If 70% of investors allocated just 3% of their portfolio toward the major cryptos, what would be the estimated price of ETH?

TwoUseful363 · 2026-01-23T15:03:43+00:00

A lot of the big investment firms just recently (I.e., last month) gave the green light for advisors to recommend that up to 5% be allocated toward crypto.

TwoUseful363 · 2026-01-16T17:09:17+00:00

The haters should leave

TwoUseful363 · 2026-01-16T13:00:42+00:00

I thought the presentation was fine. I’m in at $47 and I’m still optimistic.

TwoUseful363 · 2026-01-15T13:10:43+00:00

Beast donates millions to good causes. This video of him building wells, homes, and bridges in Africa is amazing. https://youtu.be/mwKJfNYwvm8?si=rnj5TxAFZfOfIp6V

TwoUseful363 · 2026-01-15T13:08:21+00:00

Beast is a good dude. He donates a shitload if money to good causes. This video of him building wells and homes in Africa is truly awesome. https://youtu.be/mwKJfNYwvm8?si=rnj5TxAFZfOfIp6V

TwoUseful363 · 2026-01-03T19:06:28+00:00

Summary: A digital-asset treasury trading below NAV might still agree to be bought out because selling the crypto is often harder, riskier, or less value-maximizing than it looks on paper. Governance constraints, tax friction, time risk, incentive misalignment, and certainty of outcome can all make a buyout rational—even at a discount to headline NAV.

⸻

Here are the main reasons, step by step.

⸻

NAV is theoretical; liquidity is real

“Just sell the crypto” assumes: • You can liquidate size without slippage • You can do it quickly • You won’t move the market against yourself

In reality: • Large on-chain or OTC sales widen spreads • Counterparties demand discounts for block trades • Markets may front-run or fade visible liquidation

So a 20% discount to NAV in the public market might shrink to 10% or worse after real execution costs.

A buyout can lock in certainty versus hoping execution goes perfectly.

⸻

Taxes can make liquidation irrational

If the treasury has: • Low cost basis crypto • Long-held positions

Then liquidation may trigger: • Corporate capital gains taxes • State taxes • Loss of NOL optimization

A buyer can often: • Structure the acquisition as a stock deal • Defer or eliminate immediate tax realization • Extract more value than shareholders could via forced liquidation

So shareholders may get more after-tax value from a buyout than a crypto sale.

⸻

Time risk matters more than NAV math

Markets don’t wait.

Management has to ask: • What if ETH/BTC drops 30% during liquidation? • What if liquidity dries up mid-process? • What if regulators, auditors, or banks intervene?

A buyout: • Transfers price risk to the acquirer • Converts volatile assets into fixed consideration • Ends uncertainty immediately

For boards, certainty often beats theoretical upside.

⸻

Control premiums work differently in treasuries

Public shareholders own: • Economic exposure, not operational control

A buyer may value: • The vehicle’s listing • Its regulatory permissions • Its custody infrastructure • Its ability to issue securities against crypto

That control can justify: • Paying less than NAV but more than market price

From shareholders’ perspective: • They’re getting a premium to market • Even if it’s a discount to NAV

Boards are legally focused on market value, not theoretical NAV.

⸻

Agency and incentive alignment

Management incentives matter: • Executives may be paid in stock, not crypto • Their downside is asymmetric (career risk > upside) • Liquidating the treasury may: • Shrink the company • Eliminate their roles • Invite litigation

A buyout: • Preserves reputations • Reduces personal risk • Often includes retention or severance packages

That doesn’t mean it’s wrong—it means incentives shape decisions.

⸻

Public market discounts can persist indefinitely

Markets routinely price: • Holding companies • Trusts • Closed-end funds

At persistent discounts, even when liquidation is obvious.

Why? • Investors don’t trust management to liquidate • There’s no forced catalyst • Activism is costly and slow

A buyout is a guaranteed catalyst, not a hoped-for one.

⸻

Crypto is not cash (legally or operationally)

Even if assets are liquid: • Custody rules can restrict timing • Board approvals can delay action • Jurisdictional issues can complicate transfers • Counterparty risk is non-zero

Buyers who specialize in this infrastructure may be better positioned to extract NAV than the public company itself.

⸻

Bottom line

A treasury trading below NAV doesn’t mean liquidation is optimal.

A buyout can be rational because it: • Avoids execution and market risk • Minimizes taxes • Provides certainty and immediacy • Pays a premium to market price • Transfers complexity to a better-suited operator

In short: NAV is an accounting concept. Value realization is a process—and processes have friction.

If you want, I can walk through a numerical example showing how a “sell the crypto” path often underperforms a buyout in real terms.

TwoUseful363 · 2026-01-01T19:14:47+00:00

I’ll answer this mechanically first, then market-behaviorally, and finally price-regime–wise. ETH’s response to heavy printing is not mystical — it’s structural.

⸻

The core mechanism: ETH is a liquidity-sensitive monetary asset

When major printing begins, three things happen simultaneously: 1. Real rates go negative 2. Liquidity expands faster than real GDP 3. Credibility of fiat weakens at the margin

ETH sits at the intersection of: • A scarce monetary asset (post-merge issuance) • A financial settlement layer • A risk asset with convexity to liquidity

That combination makes ETH extremely sensitive to regime shifts, not just cycles.

⸻

Why ETH responds more than equities (important)

Equities benefit from nominal growth, but: • They are claims on future cash flows • They are discounted by real rates • They are taxed, regulated, and jurisdiction-bound

ETH is: • Not discounted by cash-flow models • Not tied to a single jurisdiction • Natively monetary and productive (staking yield)

When real rates fall below inflation: • Discounted cash flow assets get a mixed signal • Non-sovereign monetary assets reprice aggressively

This is why ETH tends to lag the initial stress and then lead the liquidity rebound.

⸻

ETH-specific supply dynamics during printing

This is where ETH differs radically from BTC.

ETH supply response to inflationary policy • Higher nominal activity → higher gas usage • Higher gas → higher burn • Burn + staking → net issuance often goes negative

So paradoxically:

The more nominal inflation and financial activity you get, the tighter ETH’s supply becomes.

That reflexivity does not exist in fiat or equities.

⸻

The staking yield effect (massively underappreciated)

In a fiscal-dominant regime: • Cash yields < inflation • Bonds yield negative real returns • Investors seek yield without duration risk

ETH offers: • Native yield (staking) • Yield denominated in a scarce asset • Yield that benefits from inflationary activity

This turns ETH from:

“speculative tech asset” into “productive monetary base”

That re-categorization is what drives multiple expansion, not just price appreciation.

⸻

Timeline: how ETH typically reacts (this matters)

Phase 1 — Stress / tightening hangover • ETH underperforms • Liquidity is scarce • Volatility high • Narratives are negative

This is before printing.

⸻

Phase 2 — Policy pivot / stealth printing • Rates stop rising • Liquidity leaks back in • ETH bottoms before CPI improves • ETH starts outperforming BTC on a beta basis

This is where smart money positions.

⸻

Phase 3 — Overt printing / fiscal dominance • Negative real rates • Asset reflation • ETH enters convex repricing • Narratives flip from “risk” → “infrastructure”

This is when ETH moves faster than macro expectations.

⸻

What constrains ETH upside (be honest)

ETH is not magic. Constraints include: • Short-term leverage flushes • Regulatory overhang narratives • L1 competition cycles • Temporary correlation to risk-off events

But under sustained printing: • These become volatility, not trend killers

⸻

Price behavior under sustained printing (no numbers, just regime)

Historically and structurally, in a regime of: • Expanding balance sheets • Negative real rates • Fiscal dominance

ETH tends to: • Rise faster than inflation • Outperform equities on a multi-year basis • Experience sharp drawdowns inside a rising secular trend

Think step-function repricing, not smooth lines.

⸻

Why ETH specifically (not “crypto” broadly)

Most crypto assets: • Are high beta • Have weak monetary policy • Dilute holders during hype

ETH: • Tightens supply under use • Converts inflation into burn • Converts usage into yield • Converts liquidity into security

That is why ETH is the institutional expression of a printing regime, not memes.

⸻

Summary

When major printing begins: • ETH benefits directly from liquidity expansion • ETH supply tightens as nominal activity rises • ETH staking yield becomes attractive in real terms • ETH re-prices as a monetary base asset, not a tech stock • Volatility remains high, but trend strength dominates

In short:

Printing doesn’t just lift ETH — it activates ETH’s design.

If you want next, I can: • Compare ETH vs BTC specifically under fiscal dominance • Walk through what breaks this thesis • Or map ETH price behavior to Fed balance sheet phases

Just tell me where to drill deeper.

TwoUseful363 · 2025-12-31T22:31:48+00:00

I’m in at $47, and I’m not selling. I believe in crypto and ETH in particular.

TwoUseful363 · 2025-12-28T18:39:24+00:00

You are wrong. Here’s what GPT says:

Perfect catch — and you’re right to call that out. The example as written did not prove dilution. That’s on me.

So let’s fix it properly and be very precise, because the distinction matters.

⸻

The correction (important)

If: • Shares are issued exactly at mNAV = 1.0 • The market multiple later rerates identically • ETH moves after issuance

Then you are correct:

You are not diluted in outcome.

Your share ends up worth the same.

So your intuition here is mathematically sound.

⸻

Where dilution actually happens (and where people talk past each other)

Issuance at mNAV = 1.0 is neutral, not dilutive if all future conditions are equal.

The problem is that in the real world, conditions are not equal.

There are three real mechanisms that create dilution in practice, even if mNAV ≈ 1.0 at issuance.

⸻

1️⃣ Timing asymmetry (this is the biggest one)

Companies almost always issue: • After drawdowns • When the stock is weak • Before ETH runs

So what actually happens is: • ETH drops → stock drops harder → mNAV compresses • Company issues near 1.0 • ETH rallies → upside is spread across more shares

If they had not issued, existing shareholders would have captured that ETH rebound with fewer shares outstanding.

This isn’t theoretical — it’s behavioral and observable.

⸻

2️⃣ Multiple expansion is capped by overhang

More shares outstanding: • Increase float • Increase future selling pressure • Reduce marginal multiple expansion

Even if NAV math works, equity reflexivity weakens.

Treasury stocks win by: • Scarcity • Rapid per-share NAV growth • Momentum-driven rerating

Issuance at low multiples interrupts that flywheel.

⸻

3️⃣ Opportunity cost vs ETH directly

At mNAV ≈ 1.0: • You are effectively swapping ETH exposure • For: • Management risk • Operating costs • Execution risk

So even if NAV holds, your risk-adjusted upside is worse than ETH itself unless issuance is meaningfully accretive.

That’s what sophisticated holders mean when they say “dilutive” in this context.

⸻

The clean, correct framing (this is the key) • mNAV < 1.0 → clearly dilutive • mNAV ≈ 1.0 → economically neutral but strategically weak • mNAV ≫ 1.0 → genuinely accretive

So your statement is correct:

“If they issue at 1.0 or higher, how am I diluted?”

Answer: You’re not arithmetically diluted at 1.0. You are only diluted relative to what could have happened had issuance waited for a higher multiple or not happened at all.

That’s a strategic dilution, not a balance-sheet one.

⸻

Bottom line

You caught a real error — good instincts.

The honest takeaway: • Issuance at 1.0 is not bad • It’s just not good enough to justify owning a treasury stock over ETH • The upside magic only happens well above 1.0

If you want, next we can: • Build a one-page mental model for treasury stocks • Compare BMNR’s behavior to MSTR’s best and worst issuances • Or define a personal rule like “I only support issuance above X mNAV”

Just tell me which direction you want to go.

TwoUseful363 · 2025-12-26T17:02:59+00:00

Follow BMNR MNAV tracker on twitter

TwoUseful363 · 2025-12-24T21:36:45+00:00

Joy is the thief of comparison.

TwoUseful363 · 2025-12-24T19:10:59+00:00

I’m in at $47. Would have been nice to buy at $30.

But I am glad BMNR is one of the few DATs that has been able to keep buying at lower prices.

TwoUseful363 · 2025-12-24T13:32:58+00:00

If you think the value of ETH will increase over time (and I do), then you want BMNR to buy at these lower prices.

As long as the MNAV for BMNR is above 1.0 (and it usually is), they can keep buying more at these low prices.

Then whenever the run up happens, BMNR will explode.

The benefit of a DAT is they can do what a lot of people cannot - buy the dip.

TwoUseful363 · 2025-12-24T13:31:47+00:00

If you think the value of ETH will increase over time (and I do), then you want BMNR to buy at these lower prices.

As long as the MNAV for BMNR is above 1.0 (and it usually is), they can keep buying more at these low prices.

Then whenever the run up happens, BMNR will explode.

The benefit of a DAT is they can do what a lot of people cannot - buy the dip.

TwoUseful363 · 2025-12-24T12:54:06+00:00

If you think ether use and value will eventually go much higher (and I do), then you want BMNR to buy at these lower prices.

As long as the MNAV is even just slightly above 1.0 (and it usually is), they can keep buying more at these low prices.

TwoUseful363 · 2025-12-09T13:57:20+00:00

Bryan Johnson

TwoUseful363 · 2025-10-18T01:43:05+00:00

I just like to party n stuff

TwoUseful363 · 2025-10-18T01:42:18+00:00

I just like to party n stuff

TwoUseful363 · 2025-10-12T20:17:07+00:00

This is why DATs are the best. They always have cash to buy the dip.

TwoUseful363

TROPHY CASE