SharperDingaan

Every cigar butt is different, there is no 'formula'. Bought a whack of Blackberry yesterday at a ridiculous price; which, according to the market .... is utter dogsh1te All that you really had to do, was realize that as soon as the convertible sold; most of the face value would immediately be shorted against the common .... poor sentiment, and the sudden rush of selling would do the rest. Blackberry isn't going under tomorrow - if it's at CAD 6 by Feb next year, we're up 50%+. Then add in that a lot of people will make a great deal of money if the proposed split happens ... and our catalyst is greed. To quote some iconic phrases from 'Wall Street' .... Greed is good! Greed works! Better than the standard cigar butt formula. SD

The original paper was published October 2008, and the Estonia Ministry of Justice was using it in 2012; have to think the authors went home, and that this "boating accident" was around 2012/2013. Now adults, with first kids arriving, it is entirely in keeping with it being a last nod to the cypherpunk ethos that created them. As it should be: unless you were there, or know those who were, there is no way of knowing whether it actually occurred or not. If it did, grand-pa has a hell of a story to tell the grand-kids. If it did not, it still remains a great story. I'd prefer to give it to grand-pa. SD

Only two people know the keys to a wallet; the owner, and whoever issued them the keys. It's straightforward to trace money flow to a wallet; 100% identification of the user requires more work. Over time, either the issuer gives up the keys (BK, takeover, persuasion, etc.), or the owner (collateral on a derivative/loan, persuasion, etc.). If the wallet has a lot of flow in/out you can get a pretty good idea as to the owner, but if its essentially dormant .. not so much. SD

The story goes that some folks went for an evening cruise on the Baltic. Supposedly the very early stage miners, BTC mining for them had just been the cool 'new' thing at the time; but they were now all moving on, and their wallets contained thousands of BTC. The US was closing down the silk road, was one of the largest holders of BTC, and there was a need for a graceful way 'out'. The various digital keys got put on USB sticks, and to the clink of champagne glasses, all the sticks were dropped into the sea; salt water ensuring non recovery of the keys, no matter the temptation. SD

In theory only the entity putting up the sh1tecoin, and Tether staking BTC against it ... know who is involved; the Tether/BTC leg of the stable coin has no idea. Additionally; should the need arise, it's a lot easier for Tether (and/or its principals) to experience an accident ... and for the staking records to conveniently 'disappear'. Most of this is also under Chinese control ... with very different rules, applied at different levels; the stealing is straight-forward, the living afterwards ... not so much. Macau is a small place. SD

There's the principal residence (where you live), and the vacation home. For most people, a principal residence of 1,300-1,800 square feet in an accessible location, is more than adequate; thereafter, its primarily lifestyle choice. The privileged, also have vacation homes that are primarily investments (yesterdays fishing shack on remote lakefront, rebuilt into today's mansion with dock/motorboat on a busier lakefront). The issue for many, is inability to separate 'residence' from 'investment'. The reality is that a residence is just shelter; safe, dry, well serviced/maintained, comfortable, and always there whether it be boom or bust. Paying the mortgage off before retirement is just shelter in a different form; ability to afford the house while in retirement, and afford the nursing home when the time comes (house sold to pay the bills). 'Investment' has nothing to do with it. Of course, nothing prevents housing from also being a rental income investment; a common retirement income practice all around the world. The big difference is that it is typically not your own residence, and while you're living in it; before AirBnB the widow renting rooms out in the family home, was called the 'rooming house' lady. That rental income investment is almost always another property, and those properties could be anywhere, with ownership in many forms. In most neighbourhoods, many a millionaire lives very modestly, and for all appearances is much like any other Joe. The difference is usually just a better neighbourhood, a better car (leased) that is never more than 'X' years old, a better maintained lawn/garden/driveway through summer/winter, and maybe a few more lights outside over festive seasons. Maybe a mansion, and a bigger garage, if multiple generations are living in it. In a better apartment building, maybe you'll just see them getting off at a different floor, or getting in/out of a better car. Different strokes. SD

Agreed re the 'framing' issue; but the reality is that owning a whole BTC-ETF unit is a much easier 'sell', than owning a fraction of a BTC (as 'x' number of Satoshi). While functionally there is not much difference ... it's night vs day at the market level. Think 3 markets; (1) The techie preferring to stay in 'cryptoland' (BTC, Satoshi, Wallets, Networks, etc.); (2) Institutions trading the option/futures market, creating the ETF's, creating the markets themselves (carbon trade), custodianship, etc; (3) Joe Sixpack who just wants cheap no-think trading sardines on BTC/crypto in general. Joe Sixpack can now do his thing; but one has to think (in relative terms), there isn't going to be much crossing of 'lanes' into the techie lane. The Satoshi market is essentially a 3rd level application that will come into play once all the 21M BTC have been issued (when buyer/seller have to pay the miner in Satoshi). Lots of ways this could go, but the floor price of a BTC will be 100M x the price of a Satoshi. We live in interesting times. SD

Coinbase custodianship is a non-issue. Assume that a Coinbase today, has a very generous 60% of the current BTC custodian market, measured as the area of a medium pizza. Mainstream BTC-ETF's get created all across the US, Europe, Asia, S America, ME, etc => the pizza grows into an XXXL, and institutions primarily custodian with their existing custodians - to whom BTC, ETH, etc. is just another security. Coinbase ends up with a small fraction of the XXXL pizza, and we have multiple very capable custodians reducing the risk for everyone. BTC-ETFs are simply a 2nd level application, that both gets around the 21M BTC limit, and the high costs of transacting directly . Buy BTC directly and there are only 21M; buy BTC-ETF's that buy up the 21M BTC, and there are as many units as the BTC-ETFs collectively choose to issue. A BTC-ETF that issues 1,000 units per 1 BTC, reduces the price/unit to USD 4.70 vs USD 47,000 => cheaper prices, increasing demand for the BTC-ETF, increasing demand for BTC itself => raising the price of BTC. Whales transfer beneficial ownership of BTC to BTC-ETFs via a derivative, a copy of which the custodian holds (and the regulator can see). BTC inflation protection remains (max 21M), as it is independent of the number of units the BTC-ETF issues (21 Billion+?). No change to existing crypto wallets/exchanges etc, other than economic cost/benefit of continued participation. And continued holding of that existing wallet? => now based almost entirely on its intrinsic value to its owner Very elegant solution. SD

Lot of very twisted logic in this article. Every day, BTC demonstrates that its fundamental value is > 0; it just isn’t valued as the PV of future cashflows. However much we might like it to be. Miners are incentivized to borrow against their holdings, not sell them. All else equal the unrealized gain from progressive halving’s, offset the realized interest expense. Over time miners collectively accumulate a large enough % of total BTC, to ensure they are part of whatever cartels may develop, in the post 21M BTC world. Miners are incentivized to transfer beneficial ownership via OTC derivatives and exchange traded options/futures; not sale of the BTC itself. The ‘float’ is purely paper BTC, and the speculators problem; the miner simply collects a premium and walks away until the BTC is returned at the end of the contract. Price as a function of volume vs float is valid; but its actual + paper BTC volume, vs actual + paper float. Perceived prospects driving volume and exchange traded net open interest driving float. Miners producing BTC, and hedging via sale of exchange traded options/futures; gains/losses settling in cash(vs BTC) every expiry. The reality of course is create a mania, and BTC should fly. We just need to keep in mind, that it doesn’t mean the mania has to occur all at once, and all on day 1! SD

Quite true, but the definition has changed a bit over the years. Today. the slaving is often voluntary, and called human trafficking; paying/borrowing from the smugglers to get you out, and owing them for life - seen as a better life. Bond the entire family, and it is in the smugglers interests to keep the collateral alive; the family drowns, nobody gets repaid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage SD

You might want to keep in mind that bonded labour remains widespread today, throughout the US. Every star 'under contract' to a sports team, entertainment organisation, as well as the various underlings in the organised crime trades, etc. 10M for 3 years at XYZ team, is the very definition of bonded labour. SD

There has always been racism; it's just called different names, and is simply what happens when humans collect. Whether it's called tribalism, apartheid, caste systems, class systems, or wealth inequality; it's the same thing, just practised different ways, and exists purely to 'rank' people within a group. I am advantaged in some way (independent of my own efforts), you aren't, so I'm better/worth more than you. I'm Israeli you're Palestinian. I'm white you're coloured. I'm Brahman you aren't. I'm high class you're a labourer. I'm an idiot but born stupid rich ... you're super smart but born dirt poor, etc. If you're on the bottom and virulent; it's f*** ****, and do something about it! If you're on the top and doing little to maintain your position .... riches to rags in 3 generations is a well trod path. However, allow the divisions to breathe (mix, travel, inter-marry, etc.), and evolutionary 'change' across the generations gets everyone the best of all worlds. Fear of change breeds resistance, and the more resistance, the more the political pendulum swings to the extremes. DEI, as is currently practised, is just a poorly executed attempt to accelerate change. Given the track-record, once has to think that the approach is due for a change. Rhodes was just another robber baron of his time; but whatever one thinks of them, it's hard to argue against their merit based approach. The big difference today is that there are many times more of them; scalability. SD

Activism has always been the same game; it's just the names and methods that change. It's a fashion statement, a way to piss off the establishment, a way to be one of the cool/hip kids, and a way to get laid every Saturday night! Not many activists make it past their early 30's .... once school is over, and the mortgages/kids start to arrive The reality is that all microbes have to successfully compete, and the more resilient they are the more anti-fragile they are. Handicap the virulent microbes (thumb on the scale) and you just get a thriving community of fragile cultures .. until some other virulent microbe shows up. Whereas 'do nothing' and you get natural evolution; harsh, but at the end of the day we all survive. Few dispute that 'thumb on the scale' alters opportunities; but most recognise that it's situation specific, and time limited. Women got the vote because they wouldn't put up with male pandering, and made it happen; DEI would have hurt them. Compensate a cultural genocide via 5-6 generations of positive DEI, to build a modern leadership (Canada's First Nations) is one thing... but do it 'forever', and it's just paternalism .... all over again. Rhodes would have been chuffed; if the new generations aren't aggressively biting the hand that feeds them, the donor must have been rubbish! To paraphrase Churchill, "Madam I might be drunk, but you're ugly; and in the morning I'll be sober!" SD

Harvard is simply doing what all political staffers do, protecting their caesar; in defending the tribe, right or wrong has little to do with it. No different to majority rule, if you don't like the decision; either put up with it and sing in tune from the same songbook, or leave - your choice. Most all within academia, aren't going to leave. Few dispute the merits of DEI; for most, execution is the issue. Go the 'all merit' route and you get incredible people, but not many; that was the purpose of the Rhodes and Beit Scholarships, etc. - find the best (whatever their colour, ethnicity, tribe/caste), send them to Oxford, train them up, and put them to work running the empire. Go the 'criteria' route and you get good people, but many more; i.e. niche vs volume business. Ultimately, money talks; most would expect the major funder's to be making some changes. Nothing prevents DEI from being executed simultaneously in both the 'merit' and 'criteria' routes, other than 'fear of change'. SD

Sleep with the dogs ... and you will get fleas; you buy quality 'cause it's a lot less work, more predictable, and less prone to fraud .... it does not mean no fraud and/or manipulation! Then keep in your head that this beloved nano cap is little more than a start-up which has run out of money; they couldn't meet 'angel' expectations, had to capital raise on speculative exchanges instead, and have to keep 'promoting' - in order to raise the new funds to prevent a financial collapse, once the money is spent. The best prospects are private; and they only go public when angels either want out now, or they need new funds to 'take the company to the next level', and bought out later (same angels, exiting later at higher valuations). If you insist on this approach, and are willing to put in the work, it's better to go with private limited partnerships. You're still a minority owner, and it will still be a local business (in its area), but you will have a lot better oversight as one of the operators ... vs simply as a passive investor. If you are sh1te at what you do, the end will come quicker, and you'll also 'move on' faster. Partnerships can be valuable, very refreshing, and a lot of fun; but they are also a lot of work ... and it needs to be worthwhile. They aren't liquid, you have to be good at what you do, and you have to like the people you work with. The responsibility of collectively coming up with the payroll every 2 weeks, separates the boys and girls very quickly. In the craft brewing business there are a lot of people who can make really good beer; but few who are really good at selling the stuff, and fewer still who are really good at the capital side of the business. It's typically regional, most everybody knows their counterparts, and largely an invitation only club. Different quality investments, different strokes. SD

If you didn't think the Red Sea attacks were just business .... you have your answer. Iran is squeezing China for an additional USD 4-5/bbl on January deliveries; amid few alternatives, hostilities in the gulf, and Maersk again rerouting shipping around the Red Sea And at the start of this month ... Saudi began discounting February deliveries, and China released a larger import quota than 'normal'. All else equal, Saudi crude starts displacing Iranian and Russian crude next month, and Russia/Iran/Angola fight over a shrinking market share. Of course; should a ship burn ... or processing facilities were to experience unintended 'downtime', the 'problem' is mitigated. Obviously, it would seem in most player's interest were the price to rise through January, and unintended 'downtime' to occur in February. Given that one only 'rents' o/g stocks, one doesn't own them ... a timely swing trade might be appropriate. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Iran-Withholds-Oil-Deliveries-As-It-Seeks-Higher-Prices-from-China.html https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Maersk-Reroutes-Ships-Away-from-Red-Sea-after-Latest-Attack.html May we all do well! SD

The only way this works, is if old Panamax tankers are used (small). It really means that Panama water restrictions, have made the markets for sea-borne ME crude much more restricted, and why the Saudi's reduced prices on February deliveries to Asian buyers. It also highlights why hostilities in the Red Sea are useful, as the expected risk premium hedges the price cuts. SD

A brief comment to end this, and not derail the thread. A FFH, BRK, UBS, etc. is marginable. You need cash; you borrow against the security and deduct the interest against taxes, you aren't selling and taking a realised loss as well. You hold quality so that you can borrow, at all times; you hold cash equivalents (T-Bills, Commercial Paper), so that if you have to sell .. you have a liquid security that can be sold at generally no worse than 90c in the dollar. You control your risk and return. If you insist on minimal adverse change in stored value, welcome to conventional cash equivalents, and the world of real returns < 1%. However, if you allow stored value to change (up, or down) you can hold the high quality BTC, FFH, BRK, UBS, etc. You own these 'cause you expect the stored value to rise, and can mitigate the downside by maintaining continuous liquidity (margin, cash equivalents). To control against a 1929 crash tomorrow; most would apply a 50% haircut to a high quality portfolio, as well as a 50%+ haircut to the margin capacity (70% to 30%), to determine maximum debt; excluding 12-18 months of living expenses held in T-Bills. If you use a commodities portfolio; it will keep you alive to fight another day. The accounting world recognises T-Bills, commercial paper, bankers acceptances, letters of credit, etc. as cash equivalents 'cause they are liquid in most all economic conditions. BTC is not a cash equivalent 'cause it is not an asset (no contractual benefits that can be present valued). The CP, BA, LoC backed by a GSIB (UBS) is a cash equivalent - but not the common stock itself. The investment industry uses the accounting definition of cash/cash equivalents (standard), so that all public portfolios are comparable. Obsolescence isn't going to stop continued use! Accept BRK as a modern cash equivalent (liquid in most all economic conditions, option market); and a portfolio of 100% BRK, T-Bills, and commercial paper is a 'safe' entirely cash, cash equivalent portfolio with a higher return. Extremely disruptive to industry economics, compensation, and employment levels; not in the industry interest. Private portfolios are not constrained by industry convention, and self managed portfolio's are less influenced by industry fees. When the PM's have broadly similar skill sets and experience, the private PM's are at an advantage. We just choose to use it. One can argue the choices (BTC, UBS, etc.), but it's really about risk tolerance and will vary across different people. We just have a higher tolerance than most, primarily 'cause we're also good at risk mitigation; learnt the hard way. Disclosure: Updated/modified Jan 02,2024. SD

We look to function vs the very narrow 'accounting/finance' definition; the benefits varying with our requirements. We hold the Canadian ETF vs BTC directly, as the ETF also comes with portfolio management, custodianship, domestic investor protection, etc. Noticeable is that a few others on this board are also now doing something similar .... the BTC replaced with a FFH, BRK, etc. It really comes down to risk tolerance; the quality alternative always being liquid, and the liquidity discount you're willing to tolerate. SD

3% on equities, 58% on cash, 16.8% overall; 34% capital repatriation over the year, 'Cash' for us is Cash/T-Bills, UBS, and a Bitcoin ETF; equities are primarily o/g. Overall a very weird year, in no way representative. Year over year, o/g was down roughly 25%; solid risk management saved our ass. Capital repatriation forced o/g trimming over Q1/Q2 and reduced exposure. OBE and GXE swing trades took most of the bite out of the unrealised buy/hold loss. Our biggest issue is that YoY return is the wrong measure for us; we really need to move to a more 'corporate' rolling 6-yr CAGR, bench marked against a maximum Sharpe Ratio and capital repatriation plan. 2024 expected to be a pivotal year ... particularly if both UBS and BTC also oblige! SD

"we will add this to list of things we disagree with. " No worries, it is why we have a market. We simply follow the money, and if we've thought of it ... we're pretty sure others have as well. Given that most of the states in this, are largely autocratic, and amongst the most corrupt in the world; we're just being pragmatic. The Transparency International corruption indexes are US (69), Saudi Arabia (51), China (45), Russia (28), Iran (25), Yemen (16). https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022/index/sau Russia, Iran, and Yemen ... make even the Ukraine (33) look good! SD

Sanctioned oil is sold at a discount to market; raise the market price, and the price after discount rises as well (price effect). Raise the market price, but not charge the premium; and you sell more of your oil at the expense of the other guy (volume effect). Everybody does this (likely), the price falls like a brick; the western world benefits, and everyone refills their SPR's. Refine the cheap crude, export the refined product; and you capture the crack spread. But if you can spike prices .... and sell significant paper barrel futures at those prices; you will have ability to stabilise your 2024/2025 state budget. Were some shipping to actually sink, and proxy's to disappear; your state budget doubly benefits. The good news is that while prices may well spike lower; SPR refills are unlikely to keep them < USD 70 for any material length of time. Shale producers will be able to continue profitable manufacturing; majors will continue filling in the depletion from existing other production. There is no limit on how much can be sold/bought at spiked prices, as most all paper barrel contracts will close out before the contracts expire; only the net long/short on expiry settles in physical. O/G shares are rented for a reason; if you own, you are expecting to do very well at USD 70-75, and also benefit from other things. If you can both walk and chew gum at the same time ..... SD

Without the weapons to actually sink ships, it's really just a time limited business venture; keep supplying the weapons, let the proxy shoot them off, reap the war premium. At some point the specialists will do their thing, the proxy's will be history, the war premium will dissolve, and the Yemeni ceasefire will take over. It is also in the paymaster's interest, to ensure that the specialists meet the right people. Thing is, it also speaks to difficulty in holding oil prices up, and a lot of rogue nations need higher prices. Should somebody slip the Houthis a few 'ship killers', and they actually sink something (tanker, warship) before becoming history, oil would see a material price spike. If you anticipate that it is tamed via a global dump of inventory and a run up in production; you will need to swing trade. Obviously we hope it ends well ..... but we're just not that confident. SD

Notable that the Yemeni Marib-Ras_Isla pipeline was deliberately blown earlier today; 200,000 bbl/day will be off-line for at least 2-3 weeks. There were also more drone attacks on Red Sea shipping that were successfully defended. Obviously, someone is being very well paid to keep the pressure up; as international shipping resumed transiting the Red Sea this week, and earlier this month the Yemeni's agreed to resume a cease-fire for 2 months. Not hard to recognise that the coalition is being baited into preemptive air strikes on Yemeni launch sites; as the Israelis were into immediately attacking Gaza following the Oct 07 attack. Obviously there are quieter ways of achieving the same thing, and people who are very good at it. https://www.saba.ye/en/news3291187.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marib–Ras_Isa_oil_pipeline https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1145087#:~:text=The UN Special Envoy for Yemen has welcomed,his office said in a statement on Saturday. Might be a good time to sell into the various rallies, and do some hedging. SD

Not for beginners; but if you have the risk tolerance, liquidity, TFSA capacity, want to practice your risk management, and are predatory nimble ..... 4-6 year play - at the end of which you might have enough to buy a modest house outright, tax free Lot of ugly's in this, not particularly well run, and there are better quality choices at higher prices. But Lenny, .... if you can afford 100,000-125,000 shares today, and the dog eventually gets to $4.00, 5 years out .... 400-500K is a worthy prize. The hope is that somebody takes CET out before then, and most likely in the next cycle. We own a few shares, with a cost base in the low cents after swing trades. https://www.cathedralenergyservices.com/ SD