Haseeb

Either the common shareholders get screwed or the preferred shareholders get screwed.

But one way or another, one of them has to lose because the third category of Bitcoin gets screwed does not work.

That does not work.

You cannot sell Bitcoin.

If you are selling Bitcoin, the whole system breaks.

So I think that's the lesson he's learned.

And he's ultimately going to have to choose one of two bad options.

Now, at the end of the day, Bitcoin is largely fine, which of those two he chooses, right?

So the whole industry is large, like, you know, if he screws over the thresholders, then okay, that removes part of your financing.

You can't really, you know, lever up and go use it to buy more Bitcoin, but at least you're not selling any Bitcoin.

And so, okay, you're solid.

We can count on you.

You're not marginal sell pressure, but-

Now, if he dilutes the common shareholders, then, okay, the premium goes down, the NAV goes down, and then that really screws over a much larger holder base, but also is harder for him to be able to justify going back above NAV in the future and getting the whole system running.

So it's genuinely a difficult situation.

And when you have multiple...

multiple categories of shareholders who are not completely aligned with each other, which you have here because he's issued so many different instruments over the years, you're going to naturally have these kind of conflicts where it's kind of zero sum.

Do the common shareholders get screwed or do the preferred shareholders get screwed?

But I think he's learned you can't screw Bitcoin.

If you screw Bitcoin, you're screwing yourself.