Bill Miller

Every generation has its story asset -- the thing that you never sell and it just keeps going up. For my grandparents, it was $GE. For my parents, it was $AMZN. For me, it's BTC. #bitcoin

$MELI is stupid cheap

Big ups to @ziffdavis -- selling 16% of its revenue base for 114% of its market cap. price and value are two different things.

@standing5033 understanding short-term movements is tough - lots of competing interests including technical traders, speculators, options players etc. one negative is that stock-based comp needs to come down (it's eating a big chunk of profits)

@billfour Is EPS the only metric that matters for this stock? How do you think about these situations? I could use some insight.

Why I like $FIGR: A+ founder of SOFI, 70% mkt share in $185B TAM w network effects (“of networks there will be few” -B3), 60% EBITDA mrgn tgt, .7 * .6 * 185B =78B annual cash flow potential vs 15B mkt cap, OPEN = call option on DTCC disintermediation , breaking out

@standing5033 agree

@billfour I thought the quarter was solid and the momentum good. Any thoughts?

@gnoble79 The comparison to Facebook and the idea that BTC still has big vol are the kernels of truth here.

BITCOIN IS FOR BOOMERS Bitcoin is the Facebook of speculative assets. Think about that for a second. Your kids aren't on Facebook. Neither is anyone under 30. They're on Instagram, TikTok, whatever comes next. Same thing is happening with Bitcoin. The narrative was simple: digital gold. A hedge against fiat currency debasement. Store of value in an uncertain world. So what happened last year? Gold doubled. Silver tripled. The NASDAQ ripped higher. Bitcoin? Went nowhere. If you're rooting for risk assets to rally, Bitcoin should work. But it didn't. If you're rooting for gold to rally, Bitcoin should work. But it didn't. The volatility that made Bitcoin exciting is gone. And when there's no juice, speculators leave. I had a young engineer in one of my Twitter Spaces a few weeks ago. Smart kid. He told me he sold his Bitcoin and bought gold and silver. Then he said he "totally disagreed" with my theory that declining Bitcoin volatility is bearish. I asked him why he sold. "It wasn't moving enough." He literally proved my point without knowing it. Meanwhile, the real action is elsewhere: FanDuel. DraftKings. Zero-DTE options. Prediction markets. Why wait around for a 10% Bitcoin move when you can get instant gratification betting on tonight's game or buying options that expire in 4 hours? The democratization of speculation created better dopamine delivery systems. Bitcoin was the gateway drug. Now there's harder stuff. And the hodlers who've been there since the early days are finally SELLING. Supply is coming out. The diamond hands are becoming paper hands. It's not my job to tell you what to think. But when an asset class trades inversely to its own thesis, I pay attention. When the volatility disappears and speculators find faster games, I pay attention. When the only people left defending it are the ones who bought at higher prices, I pay attention. Bitcoin isn't dead. The internet didn't die after 2000 either. But if you bought Cisco at the peak, you're still underwater 25 years later. The technology can survive... Your portfolio might not.

@mcagney @TopTickResearch @Figure More arrows in the value creation quiver!

@billfour @TopTickResearch @Figure Regularly scheduled board meeting next week - I think we'll ask for the ability to opportunistically do this ongoing.

I wanted to address some of the confusion around the blockchain secondary we did. We have been focused on getting public equity on blockchain for some time. We see this as an enormous opportunity for @Figure and, more broadly, the blockchain ecosystem. As we often do, we used Figure to move first here, issuing its shares on blockchain. This gave us an opportunity to not only execute a first of its kind transaction, but also to clear out potential selling interest that would come when the stock unlocks in early March. We offered every shareholder the ability to participate in the offering. We received roughly 5M shares in selling interest. In my mind, anyone that was going to sell in March would opt to sell in this secondary, as we matched supply and demand. Given the novelty of the transaction, we conservatively filed to sell about 4.2M shares. We offered a 10% discount to the prior week closing price (when we launched the transaction) to buyers to incent them to do the work to onboard to blockchain (e.g., set up wallets, set up trading infrastructure, etc.). We ended up being oversubscribed, and upsized the transaction to about 4.6M shares (the highest we could go without refiling the S1). Some questions I’ve heard… Did insiders sell? Sellers were a combination of investors and employees. Figure was among the buyers, and our CEO, CFO and myself were not sellers. Are there more secondaries coming? No, in part because we addressed the majority of the stated selling interest, but primarily because this secondary was done specifically to launch OPEN. Why didn’t we do this when the stock was at $70? Unfortunately, we can’t control the timing. Government was shut down twice in the last three months, we had to wait for SEC clearance, and when we got it, we launched. If FGRD weighing on FIGR? The volume in FGRD is a small fraction of the volume in FIGR. We don’t believe it’s weighing on the stock. I’m proud of the team getting the first stock on OPEN - it was a massive lift that needed to happen. Now we’ll start focusing on building the OPEN ecosystem to drive enterprise value.

@mcagney @TopTickResearch @Figure Thanks for the transparency, Mike. We are an institutional shareholder and your company is a top holding. In my experience, emergency board meetings are not hard to call, and companies that intelligently buy back big chunks of undervalued stock tend to outperform.

1.) We need board approval to buy back stock in the open market. It's separate from participating in the secondary. 2.) I think the secondary caused confusion - in particular that there wasn't enough demand and more selling was coming, but I don't know why markets do what they do. 3.) The best thing we can do for the stock is keep executing, and keep making money. We are focused on that. 4.) I'm very transparent and accessible, including in our telegram group.

@standing5033 @PayPal I think the primary reason it’s been weak is it’s trading like “crypto.” There’s a handful of related names that look compelling too

@billfour @PayPal Am I missing something or did FIGR pre release a massive GAAP EPS miss? Is that’s what’s going on here?

one of the biggest steps @PayPal could take to improve execution might be to upgrade the branded checkout user experience, which is slow and feels like it's from 20 years ago

Always pay more attention to research finding “no link” between two variables than studies that show correlation, despite what gets published in mainstream media. #statisticalsignificance

The crazy thing about the unrealized gains tax (aside from the dystopian concept of taxing income that DOES NOT EXIST) is that it’s the deliberate nail in the coffin of an already crumbling system. Why do people invest? Because if they leave their money in the bank, it loses value through the state’s money printing. Inflation is punishment for saving money. But an unrealized gains tax is punishment for investing. So you punish people for saving instead of investing, but you also punish people for investing instead of saving. Congratulations, you created the problem and killed the solution. Another proud day for the “First World.”

Key question for Warsh confirmation hearings: "Do you actually believe you can shrink the @federalreserve balance sheet while maintaining full employment?" If the answer is, "Yes," @realDonaldTrump will be begging for Jerome Powell to return in short order.

Enjoyed catching up with @ScottWapnerCNBC on @CNBCClosingBell yesterday and talking bitcoin, markets etc. @CNBC

@Monie00Soul @ScottWapnerCNBC @CNBCClosingBell If this is a local bottom those numbers are obviously sus

@ScottWapnerCNBC @CNBCClosingBell @billfour BTC is up 43% over 5 yrs vs 173% for GLD. Though over 10 yrs, BTC is up 845% vs 279% GLD, while NVDA, is up 2900%; AVGO, 1265%. 🤔🤔🤔 Would surmise most see NVDA, AVGO and others as the future vs BTC, especially the last five years.

If you'd invested $100 in bitcoin every time someone declared it dead since inception (462 cited instances so far), you'd have $73 mill today bitcoindeaths.com

@AlabamaBags @MouseThatHODLs @leadlagreport "Every human doesn't need to believe something has value for it to actually have value" is a verifiably and logically correct statement. You said "Incorrect" and are therefore...wrong.

@billfour @MouseThatHODLs @leadlagreport What the fuck are you talking about? Bitcoin has an active market. I never said it had no value. I said that it could have fundamental flaws that constitute risk to its future value. Tulip bulbs once had market value.

Respectfully, the moment anything has volatility it is by definition an investment (unpredictable) versus a store of value (perfectly predictable).

@AlabamaBags @MouseThatHODLs @leadlagreport Tell me this -- what else can you exchange for huge sums of money in an instant with someone you've never met that "has no value?"

@billfour @MouseThatHODLs @leadlagreport Incorrect. A sufficient number of humans must believe assets have value in order to form a market.

@btc_bryan_21 that's probably fully loaded for hardware depreciation etc

@billfour Grok says production cost is up at $94000

"Hey Bill, where's the bottom in Bitcoin?" I think all the weak hands get fully shaken out ~$60,000. 2 reasons: 1) cash production cost (ex depreciation) of a new BTC is ~$60K, 2) that's ~where %supply in loss > %supply in profit, which has marked prior bottoms.

@AlabamaBags @MouseThatHODLs @leadlagreport every human doesn't need to believe something has value for it to actually have value

@MouseThatHODLs @billfour @leadlagreport Humans (market participants) are the only entities capable of imputing value to assets. If any asset’s fundamental characteristics are not comprehendible by market participants value is not imputable.

@GhostofWhitman has been higher for sure over the long term

@billfour 2% is the fake number

A lot of people consider something that is designed to lose 2%+ of its purchasing power every year a "store of value."