MSTR S&P REJECTION!

It's two, two and a quarter. Two, two and two and three quarters. It's fine. We're in. We're in. All right. Are we ready? Are we? Are we? We're live here. We're live. We are live. What about that thing with like, you reading a hundred ads? Are we not doing that? I thought we were doing that. Joey. Joey. I already made sure there was extra fire behind you in the thumbnail. Actually, that was Nathan. But I didn't look at it. I got to look at it. It's probably just, it's you and fire. And there's so much fire. And, uh, and we're, and, and sailors beside us. And he's looking so, I love it. Everybody that is, uh, suddenly joining us out of the blue, obviously, we're here. We want to talk about the rejection of MSTR from the S&P 500. Uh, let's just take a look. This is a tweet from Jeff Walton, aka Punter. F strategy, MSDR snubbed from the S&P 500 inclusion. The education and battle continues. S&P 500 needs MSDR. MSDR doesn't need S&P 500. Bitcoin deserves a spot in every retirement account. Apploving, Robin Hood, and MCO were included. Uh, gentlemen, welcome. Of course, my co-host with the most, Nathan Fitz Simmons, a Bitcoin Mentor, and Joey of the Canadian Bitcoiners podcast, joining me for an impromptu little chat about what is going on. Uh, initial reaction, gentlemen. Is this, is this like a Wall Street fear of Bitcoin kind of thing, or is this like a technical criteria kind of thing? You go, go for it.

Okay, I'll jump in there. I think I like, I'm wondering if this is kind of like, almost like an elitist classes thing. Like they weren't going to let the Bitcoin kids at the table. That this is really coming from the prestige and the, the illusion of the S&P 500, because we were talking before the hand, and I wanted to get into it, Joey, about like, if you're there, you're made. And I think that they just don't potentially want to let him in the club. But I'm initially really surprised. I thought that this was going to go through. I did. I assumed that everybody who possibly could would have filled their bags beforehand, and they would have had this happen, and then just enjoyed the wave. I thought greed would win out. I was betting on greed, but it seems like I may have been wrong on that one. Joey, your take.

Man, there was, uh, some options moves just before the close going out to Monday. So, there was some what people thought was informed betting going on, but it turns out it was just degenerate gambling. I, I, uh, I disagree that it's, it's a surprise. Like, we, like Ben is running a show. How many times a week are you on, Ben? Are you on like, four times a week now? Five times a week? Uh, yeah. Well, two times live, and then I do a tutorial. Okay. And every, okay. Literally every live show you do, every show you do with the fire in the thumbnails, okay, is about how Bitcoin is not allowed to do something that we think it should be allowed to do. And so you're doing that, I'm doing that, everyone's doing that. And then everyone says today on Friday, we got all these live spaces. Guys like Rizzo, who's like doing a live space from what looks like a Taliban hostage suite somewhere. He's so excited about the news. He's surprised. Like, why are you surprised? The, the whole, the whole story about Bitcoin is we haven't been allowed to do things. From, from a, like, just to address Nate's point, I think you're right. The, we were talking before the show, there's a lot of technical criteria that go into whether or not a company is allowed on the S&P 500. The big ones are market cap, volatility, or lack of, um, volume, trading volume as well. And, you know, there's also a holistic review that the committee does that's, um, black box. It's opaque. No one knows. They, they don't answer any questions about it. They don't have to. It's not in their mandate. And I, I look at those things and I think, okay, well, that's enough for me, probably, if I was the SP committee to say no. But then on top of that, you have to remove companies. And so, if you look at some of the more vulnerable companies, you're talking about like Lulu, a few others. I don't know who was removed for the winners today. Apploving got in, I think, along with, uh, what is that? It's like a mobile marketing app. So, they have a pretty good market cap. If you follow Punter's, um, like, you know, days, the MSTR company, MSTR stock has been technically able to be included in the, in the S&P. 11's always like one or two points adjacent to where MSTR is. I, I don't know. I don't know why. I don't know why the, the sort of S&P committee would say no, except that obviously this is a Bitcoin thing, like you said, Nate. But I think the other thing is that it's too close to a closed-end fund. Like we've talked about this before, and I think Jeff Punter has talked about this too. Like, if you're a closed-end fund, it basically means that your entire existence runs on the back of like accumulating a commodity, for example, like Bitcoin or some other asset. And so that, like having that strategy, no pun intended, as your flagship is enough for them to say no. There's a lot of closed-end funds that would love to be included in the S&P. Um, and, and, you know, by the same token, the adjacent token, I should say. There's a lot of ETFs, for example. They're special vehicles that would like to be included in the S&P. They can't be for a number of of reasons. And I, I actually don't think this matters that much in the long term. I'm with Jeff. The tweet you just showed there, that, you know, the, the S&P needs MSTR. And, and I think that it's true that MSTR doesn't need the S&P. The other thing I would just point to before I kick it back to you guys, who's, who's buying MSTR on S&P inclusion news? The people who already own it, probably, right? Like, you, you might see some bets, but it's got a pretty steady market cap now. It's not really a penny stock. It's not, it's, it's pretty deep. Sailor talks all the time about how he's got tons of volume, tons of volatility, and so moving the stock on news like this probably would be difficult. And by the way, you're seeing that, what did we say? It's down by after hours 3%. Yeah. I was just pulling it up right now. So, Micro Strategy is down 2.94%. So, so like, who cares? You know, if you found the CEO of some company, you know, doing crack in an alleyway, that's the kind of move you would see, right? And so I, I don't think people really care that much. It's important to Bitcoiners because it's sort of our, we made it type thing, but I, I don't know, like, I would say just don't worry about this too much for now.

Now, okay, so a couple things here. Um, one, uh, okay, I, I want to, Nathan, you shared a a tweet here from TFTC in the background. I want to, I want to, I want to, uh, pull that one up here. So, it's the, uh, I, this is mystery chart. I don't know where this is from. Probably AI, maybe made it. I don't know. Anyways, uh, Joey, what do you think of these criteria? Is this, is this true here? S&P. Uh, it's fine, but it's still bogus because the, the implication here is that it's Bitcoin, so it didn't get in. How did Coinbase get in? Then Coinbase not only got in, but removed, I think, a credit card company on their inclusion. So, the, the committee is not necessarily, you know, attached to this idea that we can't have crypto, can't have Bitcoin, whatever. But they are attached to this idea that you can't have something that looks like a closed-end fund. And that's, that's where their problem is. And Sailor can say whatever he wants. By the way, Sailor is on MSNBC on Monday, I think. So, you know, look forward to that. I don't know if he scheduled that thinking he was going to get in or knowing that he wasn't or or not, but I look forward to hearing what he has to say. The, the, the pundits on MSNBC will not ask him about that, I don't think. But they should, because that's a question you should have to answer for investors that are thinking, "Okay, I'm going to get in on this thing before it goes, uh, price agnostic as part of the S&P 500, as part of the retirement fund, you know, uh, inflows that come every week regardless of what's going on in people's lives." So, we'll see. I'll be watching that.

So, in regards to the inflows, um, you know, we were trying to do some napkin math on what that that would be, and it didn't seem to be that that crazy, but I'm, I'm a little fuzzy on the, upon initial inclusion, doesn't there have to be some accumulation to bring people that are allocated to the S&P up to the the proper allocation based on the waiting of how large MSTR is within the S&P 500? Yes. And so you will have at the, like, like I said earlier, when you have companies drop from the S&P or, you know, when they're excluded, I guess, from the S&P, um, that's when the re rebalancing happens. That's why after inclusion, there's a two-week buffer. So, if he was included today, he would be in those S&P ETFs starting on the 19th. Um, and so that's why you have that that gap. But, you know, people, I think a lot of people, I don't want to call them uninformed, but certainly they're, they're not, you know, read up on this kind of stuff, would say, "Well, I'm going to get ahead of this and front-run the price." You can, but the initial S&P waiting for a new entrant is insignificant. You know, you're looking at, when you look at the companies who really are, like I said earlier, truly price agnostic. You're talking Microsoft, Google, Apple, Nvidia, the MAGs, plus maybe a couple oil companies, plus a couple banks, plus a couple healthcare. Like the top 20 or 30 in that 500 is pretty significant. Um, and so if you, if you are an S&P ETF holder, yeah, you'll have exposure to that for sure. Um, I, I would also for people who are like upset about this or who say, well, I, you know, now it's not fair because certain these committees are holding MSTR out on purpose, they're in the NASDAQ 100. Yep. You know, they made, they got over that hurdle, and, uh, maybe they'll get over this one, too. But I think for now, there's, you know, probably a couple of technical sticking points that if they don't want them on there, then they don't have to. Plus, don't forget, like, when I think the other thing, too, is that these guys consider risk for the holders of those ETF portfolios, right? It's not the three of us buying, you know, VFV or SPX or SP, like, it's not us. It's like grandma and grandpa, mom and dad, pension funds, things of this nature. And, you know, if you have a 6% allocation to MSTR in five years, right, given that we have these new accounting rules and blah blah, like, you can't have a drawdown on a Coinbase hack that nukes 6% of your ETF holdings. For for people who are retired or retiring or whatever, that shakes the market in a major way. And so right now, and, you know, Mike Sailor giving these presentations on V all the time. Yeah, V's cool when you're not in the club, but when you're in the club, V is not the best thing in the world for everyone else that's there. And so that's another consideration I think that probably, if I had to guess, goes into that holistic approach, whatever that, uh, that process looks like. They've got Nvidia in there. What? Nvidia? Nvidia is an interesting one, right? They've, they've been under a lot of pressure because they're running, uh, like a boomerang sort of funding, renting, um, scam sche. I don't want to call it a scam. Don't sue me. But like, it's certainly, there's certainly some creative accounting going on there in terms of how they, how they denominate their assets, because they're, they're basically loaning chips to people and counting those chips. I mean, you can go into this yourself. There's a lot of, a lot of commentary out there. It's going to be better than what I can give you. But the fact of the matter is, Nvidia, for all their tricky accounting, you know what's in your computer? You guys all have graphics cards. You're doing video rendering. What's in your computer? It's an Nvidia card. Uh, you know, when, when you need, when you need to buy something to represent, uh, the chip market, because you feel good about chips, Nvidia is there. Nvidia is in the, um, what is it, the, uh, I can't remember the name of the ETF, but the, uh, semiconductor ETF. Like, that's one of the big holdings. By the way, Nvidia also in Bitcoin mining ETFs. Like, these things are volatility reducers, right? Those agnostic flows reduce volatility. And so whether they got in there fairly or not, or whether they're running accounting fraud or not, like, now they're, they're pretty steady, right? There's a floor there for them. And same thing with Tesla. Tesla's probably the most recent example of a company that was held out, you know, on, uh, on the grounds of someone finding religion on that committee, right? During, I think it was during COVID, they were eligible for the first time and held back. So, not the, we're not like, we're not like a martyr in any way here, okay? It's not really that big a deal. This is in Trifi. You see this all the time. There's a number of companies who are eligible, number of companies who didn't get in, and we're just one of them.

Now, now there are a few other things that happened earlier in the week that, um, you know, are, are in the same vein, and I'm wondering if you think that this is just kind of, there happened to be a number of things happening at once, or if there's any kind of explicit linkage here. One of them was NASDAQ talking about increased scrutiny on any sort of, you know, Bitcoin crypto, uh, related treasury companies. Basically, like making sure that there's, there's voting, making sure that there's all these, uh, additional disclosures, all that kind of stuff. But we also saw in, kind of a rare move, the SEC and CFTC do a joint statement saying that they're going to have spot Bitcoin allowed on, like, like New York Stock Exchange, things like that. Um, are these things just kind of, you know, happening at the same time, or do you think that there's, there's any kind of linkage in, in what's going on here?

There's, there's a case to be made that there is increased scrutiny, and it's deserved on treasury companies. And, you know, we, we don't say it like that. We don't say it like the SEC says it, but what do we say, right? Show me your proof of reserves. Yeah. You know, he hasn't done that as far as I can tell. He refuses to on the back of security or whatever. So, he, the thing is, Sailor's trying to have his cake and eat it too, in a lot of ways. And this is something we should talk about. When you report to the S&P or to the SEC or to whoever, you have to, you have to disclose your cash holdings and where these things are held and who the custodians are and all, like, you can't talk about the cash under your bed when you're reporting to, to the US government. But he wants, Bro, I got it. It's definitely, you know what I mean? But, but he wants to do this with the Bitcoin, and then he's, you know, surprised when he doesn't get included in, in the S&P index. That's a problem. The other thing I will say, uh, why do you think that is, actually, quickly before we jump to the next point, Joey? I have my theory about why he won't disclose it, but I'm curious what you think. He's, he's, he doesn't, he doesn't want to have to do custody. That's why I think that's a big reason. And so he, you know, he's outsourcing that custody to people who I think his shareholders would find distasteful. And for all the things he says about how maxis are not the Bitcoiners that he's after, I think that maxis are well-capitalized and buying his stock. And, you know, I think that's a turn-off for him. The security thing. He did tell me that I could teach him how to. I know. I saw that. Yeah. Yeah. Listen, has he sent you a plane ticket yet? I mean, I doubt it. Yeah, I doubt it. So, so like, it's, it's one problem. The other thing, too, I don't know if you guys saw this. I think it was on, uh, CNBC. It's on CNBC or somewhere else. I forget. Somebody went on there who's affiliated with some Bitcoin treasury company and said that Bitcoin treasury companies should be buying each other's stock. Like, you can't say that on TV. And then wonder why there's a joint statement, like you said, first time ever. Like, the reason that, the reason these guys are saying that is because you guys are dumb going on TV. And when you look at, like, look, Dave Bailey, I'm, I'm not a critic of his. I think he's been a net positive for Bitcoin. But outspoken about Nakamoto, the guys from Semler, outspoken, guys from Metanet, outspoken. We're, this is what we're doing. This is why Bitcoin is the flywheel, blah, blah, blah. Securities, the securities exchange is not like flywheels that you think you can run in perpetuity on the back of investors who are buying your stock. So you can issue debt to buy Bitcoin. Nobody likes that in that world. And, you know, from, in terms of like, the sort of spiritual war that the committee is fighting, I mean, how, how do you go to Apple and say, we're going to cut into your S&P allocation because MSTR's Bitcoin holdings are going way up? Like, at some point, you have to say to these companies, you'll be rewarded for producing a product that, you know, quote unquote, betters society or is in demand by the American consumer or whatever. What does Sailor have for that? What he runs like some kind of food services software company? I have no idea what MSTR does. Do you guys even know what MSTR does? What do they do? Enterprise software. I don't mean that's, that's like a LinkedIn post, right? Like nobody [ __ ] knows. Software for the USS Enterprise. Yeah. It's like, what are we talking about? He's, he, I think knows this for a guy who's been in business for so long. I'm sure he understands this. And the question is whether or not he's going to be honest about what his thinking is about why he was left out. That's, that's what we need to see.

I'm cur Yeah, I want to hear that for sure. And sorry, then, I'll let you jump in there because I, I do in some way, kind of feel for the guy. I did kind of want him to have that win because to be, to have such a comeback from where Micro Strategy was to where it is now. I'd like that story. I want to see that movie. It's kind of fun. But I wonder too, and maybe I'll throw this to you, Ben, and get whatever you were thinking about, is I understand the closed account kind of angle, and that makes sense to me. I think that's a very, very realistic possibility for why this happened. I wonder if he were to actually use the Bitcoin in some sort of way, if that would negate that and he'd be able to get in. Meaning that if he was some sort of a Bitcoin bank, if he was even like a, we don't need it that scale yet, but like a lightning liquidity provider, like if he was actually using the Bitcoin in some way directly pertaining to the business, if that would then justify or at least open up to being, uh, is he, he becomes a SPAC then, right? Like, the thing is, you can't, there is no inclusion mechanism for these like, what, it's, he would basically become a SPAC, I think, is what you're saying, Nate. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds to me like using the Bitcoin. I mean, unless he's using it to improve his software business, then I, I don't know. Um, yeah, I see this guy in the chat. Do I not know what enterprise software is? I know what it is, but the question is, what is it doing for the companies he's selling it to, right? Like, is it, is it Salesforce or like, what, what is he, is, what's he competing with? Oracle and Microsoft. I don't know. I have no idea. And, uh, I think it says something that all of us have talked about Micro Strategy ad infinitum for the last two years, and no one is like, do you know any M it's funny. I would, I would ask, like, Bitcoin Satan, great name. I don't know why I'm addressing this guy in the chat. Like, do you know any Micro Strategy clients? Like, you know, enterprise software is not the answer, man. There's, you know, more than one layer to that. And I think that not knowing clients is a good indication that the software business is probably not as prolific as it could be. And, you know, the, the, the Bitcoin acquisitions or whatever, Bitcoin selling Bitcoin, he, you know, you're probably right, Nate. He should, but can he really? Like, I don't know. Probably not. Probably not.

Even just, sorry, just even quickly going back to the reason he doesn't disclose the addresses is I imagine whatever the custody provider is, like who the hell, like when you have that much, what kind of security model do you have for the actual keyholders? So, I imagine that his Bitcoin does actually move around to different addresses regularly, different keyholders at different times. So, it's not just someone could be potentially targeted that they're rotating through or going to different people. And I imagine then that part of the reason he doesn't disclose the holdings is because it moves. I bet it does move quite regularly, and the market might freak the hell out if they saw it going to a new address. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe. I mean, it's hard to say for sure. His, I think his concern, he was on stage somewhere and said like, it's a security issue. I, I don't, Yeah, that's BS, man. Come on, man. Give me a break. I, I don't buy that for a second. Like, the rest of us are looking at each other like, "Wow, what are you talking about?" Yeah. The security issue comes in admitting how much Bitcoin you have, but beyond that, like, it's not like somebody can work back from an address and compromise the keys. Yeah, it's too. And like, that's frustrating too, right? He t when he's talking to Bitcoiners, he talks to us like he's one of us. And then when he talks to TradFi, he talks to them like we can't hear it. Like, you, you can't tell these guys it's a security issue. We know that it's not. And then you come back to our side of the fence and tell us, you know, it's, that's frustrating, too. But I mean, that's not really about S&P inclusion.

There's a comment in here about whether or not you have to apply to get into the S&P 500. No, you meet these criterion, and these guys decide, okay, you're eligible, and then at 5:10, everyone starts on Twitter space, and 5:15, you find out. That's how it works. Obligatory Twitter space. That's it.

Now, okay, so with this, uh, you know, we'll call it snubbing, but with this, uh, rejection from, uh, being included in the S&P 500, does this, even for a period of time, does this have a chilling effect on other treasury companies, or in the, like, in the coming weeks, days, even? Uh, do people just stop caring about this and move on to the next thing? I do want to kind of show, you know, Joey, you're saying like, yeah, they're, you're giving the regulators plenty of reasons to want to regulate. And I mean, so, um, I did want to show, so this is, this is Naka in the past month. It's looks good. Store of value, future, future finance. Yeah. Now, if you zoom out to the six-month, again, like, yes, is it up, but also the chart looks a little rough, because, yeah, sure, it was a couple bucks before, but, and then it announced that it was the treasury company had the initial spike. It was up at like, almost $25 back in May. It's currently at just over $4. Um, and this is like with it ending the day. Uh, I'm guessing that that it won't look the same on Monday post, uh, post Sailor rejection. You can see it. It's off another almost three points after hours. So, we'll see what happens between now and 8. I think markets close at 8, maybe. I forget. But yeah. Yeah, the after hours is 8. I think you're right. Yeah. And like, like this, this chat is hilarious. I love this chat because you got people in here talking about like the, the sort of, you know, how, how Bitcoin is a useless store of value. Like, it's, I don't, it's not that it's, not that it's, if you're looking at this from a non-Bitcoin lens. Okay, you look at something like Nakamoto, that for people who don't know, Kindly is the company Nakamoto, quote unquote, acquired, right? They're like, you know, the Venom suit on Kindly MD Inc. The, the idea that it's a useless store of value is not really the point. The point is that you can accumulate. And I think although they, these companies don't necessarily admit this outright, they game some of the algorithms with stuff like the Fazy rules changing, right? Everyone talked about, and actually, we talked about this on the last, are we bullish? I was on Ben, uh, you know, how MSTR had these blowout earnings? It was like at 8,000% uh, you know, the market was off 8,000% and still the price of the stock was like flat or down. And what you have to look at when it comes to companies like this, and, you know, to your question about the chilling effect, I don't think unless you're trying to get in the S&P, that you care about MSTR not getting in, because as we talked about, you don't apply, you have a strategy. And let's face it, okay? Does, like, does David Bailey, Pierre Rochard, these guys who are involved in Nakamoto, do they care whether or not they're on the S&P? I doubt it. What they should care about though, I think, is that there's this like, you know, BTC yield metric these guys come up with, and Bitcoin per share, and Bitcoin torque, and all these things. When you look at your equity portfolio and you see a chart like this, right? If you bought, let's say you bought three months ago, right, instead of in May, how do you feel about that BTC yield? Because you can't call David Bailey or his proxy at Naka and say, "Hey, I'd like to withdraw my yield when I sell my stock." They don't have it, and there's no vehicle to distribute it. And none of this stuff is actually real or in your pocket when you sell. You sell at the equity price, and if that price is red, you lose. And so these guys have to come to terms with that idea that if you're in the equity market, BTC yield only works when price goes up. But if price goes down, people are going to become impatient. And by the way, they should, because they're giving you their capital to drive more capital appreciation. Not so you can put together a slide deck, wear an orange tie, and tell them their BTC per share is up. Who the [ __ ] cares? You're not giving it to me. It's not mine. It's yours. And so this, this stuff has to stop. They're going to find that if the market continues to, I think, disapprove of these companies, you're going to have a problem. And it's not just Naka, like, we're picking on Naka a little bit, but MSTR is down over the last little while. Naka's down. Semar's down. Liquid here in Canada's down. I don't want to [ __ ] on your sponsor, Ben, but Bitcoin. Well, like, what does Bitcoin Well stock look like over the last few months? Like, there was a little bit of a run-up. That's difficult to deal with if you're a shareholder. I think, you know, you know, it's hard, hard to reconcile that.

Yeah. The funny thing about I, so, you know, I've chatted with Adam, and he's like, he's like, you know what? The fact that we have a business that actually has revenue is actually, it hurts us when we're trying to get in. It's like, it's like they'll go and, and they'll say, hey, do you want to invest in the company? And somebody's like, well, what do you do? And they're like, well, we have a functioning business that allows people to like buy and sell Bitcoin and do all this stuff and network of ATMs. And they're like, "Oh, so you're not just, you're not a treasury company. You're not just like," and then, and then like they don't, they won't invest in it. He's like, "Literally, if we were doing nothing and just buying Bitcoin, we would get more investment than than actually having a business that does a thing." This has to run its course. Like the whole idea of having a yield on Bitcoin, I just find preposterous. Like, I don't care how you justify it or what you're doing there. I just find it preposterous. It doesn't have a yield. It's just money. It's just savings. There is that monetization kind of premium as price runs up, but it, the, the treasury idea seems beyond saturated. Like, I think ultimately companies will have treasuries of Bitcoin, but they won't be Bitcoin treasury companies.

Well, yeah, like the whole point being that, um, it's, it's a prudent thing to do if you are able, if you're actually making profit profits, and you would have a treasury that would be cash. It's a prudent thing to do and save it is is saving it in money that nobody can print instead of as cash. Yeah. But that shouldn't be the main driver. It should just be maybe a, you know, if you believe in a company and the actual business model of the company, and they're smart enough to then have a, a Bitcoin treasury and profits to fund that, then that should be like a bonus on top of, you know, an additional reason to own the company, not the reason to own the company.

Yeah, I have to put my fist up here a little bit to the people in the chat. I know what the MSTR core product is. It's software. I know that. Okay. I was kind of being facetious about the software thing, but I will point out to this guy, Steven Brookke, okay, bad look. Let me, let me tell you something. MSTR netted $41 million off that company software business last year. 41 million. That's insignificant. It's a [ __ ] rounding error. Okay? So, on this channel, I don't know if you know this, it's not about looking at the reporting every quarter to find out what the software business made when they didn't get included in the S&P. Ben didn't message me or Nathan messaged me and say, "Hey, can we talk about why they didn't get included in the S&P and focus on the 41 million against the billions of dollars they have in Bitcoin because that's what people want to hear." No. The bad look is thinking that the core business matters to anyone investing, reviewing, recommending, declining, excluding, or including MSTR in any index, any investing strategy anywhere in the world. That's the bad look. Don't focus on the business, the software business. It doesn't matter. Now, you may think it does. It does not. That's an issue that you have to reconcile yourself. It's Friday night. Have a tall boy. Think it over on your porch. But don't give me this [ __ ] about the business. Not knowing exactly what the business does is a bad look. That's just not true. That's not the business doesn't. Their core business doesn't matter anymore. When Michael Sailor does three hours of investing calls every quarter, does he even mention the business? Does he mention it? He spends more time talking about Nvidia than he does talking about the MSTR core business. Yeah, you take from that what you will, but the idea that anyone cares about the core software business is like, uh, it's obviously wrong. And I don't know why anyone cares about that.

To draw a parallel, uh, what about MetaPlanet? They were the one hotel. They're literally hotel. Isn't there whole, isn't the whole idea behind Planet that in Japan, you can't get access to some of the stuff that you can in North America and Europe? And so having that Bitcoin treasury, like, is a jurisdictional arbitrage play. I think that's what the, the story is, but I don't know. Yeah, there was that, there was a unique aspect to basically the Japanese markets where they were giving access because the fact that they were a hotel business didn't particularly matter. It was just a vehicle. I also just want to point out this is why Joey had the flames behind him on the thumbnail. That's why that happened there. And then I just [ __ ] hate like people have nothing better to do than come in a chat on Friday night and say like, "Oh, it's a bad look that you don't know exactly what enterprise software." Like, what? Who cares? No, he doesn't even, he doesn't even care anymore. I also want to point out that Bitcoin is down, um, 0.1% on the day from the news. Just nothing. Didn't react at all one way. Doesn't matter.

So, I guess the question maybe to wrap, not that this is my show or anything, but to wrap, like, isn't, is this something that like, next time there's an S&P inclusion, um, announcement and they don't get in, are you going to do another show? Like, that's really the, that's a, that's sort of a standard, right? That's a stake in the ground. What are you going to do if they don't accept it again? It's not going to be news, right? I don't think. Yeah. Probably not. Uh, however, you know what? You know what will take the world by storm? Dogecoin treasury company. This is the next big thing, my friend. Uh, no. This is why regulators want to regulate so hard because they're starting to see [ __ ] like this again. Clean Core $175 million deal to establish a Dogecoin treasury shares instantly tank by 60%. So, like, you know, when you see increased scrutiny, here is one of many examples why. So, agreed. I think it's worth too, though, like, for for companies like Google and Apple and metal companies that are like native internet companies as well, too. I do think the, the NASDAQ changes as well as this to some degree. I, I think the likelihood of them putting Bitcoin on their balance sheet is way, way far away. They're not even going to bother playing in these waters. They're not interested. They'll just stick with treasuries and cash and continue. Yeah.

Um, one other thing, question in the chat here about how often they review the S&P membership. It's every quarter. There's a, there's an established schedule. They don't do it on a, a whim. Um, they, they do it on a, on a controlled, uh, cadence. So, December, December, next. Um, yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, at, at the end of the day, uh, how do you avoid, uh, the extreme disappointment of not having your bags included in the S&P 500? And, uh, the answer is just self-custody Bitcoin. Just stack sats, stay humble. Uh, you know, it's fun to chat about everything, but, uh, yeah, I mean, nothing, nothing beats just, uh, sitting on a, a fat stack of sats and, and, uh, not having to worry about it. It'll never disappoint you. Your Bitcoin and cold storage will never disappoint you, man. Totally. What, what are you? Wait, what are you shilling today? Are you shilling cold cards? What are you doing? I'm, I'm literally shilling self-custody. Okay, man. I got my cold cards beside me, so I can pull those out. I actually, my queue is here, too, because I had to do, uh, the fantasy football, uh, payouts. So, I had a guy send me, I asked for 50 bucks in Bitcoin. So, like, triple 03 maybe BTC total, and somebody sent me like $2,000 by mistake. So, I had to, uh, I had to dig up the hardware wallet and send it back to them. Yeah. Here's your change. Amazing. Amazing.

Well, gents, I figure this is as good a time as any to wrap. Uh, if people are just tuning in right now, wamp, wamp, MSDR not in the S&P 500. Everything is fine. Um, of course, go follow Joey and the Canadian Bitcoiners podcast. Again, Nathan here from Bitcoin Mentor, uh, myself. If you're new to the channel, of course, drop a like on the video, give a subscribe if you enjoyed what you saw, and, uh, pay attention to the clip at the end, because if you are here as a Micro Strategy holder and you have never self-custodied Bitcoin, I mean, this is the whole reason Bitcoin's around. And, uh, and we'll tee off with some educational material so you actually can begin to learn how to do that. Uh, but with that, Joey, Nathan, thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Hell yeah, man. Good seeing you guys. Later. See you guys later. Cheers.

Hey you. Yes, you watching the Bitcoin price movements and the latest exciting news. It's awesome to stay informed, but the real power of Bitcoin comes from taking control. Don't just watch, take action. Head over to btcessions.ca/arn for free step-by-step tutorials that guide you through every major skill you need to know, plus full video playlists for deeper dives on any topic you like. And if you're ready for the ultimate fast track, scroll to the bottom and check out bitcoinmentor.io for premium one-on-one experience with my team of Bitcoin experts to ensure you get it right the first time. Don't wait. Secure your Bitcoin future today. Hit the link in the show notes or scan the QR code on the screen. [Music]