🧡 Founder of Finite - Building the talent intelligence layer for ₿itcoin. 🧠 Father 🏡 Husband 🏃♂️ Marathon Runner
United Kingdom
- Tweets 5,663
- Following 669
- Followers 4,161
- Likes 8,354
Pinned Tweet
Back in 2010, the minimum wage was £12,064 and the 'higher earner' band started at £43,875.
You only paid 40% tax once you were earning 3.6x the minimum wage.
There was clear incentive to progress, learn and aspire for more.
As things stand, you now start paying 40% tax once you earn £50,270 which is just 1.83x the minimum wage.
If it was the same multiple as 2010, the 'higher earning' band would be £98,841 and everyone below this amount would be paying 20%.
Someone on £98,841 is effectively losing out on £9714.20 net per year if the bandings had simply moved in line with previous multiples relative to minimum wage.
This is one of the reasons why the middle class is being eroded and why there's a cost of living crisis in the UK.
An increase to £13.20p/h equates to a minimum wage of £27,456, based on a 40 hour week.
Once you factor in employers NI and basic pension contributions, the MINIMUM cost to hire a 21 year old for a company would be £31,461.
This is before you factor in any overarching business costs like office space, laptops, phone, software, training, support staff, vehicles etc.
This is going to be devastating to SME's who cant put together a simple 12 month budget without the goalposts being moved & their margins squeezed.
It'll also be catastrophic to youngsters opportunities because businesses will simply not be able to afford to hire them.
What's also incredible is that anything above £50,270 is seen as 'high earnings' in the UK and is taxed at 40%!
We are governed by financially and economically illiterate morons.
This will not end well.
75
644
4,673
201,935
CALLED IT! It was great to hear @phongle say that $MSTR will be doing what I hoped & thought they would start to do, during their Q3 earnings call.
"The primary way to acquire Bitcoin is by issuing Digital Credit".
"When we raise $1B or $2B a month on $STRC, one thing I think we'll do this time, is to put some of that into the USD reserve & we'll use the remains to buy Bitcoin."
"Will we issue $MSTR to buy Bitcoin? Perhaps. But the primary way to accrete Bitcoin to the company, to create amplification & increase Bitcoin per Share is through Digital Credit."
I think people really underestimate how fast Strategy will be able to increase BPS when $STRC is back to par and sentiment shifts positive.
All the moaning about Strategy's BPS dropping slightly in 2026 after they've acquired +176,827 more Bitcoin this year, during a bear market, is going to look really silly when they start issuing $2B of STRC a month, buying $1.5B of BTC without issuing a single common share! 😎
Their BPS is going to go through the roof!
We're moving into a new era for MSTR - one that will enable them to raise hundreds of billions of dollars and buy another 4% of the Bitcoin supply.
One that will help them become a $1T company.
Once $STRC becomes so large and so trusted that it's pegged to par indefinitely, there'll be absolutely no reason for them to issue new MSTR shares.
They may occasionally issue some to pay the dividends at the height of a bull market, when their mNav has substantially expanded, but otherwise, there'll be no need whatsoever.
This is the ultimate strategy that will send their common equity to the moon!
It's also why I have NO intension of ever selling my MSTR shares & why I pay no attention to those who are clambering for their 'bags to be pumped' in the short term, when it's very clear where this is heading over the medium to long term.
I'll keep banging this drum - no matter what your expectations are for Strategy's share price in the future - YOU ARE NOT BULLISH ENOUGH! 🚀🧡
@saylor @rohanhirani @CJ_Bitcoin @shirishjajodia
$MSTR - I'm yet to hear anyone present an argument on why this couldn't be the new reality for @Strategy?
Step 1 - STRC Returns to Par
Step 2 - Issue "X" amount of STRC
Step 3 - Allocate 24% of raised capital to the USD reserve
Step 4 - Buy Bitcoin with 76% of the raised capital
Step 5 - Repeat every week
Result = Strategy don't issue a single share of $MSTR, the USD reserve covers their dividend obligations, their BPS grows rapidly & the common stock price goes to the moon.
1
6
210
Strategy have announced that they've purchased another 811 Bitcoin and now hold 849,327 BTC.
They generated $164m by selling $164m of $MSTR to buy the Bitcoin.
Alongside this, they used their cash reserve to buyback $208m of $STRC.
They still hold almost $5 Billion of USD on their balance sheet.
Dips are there to be bought & the largest global holder of Bitcoin wasn't going to pass up on this opportunity to acquire more Bitcoin.
R E L E N T L E S S 🧡
Strategy has acquired 811 $BTC and repurchased $208M of $STRC. As of 11/1/26, we hold 849,327 BTC and $4.9B of USD Assets. $MSTR strategy.com/press/strategy-…
1
26
1,039
This is why SME's in the UK are failing.
Back in 2020, a UK business employing 20 people on the National Living Wage, each working 40 hours per week, had annual employment costs of approximately £395,695.
From April 2027, employing those exact same 20 people will cost approximately £629,708.
That's an increase of £234,013 in just seven years.
Even after accounting for the Employment Allowance available in both periods, the business faces an additional £227,513 in annual employment costs.
An increase of 58.1% with no additional employees.
But there’s another problem for UK businesses….
Let's assume this business generated £500,000 in annual taxable profits back in 2020.
With Corporation Tax at 19%, the company retained £405,000.
At today's 25% Corporation Tax rate, the company needs to generate £540,000 in taxable profits to retain the same £405,000.
When we combine the additional employment costs with the increase in Corporation Tax, the business needs to generate an additional £267,513 in annual contribution simply to maintain its previous profitability.
However, generating additional revenue also incurs costs……
Assuming the business retains 30p from every additional £1 of revenue after direct costs, it would need to generate approximately £891,710 in additional annual sales.
That's nearly £900,000 in additional revenue required, to employ the same 20 people and retain the same £405,000 in after-tax profit!
And that's before considering changes in business rates, office costs, energy, insurance, supplier costs and other operating expenses.
More importantly, that £405,000 hasn't been adjusted for the loss of purchasing power over the past seven years.
This demonstrates why increases in revenue doesn't necessarily translate into improved financial performance for business owners.
A company can generate significantly more revenue each year, employ the same number of people and still find itself no better off financially in nominal terms.
In real terms, it could be considerably worse off.
And for those businesses that do successfully generate profits and accumulate reserves, there's a further consideration.....
How do they protect the purchasing power of the capital they've spent years building?
1
250
Binance are in big trouble. Karma is a bitch. Never forget 10/10.
I'm a big advocate for regulation to hold these exchanges accountable & to stop practices like wash trading and price manipulation that we've seen over the last 18-24 months.
As a clear reminder, if you hold your crypto on an exchange, it's not yours!
Unless you hold your own keys, you do not own Bitcoin.
UPDATE: BINANCE'S NET OUTFLOWS HAVE NOW SURPASSED $7 BILLION SETTING A NEW RECORD FOR ANY CRYPTO EXCHANGE
6
1
25
2,643
The world's largest buyer of Bitcoin has indicated that they've bought even more Bitcoin!
Dips are there to be bought 🧡
Bears are in shambles!
7
5
128
1,737
Bitcoins price fell more when $MSTR sold 32 Bitcoin than when the largest crypto exchanged was hacked for $6.4B.
I think that tells you how irrational the market can be, but also demonstrates how resilient and mature this asset now is.
Considering everything that's been thrown at Bitcoin in 2026, at a current price of just under $78k, I think it's held up incredibly well.
I expect a solid end to 2026 as we move towards a multi-year bull run.
6
5
98
3,058
When you challenge the narrative around how Bitcoin Treasury Companies create long-term shareholder value, and Michael @saylor himself likes the post. 🧡
An acknowledgement from the man who pioneered the Bitcoin Treasury Company model and fundamentally changed how corporations approach Bitcoin as a treasury asset.
The debate around BPS, CEBE, mNAV and sustainable shareholder accretion matters.
Clearly, it's a conversation worth having. ₿
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how Bitcoin Treasury Companies create shareholder value.
To be clear, this poll completely misses the point and is a complete waste of time.
Asking shareholders whether they'd prefer a higher share price or more Bitcoin per share (BPS) presents two interconnected outcomes as though they're competing objectives.
What drives long-term share price appreciation?
There are two fundamental components:
1 - Bitcoin's price performance.
2 - The valuation multiple (mNAV) investors are willing to assign to the company's underlying Bitcoin exposure.
But what justifies a sustained mNAV premium?
A company's ability to consistently and efficiently increase Bitcoin exposure attributable to each common share (CEBE), and the market's confidence in its ability to continue doing so.
The more effectively a company can demonstrate that it can grow CEBE through accretive capital allocation, the stronger the argument for investors assigning it a premium valuation.
That premium is not guaranteed. It must be earned through execution, sustainable financing and demonstrable shareholder accretion.
Imagine the alternative.....
A Bitcoin Treasury Company that simply accumulates Bitcoin but cannot demonstrate an ability to increase exposure per share is increasingly reliant on Bitcoin's price appreciation to deliver shareholder returns.
Without a credible mechanism for further accretion, why should investors consistently pay a premium to the underlying Bitcoin?
They can simply buy Bitcoin directly.
Over time, that company's mNAV would compress towards 1x, or potentially trade at a discount as we're seeing with other treasury companies.
This is precisely why BPS and CEBE matter if you want long term share appreciation.
Bitcoin appreciation increases the value of existing exposure.
Accretive growth in Bitcoin exposure per common share increases the amount of Bitcoin-linked value attributable to each share.
And the market's expectations of future accretion help determine the premium investors are willing to pay.
These are interconnected drivers of shareholder returns, not competing priorities.
The objective of a Bitcoin Treasury Company should not simply be to own more Bitcoin.
It should be to consistently increase the economic Bitcoin exposure attributable to each common share, creating the conditions for sustainable long-term share price appreciation.
Asking shareholders to choose between BPS and share price is therefore asking the wrong question.
Presenting share price as the overwhelming 'winner' only compounds that misunderstanding.
These are not competing objectives.
Sustainable share price appreciation is intrinsically linked to a company's ability to grow Bitcoin exposure per share and the valuation premium investors are willing to assign to that growth.
Declaring share price the winner whilst dismissing BPS as secondary demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how Bitcoin Treasury Companies create long-term shareholder value.
5
2
42
2,996
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how Bitcoin Treasury Companies create shareholder value.
To be clear, this poll completely misses the point and is a complete waste of time.
Asking shareholders whether they'd prefer a higher share price or more Bitcoin per share (BPS) presents two interconnected outcomes as though they're competing objectives.
What drives long-term share price appreciation?
There are two fundamental components:
1 - Bitcoin's price performance.
2 - The valuation multiple (mNAV) investors are willing to assign to the company's underlying Bitcoin exposure.
But what justifies a sustained mNAV premium?
A company's ability to consistently and efficiently increase Bitcoin exposure attributable to each common share (CEBE), and the market's confidence in its ability to continue doing so.
The more effectively a company can demonstrate that it can grow CEBE through accretive capital allocation, the stronger the argument for investors assigning it a premium valuation.
That premium is not guaranteed. It must be earned through execution, sustainable financing and demonstrable shareholder accretion.
Imagine the alternative.....
A Bitcoin Treasury Company that simply accumulates Bitcoin but cannot demonstrate an ability to increase exposure per share is increasingly reliant on Bitcoin's price appreciation to deliver shareholder returns.
Without a credible mechanism for further accretion, why should investors consistently pay a premium to the underlying Bitcoin?
They can simply buy Bitcoin directly.
Over time, that company's mNAV would compress towards 1x, or potentially trade at a discount as we're seeing with other treasury companies.
This is precisely why BPS and CEBE matter if you want long term share appreciation.
Bitcoin appreciation increases the value of existing exposure.
Accretive growth in Bitcoin exposure per common share increases the amount of Bitcoin-linked value attributable to each share.
And the market's expectations of future accretion help determine the premium investors are willing to pay.
These are interconnected drivers of shareholder returns, not competing priorities.
The objective of a Bitcoin Treasury Company should not simply be to own more Bitcoin.
It should be to consistently increase the economic Bitcoin exposure attributable to each common share, creating the conditions for sustainable long-term share price appreciation.
Asking shareholders to choose between BPS and share price is therefore asking the wrong question.
Presenting share price as the overwhelming 'winner' only compounds that misunderstanding.
These are not competing objectives.
Sustainable share price appreciation is intrinsically linked to a company's ability to grow Bitcoin exposure per share and the valuation premium investors are willing to assign to that growth.
Declaring share price the winner whilst dismissing BPS as secondary demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how Bitcoin Treasury Companies create long-term shareholder value.
The verdict is in, and it isn't close. 🗳️
61.5% of $MSTR and $ASST shareholders say SHARE PRICE is the #1 metric. Not Bitcoin per share.
Only 18.6% picked ₿ per Share. That's more than 3:1. 1,398 votes, and the split hasn't budged since 1st hour. @Strive @Strategy shareholders want the stock to go up. 📈 Poll's still open, go vote 👇 @BritishHodl nitter.siddz.com/GrainofSaltSF/status/2…
8
4
50
5,097
Bitcoin started 2026 at a price of $87,508.
At today's price of $77,531, it's 11.4% down, with 2 months of 2026 to go.
We need to see a 13% upswing over the next 9 weeks to avoid Bitcoin recording another red year.
Bitcoin recorded just 2 red years in its first 12 calendar years.
If 2026 ends red, this would be the 2nd red year in a row for the first time ever.
It would also mean 3 of the past 5 years had resulted in negative returns.
16
5
123
16,595
David Lawrence retweeted
Binance is finished.
After this people will never use Binance again, even if they make everyone whole, every sane person will withdraw everything as soon as they open withdrawals.
What do you mean one devops developer was able to cause a 5.6 billion loss? You didn't split it into multiple buckets? No external approvals required for large withdrawals? No automated anomaly detection?
Nobody believes you CZ.
They don't have the funds to cover it, which is why withdrawals are still closed.
The only way they open withdrawals is if crypto drops way lower and they can rebuy everything lower.
If that doesn't happen it's over.
197
109
1,048
74,897
"Don't buy Bitcoin, it's too risky. Buy secure companies in the S&P 500 instead".
The companies in the S&P 500.....
1
6
290
David Lawrence retweeted
"Go fuck yourself."
That's what Elon Musk told people who tried to pressure him with money. On stage. Live. 🎤
Now CZ's team is reminding him:
"We have over $1 BILLION in SpaceX shares." 💰
As if Elon cares. 😂
One day after a ~$6.3B hack at Binance, Elon is trolling CZ with 😬 and 🔥😂, and CZ is begging him to stop.
I can already see Elon's next reply. 👀
Crypto market, be prepared. 🚨
Follow me so you don't miss what happens next 🔔
Elon, have a lot of respect for you, but bad time to troll. Please stop.
Our SPCX shares (from our $500m investment in your Twitter takeover) are worth more than a billion.
Would appreciate if you show a little support. Thanks!
9
17
97
51,192
David Lawrence retweeted
Bitcoiners want exposure to more Bitcoin over the long term.
If I buy 1 BTC worth of MSTR today, the goal is that they will double my BPS in the next 7 years. In 7 years, that Bitcoin may be worth $500k, so I've essentially paid $80k for $500k worth of Bitcoin. In 14 years, i'll hopefully have exposure to 4 Bitcoin that 'should' be worth $5m+
I think it ultimately comes down to how quickly you want the fiat return. Its very clear there's a section of the community that want their bags pumping in the next cycle so they can cash out and complete the fiat game.
I have no interest in cashing in my shares for at least 10 years, but if im honest, i'll likely never sell my MSTR shares.
1
4
241
David Lawrence retweeted
I find the disconnect with a few of the retail investors to be driven primarily by the time horizon of said investors.
Strive’s time horizon is long term, perpetual, in nature. Some retail shareholders have a shorter term time horizon and different interests, which we support & welcome, but won’t drive our corporate strategy.
31
8
210
8,458