I know that many of us mere mortals have difficulties understanding how anyone could feel that they do not have enough bitcoin if they have close to 18k of them and also own overwhelming majority in a company that owns more than 38k BTC... Just have difficulties understanding how that quantity might not feel like enough. Or is it just me?
It's not just you. At that level it seems less about bringing freedom and securing a future than it does about collecting the world's wealth into yet another segment of the uber rich. A sort of tech version of the Cantillon Effect. I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same if I had the resources but it's kind of kicking sand in the BTC narrative of equality and opportunity for the unbanked. Just more of the same story of the rich getting richer, anyone arguing otherwise maybe isn't looking at it from the point of view of the masses. Wherever you land on that argument I'm guessing that level of accumulation isn't something most of us would make public.
That's kind of what I have been thinking - like he is doing more than just getting a meaningful stake in BTC, and maybe I am just having difficulties relating to that level of rich - even though I can relate to the idea that none of us should want to have our wealth eroded away.
Regarding disclosure, maybe he felt some kind of duty (or potential legal obligation) to error on the side of overdiscloser - even his personal hodlings - I am not sure.. of course, he did have obligations to disclose matters to shareholders, and maybe since the shares are public rather than private, anyone could end up being (or becoming) a shareholder, so his personal stake in BTC may well be relevant to that matter.. I am not sure.
Good point, didn't think of that. Still, I'd expect public disclosure to be in the form of a filing, not a tweet. Maybe as you say it's erring on the side of caution for him.
I am also NOT suggesting that there might not be mixed motives.
So, for example, he may have been required to disclose both his personal holdings and also his intentions in regards to where he was going to take the company, and he may have accomplished those disclosures through official filings of documents and official notices in prospectuses or whatever might be recognized as official channels.
At the same time, once the information has been put out there (even if the information might be in the small font footnotes of official disclosures - or orally disclosed at shareholder meetings or whatever other ways that CEOs may have to communicate to current shareholders or potential shareholders), then he decided to engage in a kind of double-downing discussion of some of these matters publicly, largely because he had already had to disclose the matters, so may as well get some benefits out of that information that is mostly already out there in kinds of public ways.
Yeah, he was also drawing attention to some of the matters too in ways that go way beyond minimum legal requirements and also his public discussions might NOT be adequate for proper disclosing, either. Also, at the same time, he has probably already been briefed by legal counsel that when he is out there publicly, he runs some risks of going askew of legal requirements, too..
Sure, it can be framed that Saylor talks too much and then the SEC or whoever wants to go after him for pumping his shit... so it is kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of a situation, so Saylor could well be drawing too much unnecessary attention to himself, but from the contents of his various tweets and his interviews, he seems to be willing to discuss these kinds of matters because: 1) he seems to believe in what he is saying, 2) he is a bit of a risk taker, and 3) he may perceive some benefits in setting forth some kind of road map for other CEOs, companies or wealthy individuals (HNIs) that are likely finding themselves in similar dilemmas as him (especially these days) in terms of holding onto so much cash (or value in other ways) and thereafter feeling that he has found a legitimate place to park a decent portion of that excess cash rather than putting in equities, other real property assets, PMs or even buying back his own stock.. In his public discussions, he seems to be attempting to be relatively forthright and straight forward about these dilemmas that he had been feeling that he had been facing..