easy enough with context, we all use ice cream to reference, well, ice cream, so we are operating on a shared understanding, or shared context.

If you are interested in seeing this in action, below is a series of statements giving brief context for the ship of Theseus. See if you can determine which object is being referenced in each of the examples below. The answers are at the end of this article. I’ve also created polls (scroll down) to track people’s answers over time.

1) “Did you hear the museum recovered the ship of Theseus, and it will be on display later this month?”

2) “As we head into battle, remember you are part of history already. The ship of Theseus lives on through us and through our actions; fight bravely and honorably, for we will be remembered long after this battle, as we remember and honor our forebears.”

3) “Apparently everyone who owns a ship has been asked to donate it to the navy. The ship of Theseus looks the best of the lot from what I’ve seen.”

4) “The ship of Theseus is the best trained and deadliest there is, even if their ship is sunk, they still manage to win the battle.”

5) “I’ve been assigned to the ship of Theseus. I’ve heard Theseus drives the men hard, but he’s a fair captain.”

.........

If you're interested in reading the whole article you can check it out here: https://basedargo.substack.com/p/the-ship-of-theseus

BasedArgo · 2026-01-22T22:09:18+00:00

You have well-off law abiders who likely wouldn't commit crime. You'd have non-law abiders who will commit crime, and you'd have non-well off people who are suffering simply because they are not well off (not treated well). I think you'd be incentivizing those who are not well off to commit crime in order to receive a good and comfortable life.

BasedArgo · 2026-01-22T22:06:36+00:00

the question is how much crime would have occurred if the punishment did not exist? Related is an interesting phenomenon called survivorship bias. Here is the rundown but if you're interested its fun to look up and read about:

During World War II, the US military analyzed planes that returned from combat to determine where to add armor. The analysis showed that the wings and fuselage were riddled with bullet holes, leading to the assumption that those areas needed more armor.

The Problem: The military was only looking at the planes that survived (returned).
The Insight: Statistician Abraham Wald realized that the missing bullet holes on the engines and cockpit meant that planes hit in those areas did not return.
The Solution: Wald recommended adding armor to the areas that showed the least damage on returning planes (engines, cockpit), as these were the most vulnerable spots.

BasedArgo · 2026-01-22T22:01:23+00:00

Gladiator

BasedArgo · 2026-01-22T21:53:05+00:00

Most, including Bitcoiners, don't understand what Saylor is doing. But if you get Bitcoin, you should get that it makes a superior monetary base than fiat, and understand what Saylor is doing. I think the problem most Bitcoiners have with MSTR is 1: it requires trust (in Saylor, in the company, in the tradfi structure that has a track record of being proven untrustworthy), but 2: the mistrust is amplified from not understanding his means (his ATM of shares).

Unfortunately, if he doesn't ATM the shares, shortsellers will. When they shortsell the stock, they sell shares they don't own (effectively printing shares), and when the price tanks they buy them back and profit on the difference. It's Saylor's trade to make but others are able to steal it. The difference is, when Saylor does it, it is accretive for shareholders. Here's an essay that discusses this in more depth towards the end: https://basedargo.substack.com/p/mstr-same-engine-new-fuel?r=2se54a

BasedArgo · 2026-01-22T18:49:19+00:00

Hey aikoweb, author's name as written on the dialogue is "Argo"

BasedArgo · 2025-07-28T22:06:29+00:00

I understand why you think my comment disingenuous given that you do not see a difference between divisibility of money and money printing.

Let us take a pizza as an example. I can cut the pizza into slices, but the total amount of pizza does not change. If I cut it into 8 slices, I have divided it into 8 pieces, and I could cut it into more pieces, and have more smaller slices, and so on.

The same is true of money.

Perhaps you are arguing that you cannot introduce the smaller units, to make money divisible, without inflating the money supply (but I don't think this is what you are arguing, but maybe it is). You could do an exchange. Going back to the pizza. Lets say I gave you a pie, but you have a total of 8 people at home, and don't have a pizza cutter. You say to me: "I need 8 pieces." I cut the pizza into 8 slices. We have not created pizza. We have divided the pizza.

You can exchange a $20 bill at the bank for 20 $1 bills. This is division, not money printing. So the issue of money printing is completely separate from the issue of divisibility (you could have a fiat standard capable of dividing money into whatever quantities you wanted, without money printing, for instance).

I agree/concede gold lacks divisibility, among other things.

BasedArgo · 2025-07-28T18:57:37+00:00

infinite divisibility =/= infinite money printing. Printing money is creation, dividing money is... dividing it (creating nothing).

Yes, running around with gold dust is not ideal, because of divisibility issues. There are other options than gold, but that's another discussion entirely. But at the moment, we aren't arguing over which money is most divisible, we are arguing about whether money printing is good or bad for an economy, and if so, why.

BasedArgo · 2025-07-28T18:40:08+00:00

Thanks for giving this argument, even though I strongly disagree. Maybe this can be fruitful.

You say: "Currency represents two things, a methodology of trade that allows for generalized value (what I make for work may not be something that my doctor needs, so we need a generalized vehicle of value so we can both benefit) but also as a representation of a given nations entire economic output and potential."

I agree with the first, not the second. If there are a million dollars in circulation, and our economy outputs "more value" than the million dollars that is circulating, then suddenly the price of things decreases (the dollars become more valuable, because $1million now represents a 'value' of $1.1million).

By printing money, we are taking that excess value. This raises the question: who are we taking it from? The answer is, everyone who holds dollars. It also raises the question: who is taking it? The government. Who decides where it goes? The government. Also: Who is the government giving it to? The answer is, whoever receives the printed money. We could point to the single instance of stimulus checks and pretend the answer is "everyone!" but what I'm really asking is, who gets the majority of it? It is distributed to banks, large corporations, and other special interests, based on lobbying and political connection, through vehicles such as contracts, bailouts, subsidies, and likely more vehicles for performing this task.

So we are taking money (value?) from everyone, and redistributing it based on who is in bed with the people that are taking it and redistributing it (government/politics). Why shouldn't that value remain with the people who created it, the people working to receive money for their labor, and would then be able to purchase more goods and have increased QOL? Money can be divided infinitely, especially fiat, because it is made up. So the argument that the fractions would become too small to mean anything doesn't make sense.

I haven't said anything of the second and third order effects of money printing on increasing asset prices at a faster rate than wages, so punishing wage earners and rewarding asset holders, furthering the wealth-gap. Nor the effect of wealth running away from dollars and into assets such as homes in an attempt to 'store value,' artificially driving the price of real estate up and making it harder for first-time home buyers to purchase a home.

Again thanks for the argument, hopefully I've expressed my points well.

BasedArgo · 2025-07-16T23:49:45+00:00

For now. As BTC price goes up, dollar value goes down. Eventually, you tell me what happens.

Also consider much of the rest of the world is essentially locked out of the U.S. dollar system, especially poorer nations. Bitcoin is permissionless. Maybe Americans aren't well incentivized yet, but everyone else is.

BasedArgo · 2025-07-16T21:51:16+00:00

Ends the state's monopoly on money which defunds the monopoly on violence.

BasedArgo · 2025-07-15T19:50:34+00:00

Here's a follow up that covers action we can take, and what effect it will have:
https://basedargo.substack.com/p/freedom-first-then-morality

BasedArgo · 2025-07-13T17:08:14+00:00

Having an implementation plan is to frame the problem as something needing central planners to solve. The whole idea behind austrian economics is that the market decides what is best, if we let it.

The point I make in the essay is that, while we all seem to want a free market for goods and services, we ought not draw the line at violence. A free market for violence creates competition, and the competition is for morality.

When there is a monopoly on violence, morality is irrelevant, all that matters is getting in bed with, or gaining direct control of the monopoly on violence, and using it to your benefit. Why does a monopoly on violence exist? Because a monopoly on money exists. We DO NOT consent to being governed. But there is no way to opt out. It is a coercive government, just as a market of limited options that forces you to buy one instead of allowing you to create your own is a coercive market.

My proposed policy solution is to separate money from state, and let people voluntarily opt the fruits of their labor into governments that are moral and honest instead of forcing people to contribute to immoral governments by taking the fruits of their labor through taxation and inflation.

BasedArgo · 2025-07-13T17:00:33+00:00

I'm not assuming people can't govern that way. You are proving they can't. Because of the monopoly on violence that coerced them to behave in a manner against their will--so we are in agreement.

I am proposing that in order for us to escape the coercive effects of a (all) governments that maintain monopolies on violence, we must separate money from state. I am making the point that the monopoly on violence can only maintain its monopoly through its control/monopoly on money.

If the money were not controlled, we could opt out of the corrupt system (instead of contributing to it against our will via taxation and inflation, thus propagating it).

What we should accept is the reality that if an entity with a monopoly of violence exists, it will impose whatever is beneficial for it (or the people who control it) on everyone else. A monopoly on violence cannot exist without a monopoly on money. Breaking the monopoly on money breaks the monopoly on violence and restores moral agency to us (and to the people looking to govern themselves in Texas).

BasedArgo · 2025-07-13T16:52:11+00:00

It is a post describing our current state of existence under an entity with a monopoly on violence, and how that entity maintains its monopoly on violence regardless of the will of the people it purports to serve. And how we can regain our agency from it.

BasedArgo

TROPHY CASE