GBTC exists for only one reason: to provide an investment vehicle for exposure to Bitcoin.
Thus, Grayscale's fiduciary duty requires they preserve and maximize their investors' exposure to Bitcoin.
Grayscale should have sold their Trust's Bcash as soon as possible and returned the profit to investors in the form of Bitcoin (like a dividend reinvestment).
A single unit of GBTC represents <0.1BTC and that number inexorably dwindles as management fees are collected.
Bcash offerd GBTC an opportunity to restore all accumulated management fees plus a healthy bonus, meaning 1 unit of GBTC could have been worth >0.1BTC.
I was shocked to discover Barry Silbert instead chose to use his investors' money to play political games and sacrificed the free airdrop money for the sake of his notably unprofessional personal crusade against Core and their socioeconomic majority of users.
I'm 99% sure that's a regulatory violation if not also criminal embezzlement; I never gave Barry permission to use my share of GBTC's Bcash to create an entirely new Bcash Trust.
Going by the Wiki definition of embezzlement, Barry is going to fry for pulling this stunt.
Thus, Grayscale's fiduciary duty requires they preserve and maximize their investors' exposure to Bitcoin.
Grayscale should have sold their Trust's Bcash as soon as possible and returned the profit to investors in the form of Bitcoin (like a dividend reinvestment).
A single unit of GBTC represents <0.1BTC and that number inexorably dwindles as management fees are collected.
Bcash offerd GBTC an opportunity to restore all accumulated management fees plus a healthy bonus, meaning 1 unit of GBTC could have been worth >0.1BTC.
I was shocked to discover Barry Silbert instead chose to use his investors' money to play political games and sacrificed the free airdrop money for the sake of his notably unprofessional personal crusade against Core and their socioeconomic majority of users.
I'm 99% sure that's a regulatory violation if not also criminal embezzlement; I never gave Barry permission to use my share of GBTC's Bcash to create an entirely new Bcash Trust.
Going by the Wiki definition of embezzlement, Barry is going to fry for pulling this stunt.
That's a really far reach. As far as the trust is concerned, Bcash =/= Bitcoin, and legally it certainly can't be declared a dividend (I'd be very curious to see a coherent argument to the contrary), so that logic is moot. I can't find any justification to expect any obligations regarding Bcash. It may function as a dividend to BTC holders in practice, but that doesn't confer legal obligations on GBTC.
There could be thousands of hard forks; is GBTC expected to split the trust's coins for every one of them? Even before we consider lack of replay protection in some forks, there are risks involved in doing so. What if actual Bitcoin were lost in trying to recover these shit tokens?! Where do creditors' best interests really lie, then? Especially when there is nothing in the terms about custodial responsibility for altcoins?
Further, it's absurd to expect the trustee to sell at a particular price. What if Bcash rose to 0.5BTC/coin? Then people like you would be making the opposite complaint...
