Bill Miller

A surprisingly (rare) bad take. If half the population doesn't pay tax because "it's very meaningful to that person" while its only "3% of the total tax revenue" it means you've built a patronage state that monetizes suffrage/political legitimacy through fiscal non-participation. As Mises clearly articulated, once you establish any precedence that the state may exempt any classes of citizens from any contribution on moral grounds, you have dissolved the "principle of generality" which in fact makes taxation indistinguishable from theft In other words, the democratic system will have been completely captured, thus completely failed.

Yesterday, a short-seller released a number of allegations surrounding Figure. While we address them below, our focus hasn’t shifted. Today we’re back to executing our goal of building the next-generation of capital markets on blockchain rails. 1. Figure’s loans are not truly originated on the blockchain Figure has a growth and margin profile that stands out materially amongst lenders. This is related to the differentiated technology and processes we use in our marketplace. As to the short-seller’s claim, even as they acknowledge, Figure has described in full its use of blockchain in its SEC filings. The shortseller’s claim reflects a misunderstanding of how blockchain is integrated into the Figure loan lifecycle. While certain legal steps (particularly for HELOCs) require traditional documentation to comply with existing regulations, from the moment a loan is funded it is represented on blockchain and all subsequent ownership transfers and pledges are recorded and executed through our platform. Participants in our ecosystem are contractually required to transact on blockchain, making it the operational system of record for loan ownership and activity, while traditional documents serve primarily as legal formalities. Our Digital Asset Registration Technology (DART), which is used by major Wall Street banks including Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Deutsche Bank and Jefferies, further automates lien tracking and updates based on blockchain transactions, improving transparency, reducing operational friction, and mitigating risks such as double-pledging. This hybrid structure reflects the realities of today’s legal framework while still delivering the core benefits of blockchain across the asset lifecycle. 2. The benefits of the blockchain are fabricated and overstated Ultimately, the benefits of our technology and marketplace are borne out in the growth and margin profile demonstrated in our financial results. Our use of blockchain is focused on improving the infrastructure behind the loan lifecycle, including data consistency, ownership tracking, and capital markets execution. Blockchain enables greater transparency, reduces reconciliation friction, and supports more efficient transfers and servicing over time that carry tangible benefits. 3. Figure’s underwriting is risky and aggressive The credit performance of loans in our marketplace reflects a borrower base with strong fundamentals, including an average FICO score of approximately 754, average income of ~$187,000, and a combined post loan-to-value ratio of around 62% (meaning 38% equity in the home at the most recent home value). We utilize a combination of automated tools, including Automated Valuation Models, alongside established credit, income, and collateral verification processes that are consistent with industry standards. While we focus on delivering a streamlined and efficient customer experience, this does not come at the expense of credit discipline, and we maintain robust controls designed to manage risk, prevent fraud, and ensure loan quality across our portfolio, as demonstrated by multiple years of loss rates approximately 1% or less. 4. Figure’s open-ended HELOC misleads borrowers and regulators Our HELOC product is designed to comply with applicable Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z requirements for open-ended credit, and we provide clear disclosures to all borrowers regarding its terms and features. We actively promote the ability for borrowers to redraw funds as they repay their balance as a key benefit of our product, enabling access to additional liquidity without refinancing. Consistent with the regulatory definition of open-end credit, our HELOCs are structured as self-replenishing lines, allowing borrowers to repay and re-borrow principal without a new application or underwriting, regardless of the initial draw structure. We offer both fixed-rate and variable-rate options to meet different borrower preferences, including payment certainty and flexibility. 5. The performance of loans originated with Figure technology is deteriorating Our recent financial statements show that the weighted average delinquency rate across approximately $4.6 billion of securitized assets currently outstanding is 0.80%, reflecting strong underlying credit quality across a broad portfolio of loans and contrasting with the selective, cherry-picked statistics presented by the short seller. Comparisons across securitizations must account for differences in vintage and seasoning, as loans that prepay or refinance exit the pool over time, leaving a higher concentration of remaining loans that may include a greater share of delinquencies. 6. Institutional investors are walking away from the platform In March 2026 alone, over $1.15B of whole loan sales were executed on Figure’s marketplace. Earlier this month (April 2026), a BWIC (Bid Wanted In Competition, e.g. loan auction) was completed on Figure’s platform that resulted in a record low spread to the applicable risk-free rate, reflecting strong institutional investor demand for our assets. 7. Figure misrepresents its balance sheet usage and supports its own marketplace Figure maintains a securitization shelf such that it manages the registration statements, SEC compliance and rating agency relationships associated with securitization activity of loans originated in its marketplace. Figure Connect participants originate on their own licenses and finance the origination with their balance sheets, and then sell those loans to third parties or into Figure's securitization shelf. The fact that Figure manages the securitization shelf does not mean that Figure is a buyer of loans on the Connect marketplace, it means that an asset management vehicle, which has raised third party funds via a bond offering, does so. 8. The Provenance blockchain is centralized and controlled by Figure While Figure has been an active contributor to the ecosystem and holds approximately 25% of outstanding HASH tokens, the network is governed by token holders broadly, and key decisions are made through that governance framework. Ownership of tokens does not equate to unilateral control, and incentives across participants are aligned around maximizing the value and utility of the network. We have been transparent about our involvement and, in late 2025, took steps to further support the ecosystem by strengthening the Foundation with committed economic and engineering resources. These actions are intended to promote long-term stability, growth, and adoption of the network, rather than to centralize control. 9. Our Co-Founder has an undisclosed margin-loan arrangement against his FIGR shares Mike Cagney previously had a secured loan against a portion of his shares, fully repaid shortly after the Figure IPO. As a result, any related pledge is no longer outstanding, and the characterization of an ongoing margin-loan-type arrangement is false. 10. Key insiders are selling stock after the IPO After founding Figure in 2018 and working without any cash compensation for several years, Mike Cagney sold 1.5 million shares in connection with the IPO. Beyond that, executive sales have largely occurred pursuant to the standard practice of pre-established Rule 10b5-1 trading plans or in connection with the vesting of RSUs, and resulting sales to cover associated tax obligations. This is not discretionary selling tied to short-term views on the business.

🚨BREAKING: Rumors are swirling that Scott Bessent got into a physical fistfight with Kevin Hassett this morning over economic policy disagreements.

Nike CEO Elliott Hill buys $1 million in stock and Tim Cook, board member, buys $1.1 million...

A newsletter reader asked me something recently that I haven’t really been able to shake. Not because it was complicated, but because it forced me to be honest with myself in a way most people avoid. The question, in simple terms, was this: if Bitcoin had never taken off - no price, no attention, no upside - would you still care about it? It’s the kind of question that sounds philosophical on the surface, but there’s an implied test underneath it. Almost like your answer is supposed to say something about how “pure” your conviction really is. And my honest answer is no - I wouldn’t have cared. Not because there’s anything wrong with Bitcoin, but because that’s just how people work. We don’t discover things because of their technical elegance or ideological purity. We’re pulled in by something tangible first - opportunity, curiosity, social proof - and only later do we stick around long enough to understand what’s actually underneath. The framing of the question assumes Bitcoin started as “just code,” sitting there with no value or implication. But that’s not really true. From day one, it came with an idea - peer-to-peer money, no intermediaries, a system outside traditional finance. If that worked, value wasn’t an afterthought. It was the natural outcome. Even early on, the people closest to it weren’t treating it like a meaningless experiment. They were thinking through what it could become. The upside wasn’t separate from the idea - it was embedded in it. What really seems to bother people isn’t the idea of Bitcoin - it’s what happens when something starts to matter. When attention shows up, capital follows, and the crowd changes. You get speculation, noise, and people chasing momentum. That’s easy to criticize, but it’s not unique to Bitcoin - it’s what happens when something starts working. It’s not something breaking. It’s something scaling. Over time, that noise filters itself out. Some people show up for price and leave when it turns. Others come for the wrong reasons and slowly figure it out, and a smaller group sticks around long enough to actually understand what they’re looking at. It’s messy, but that’s how it grows. Which is why I don’t really see that original question as a meaningful test. It assumes belief should come first, and that any interest tied to upside somehow invalidates it. In reality, it usually works the other way around. People are pulled in first, and only later decide whether it’s worth understanding. So no - I probably wouldn’t have cared about Bitcoin if it were just some obscure experiment sitting on the internet. But that’s also not the world Bitcoin ever existed in. It came with an idea that implied value if it worked, and the people who recognized that early weren’t ignoring the upside - they were responding to it. Myself included.