Want some borrow?

I've been thinking more about this whole Metaplanet dilution issue, the 10th Series and the claim that management has somehow "stolen" Bitcoin from existing shareholders and I think it's worth looking at it from a different angle I think the discussion is mixing up several different things: - Dilution - BTC per share - Value transfer - Value creation And ultimately, shareholder returns They are related, but they are not the same thing. Each one is a different metric, measuring a different question, and most of the argument I'm reading is people using one to answer another So let me go through them. What each one actually measures, how to compute it yourself from Metaplanet's own filings, and what it can and cannot tell you FIRST, THE THING EVERYTHING ELSE DEPENDS ON Start with something very basic If Metaplanet owns 43,000 BTC and you own 5 shares, you don't own the amount of Bitcoin represented by those 5 shares You own 5 shares of Metaplanet You cannot go to the company, hand over your 5 shares and ask for your corresponding Bitcoin The Bitcoin belongs to the company Your asset is the share What you own is a proportional claim on an enterprise, one that happens to hold 43,000 BTC, plus a securities business, plus an options-income operation, plus whatever it builds next That distinction is the foundation for everything below, because it tells you what BTC per share actually is... It is a metric, not a direct claim on Bitcoin It tells you how much Bitcoin is economically backing each share. It's a measure of backing, and for a Bitcoin Treasury Company it is obviously one of the most important measures there is But it is still a measure. It is not a balance in your account Your actual return as a shareholder comes from the value of your shares. You make money if the market value of what you own increases Which is why I don't think we can simply say: "BTC per share went down, therefore management stole Bitcoin from shareholders" The shareholder never owned that Bitcoin directly. Nothing left the treasury. What matters is whether the economic value of the share went up or down Hold on to that. I'll come back to it at the end, because it's the whole point METRIC ONE: DILUTION Dilution measures one thing only: how much your proportional claim shrank It does not measure whether that was good or bad for you. It literally cannot, because it only looks at one side of the transaction Here's the standard example: Imagine a company has 100 shares and 100 BTC That's 1 BTC per share The company then issues 100 new shares and raises enough capital to buy 200 BTC Now the company has 200 shares and 300 BTC That's 1.5 BTC per share Your ownership percentage has fallen from 1% to 0.5% You've been diluted But your individual share represents MORE Bitcoin than before So was the dilution bad? Not necessarily. In fact the transaction was highly accretive to you This is why the number of shares issued, on its own, tells you almost nothing. The important question is what the company received in exchange for them If it receives $100 and creates $150 of value, dilution is accretive. If it receives $100 and creates $50, dilution is destructive. The same share count produces opposite outcomes So dilution is a real metric, but it is an input, not a verdict METRIC TWO: THE ACCRETION MULTIPLE This is the one that turns dilution into an answer, and almost nobody uses it It asks: how much Bitcoin did each new share bring in, relative to the Bitcoin each existing share already had? A multiple of 1 means the raise changed nothing per share. You were diluted and got nothing for it A multiple of 2 means every new share arrived carrying twice the Bitcoin backing of an existing one. That's the example above A multiple below 1 means the raise actively reduced BTC per share And here's the useful part. There is an exact identity linking the multiple to the two things Metaplanet already reports: BTC Yield = dilution × (accretion multiple − 1) which rearranges to: accretion multiple = 1 + (BTC Yield ÷ dilution) This is not a model. It's arithmetic. Nothing is assumed, nothing is estimated, no market data is required. Metaplanet publishes dated Bitcoin holdings, issued shares and fully diluted shares in the KPI table attached to every single "Notice of Additional Purchase of Bitcoin" [1]. Feed those in and the multiple falls out Anyone can run this. That's why I like it USING IT: WHAT EVERY RAISE ACTUALLY DID Pull every one of those notices and you get fifteen dated observations, rather than the eight quarter-ends most people work from. The resolution matters, for a reason you'll see in a second Each line below reads: period, new shares issued, dilution taken, change in BTC per share, resulting multiple Oct–Dec 2024 - 181.0M shares - 7.2% dilution - +309.9% - 43.86x Jan–Mar 2025 - 97.1M - 14.8% - +95.6% - 7.45x Apr–Jun 2025 - 194.9M - 30.5% - +129.4% - 5.25x 30 Jun–7 Jul 2025 - 8.1M - 1.2% - +15.1% - 13.48x 7–14 Jul 2025 - 9.0M - 1.3% - +3.7% - 3.81x 14–28 Jul 2025 - 14.4M - 2.1% - +2.6% - 2.25x 28 Jul–4 Aug 2025 - 6.7M - 1.0% - +1.7% - 2.79x 4–12 Aug 2025 - 9.3M - 1.3% - +1.6% - 2.21x 12–18 Aug 2025 - 14.9M - 2.1% - +2.1% - 2.04x 18 Aug–1 Sep 2025 - 34.1M - 4.5% - +1.1% - 1.25x 1–8 Sep 2025 - 4.8M - 0.6% - +0.1% - 1.08x 8–30 Sep 2025 — THE OFFERING - 385.0M - 33.6% - +1.7% - 1.05x Oct–Dec 2025 - 1.3M - 1.7% - +11.9% - 7.89x Jan–Mar 2026 - 131.9M - 10.1% - +2.8% - 1.28x Apr–Jun 2026 - 7.1M - 0.4% - +6.6% - 16.21x Now look at what that tells you that "they issued a lot of shares" never could The final quarter of 2024 brought in Bitcoin at nearly 44x the backing each existing share already had, on just 7.2% dilution; because it came from debt, from options income, and from small amounts of very expensively placed stock. The first half of 2025 ran at 7.45x and 5.25x. Those raises transformed the company And some raises did much less. Which brings me to the resolution point WHY GRANULARITY CHANGES THE ANSWER Between 8 and 30 September 2025, issued shares rose by exactly 385,000,000 [2]. Not a single warrant was exercised in that window, so the international offering is cleanly isolated On its own, it scores 1.05x At quarterly resolution that same offering disappears. The September 2025 quarter comes out at 1.78x, because the offering gets averaged with the July and August warrant exercises that scored 2.04x to 13.48x. The blend hides both facts: the exercises look worse than they were, the offering looks much better than it was That's a general lesson about these metrics, not a point about Metaplanet. Measure at the wrong granularity and you get a number that describes no actual transaction The obvious objection is timing: money takes weeks to become Bitcoin. So extend the window and let the proceeds land - Measured to 30 Sep 2025 33.6% dilution +1.7% BTC/share = 1.05x - Measured to 31 Dec 2025 34.7% dilution +13.8% BTC/share = 1.40x - Measured to 30 Jun 2026 41.6% dilution +24.8% BTC/share = 1.60x Nine months later, with every satoshi of the proceeds deployed, it's 1.60x. The same treatment on the January-to-March 2026 raise takes it from 1.28x to 1.91x And here's the finding that the metric produces which most of the debate has skipped entirely: NOT ONE RAISE DESTROYED BITCOIN PER SHARE There is no line in that list below 1.0x. Every single raise, including the ones that barely moved the needle, left each existing share backed by more Bitcoin than before Whether the dilution helped shareholders isn't actually in question. How much it helped, and when, is METRIC THREE: BTC GAIN, WHICH MEASURES VALUE CREATED Dilution measures what you gave up. The accretion multiple measures the quality of a single raise. Neither one tells you the cumulative result That's what BTC Gain is for. Metaplanet publishes it: the extra Bitcoin the strategy generated for shareholders after stripping out dilution. By construction it's the part that accrued to existing holders rather than to the new ones Sum every quarter from the pivot through 30 June 2026 [6][7] and you get approximately 19,940 BTC of value created, net of dilution. At roughly $80,000 per Bitcoin, about $1.6 billion, by a company that four years ago had negative net worth and a going-concern warning in its accounts [3] That's the number that answers "did this work?" It's a different question from "was I diluted?", and it has a different answer NOW THE 10TH SERIES, READ THROUGH THESE METRICS The 10th Series was created in 2022/23, when this was Red Planet Japan: a hotel business gutted by the pandemic, negative net worth, going-concern warning [3]. The original pool was roughly 46 million potential shares [11], and the team bought those rights with their own money, ¥54,950,000, declared as own funds, no borrowings [5], approved by special resolution at a shareholders' meeting [4] But the structure contained an adjustment clause: the pool expanded automatically as the fully diluted share count grew, adding one pool share for every four issued to investors That ratio is verifiable rather than assumed. Over the third quarter of 2025, issued shares rose by 486,260,000 while the gap between issued and fully diluted widened by 121,565,000 [3]. Exactly 25% The pool eventually reached 319,464,000 potential shares [3], almost seven times the original grant. The clause has since been deleted and the pool fixed at that number, with the resulting shares locked until 17 August 2031 [8] Now apply the metrics Metaplanet has 43,000 BTC and 1,281,308,624 issued shares [7]. That's approximately 3,356 satoshis of Bitcoin backing each share If the entire 319,464,000 potential shares were exercised and the Bitcoin balance stayed at 43,000, the figure would fall to roughly 2,686 satoshis per share The drop is 670 sats, or 20.0%. Which is the same answer you get from the other direction: the pool is 19.59% of the fully diluted count. Two routes, one number. Good sign the arithmetic is sound So yes, the 10th Series is significant. I'm not arguing it doesn't matter. It has a substantial effect on fully diluted BTC per share, and unlike every raise in that list above, it brought in no capital and no Bitcoin. It's a compensation instrument, not a financing But read what actually happened, in the language of the metric WHAT DID AND DID NOT HAPPEN The Bitcoin has not been removed from Metaplanet. The company still owns all of it. Every satoshi is still on the balance sheet, and 43,000 is 43,000 whether the 10th Series exists or not What changed is the number of shares over which that same treasury is divided That's the entire mechanical event. The numerator didn't move. The denominator did So the difference between 3,356 sats and 2,686 sats doesn't mean shareholders had 670 sats taken from them Those 670 sats were never sitting in anyone's brokerage account. Nobody ever owned them. They are the difference between two possible capital structures, one where the pool exists and one where it doesn't That distinction sounds pedantic and it isn't, because it determines which question you're actually asking You can say: "The 10th Series reduces the BTC per share that existing shareholders would otherwise have had." True, and measurable: 20.0% You can say: "The 10th Series represents a transfer of economic value to management and other beneficiaries" Also true. The pool holds a claim of 19.59% of the company, which on today's treasury corresponds to roughly 8,420 BTC of backing, around $674 million at current prices. That's a real number and it's a legitimate thing to argue about But saying "management stole X BTC from shareholders" is a different claim, and it requires something neither of these metrics can give you You would have to establish that the value transferred was unjustified relative to the value created And that is no longer a dilution question at all. It's a compensation question, which means comparing what they received against what a properly designed incentive plan would have paid for the same performance. That's a real analysis, it's answerable, and it deserves its own piece rather than being smuggled in under a metric that was never designed to carry it. I've worked through it separately What I want to establish here is narrower and, I think, prior to all of it: the metrics tell you the pool is large and that it dilutes backing per share by 20%. They do not, on their own, tell you it's theft. Those are different findings that require different evidence THE LIMIT OF THE METRIC ITSELF There's one more thing worth saying, because it's a limitation of BTC per share that applies regardless of what you conclude about the 10th Series Maximising BTC per share at every single moment is not obviously the objective You want it to rise, of course. But Bitcoin sitting on a balance sheet doesn't have to be the end of the story, and BTC per share can only ever measure the balance sheet In June 2026 Metaplanet agreed to acquire Siiibo Securities for ¥2.1 billion [9], a licensed Type I financial instruments business, since renamed Metaplanet Securities. That's a distribution channel for Bitcoin-linked products that the group owns rather than rents In August it agreed to contribute 2,100 BTC and $2.5 million to Super League Enterprise for roughly 95.7% of the company, everything locked for five years [10]. On closing, subject to a shareholder vote, that becomes Superplanet And the options-income business is already inside the numbers above: part of what produced that 43.86x quarter in late 2024 was income generation, not share issuance If those work, Bitcoin stops being a passive reserve and becomes productive capital. The flywheel is roughly: more capital, more BTC, larger balance sheet, more products and income, more capital, more BTC And then the economic value of holding 43,000 BTC isn't capped at the market value of 43,000 BTC. The balance sheet becomes the foundation of a business Which changes how you read dilution. If a new share lets the company acquire productive assets or build something that creates more value than the dilution costs, you can be diluted and considerably better off. If management keeps issuing while extracting value for itself without creating enough in return, the dilution becomes a serious problem Notice also what those two transactions have in common: neither required issuing Metaplanet common stock. The phase where common equity was the only instrument available; because a company worth $17 million has no bond market, no preferred market and no acquisition currency, is the phase that generated this entire argument. It's ending on its own SO WHICH METRIC ANSWERS WHICH QUESTION? Not "was there dilution?" Of course there was. That metric is an input Was the capital deployed efficiently? - Metric: Accretion multiple, raise by raise - Answer: mostly yes, sometimes spectacularly, and in a handful of raises, barely Did it increase BTC per share? - Metric: BTC per share - Answer: yes, in every measured period without exception. How much value was created? - Metirc BTC Gain - Answer: about 19,940 BTC net of dilution, roughly $1.6 billion in eight quarters How much does the 10th Series shift? - Metirc the pool's share of the fully diluted count - Answer: 19.59%, about 8,420 BTC of backing, ~$674 million Is that reasonable relative to the value created? None of these metrics. That one needs a compensation benchmark, and it's a separate argument Can Metaplanet turn a growing balance sheet into a business that compounds value per share? No metric yet. That one is genuinely open, and it's the one that decides what your shares are worth in five years Because ultimately, that's what shareholders own. Not a fixed number of Bitcoin. They own shares in a company, a company that holds 43,000 BTC and is trying to build something on top of them Nobody took Bitcoin out of the treasury. What moved was the denominator of the metric that measures how much of that treasury stands behind each share That is worth measuring carefully, and worth arguing about seriously. It is not theft, and calling it theft costs you the ability to make the real argument And the real investment thesis was never simply that Metaplanet will own more Bitcoin It's that management can make the economic pie grow faster than the number of slices The question isn't whether shareholders were diluted It's whether, after all the dilution, the piece they own is becoming more valuable SOURCES [1] Metaplanet, "Notice of Additional Purchase of Bitcoin" series — dated BTC holdings, issued shares and fully diluted shares. Source for all fifteen raise-by-raise observations. Disclosure index: metaplanet.jp/en/disclosures Example filing (2 April 2026): metaplanet.jp/disclosure/en/… [2] Metaplanet, pricing notice for the international offering, 10 September 2025 — 385,000,000 shares at ¥553. Via the disclosure index above. [3] Metaplanet, TDnet notice of 18 August 2026, amendment to the 10th Series terms. Source for the pool fixed at 319,464,000 shares, the quarterly issued/diluted share table, the deletion of the adjustment provision, and the FY2022 going-concern disclosure: contents.xj-storage.jp/xcont… [4] TDnet allotment notice of 28 December 2022, and the special resolution of the extraordinary general meeting of 7 February 2023 approving the terms before the rights were issued: finance.stockweather.co.jp/c… [5] Simon Gerovich, initial large-holding report (EDINET S100VL2I). The entire 30,000,000-security position acquired on a single day, 8 February 2023: 2,500,000 common shares at ¥20 and 27,500,000 10th-Series potential shares at ¥0.18. Acquisition funds ¥54,950,000, own funds, no borrowings: disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.… [6] Metaplanet, Q1 2026 earnings presentation — BTC Yield / BTC Gain KPI table. Via the IR library: metaplanet.jp/en/ir-library [7] Metaplanet, H1 2026 disclosures — 43,000 BTC and 1,281,308,624 issued shares at 30 June 2026. Via the disclosure index [1]. [8] Metaplanet, TDnet notice of 31 August 2026 — shares from exercise locked until 17 August 2031: contents.xj-storage.jp/xcont… [9] Metaplanet, acquisition of Siiibo Securities announced 12 June 2026, ¥2.1bn, Type I Financial Instruments Business licence; renamed Metaplanet Securities on 13 July 2026. Via the disclosure index [1]. [10] Super League Enterprise / Metaplanet definitive agreement, 18 August 2026 — 2,100 BTC and $2.5M for 44,859,400 common shares at $3.00, plus convertible perpetual preferred and warrants; approximately 95.7% of common on closing; five-year lock-up; renaming to Superplanet, ticker SUPA; closing expected Q4 2026 subject to shareholder approval: ir.superleague.com/news-even… [11] Original grant terms (46,000,000 shares): Metaplanet FY2025 annual securities report, EDINET S100XTWY: disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…

Warren Buffett: “We never will trade reputation away for money.” Some things are too valuable to put a price on.

They are now in step #3 of the PR catastrophe as I laid out last week. Let's see if they ever get to step #4, or if they going to cycle back to #2 #3 looping. nitter.net/diglloyd/status/209660… Corporate PR fiascos follow this playbook: 1. Silence/ignoring the outcry. 2. Repudiation and/or argument and/or denial. 3. Belated half-hearted efforts. By now what was a small grass fire at the side of the road is a raging forest fire. 4. (sometimes) Doing the right thing after way too long. #2, #3, #4 cause increasing reputational damage that becomes increasingly costly to repair.

No, investors are selling Metaplanet because they enacted a compensation scheme that is unprecedented and completely outside the boundaries of public company corporate behavior. In fact it is so rich that it has literally never been done before. Management did not act as a fiduciary for their shareholders. A standard they should be held to. They should be fired, resign, disgorge the unearned gains or suffer in a class action lawsuit. I no longer own the Company but if I were a holder I would initiate such a suit.

Most investors forget that Strive effectively owns a 2030 LEAP tied to our own common equity. If $ASST is above ~$102 at expiry, it maxes out at approximately $40M of value to Strive. Not our biggest asset, but IMHO our most fun forgotten one.

I wanted to take a moment to post about communications and transparency. Over the past week, my colleagues and I have spent a lot of time reading the questions, feedback, and criticism that you have shared.  Thank you for your passion, and for your belief in Metaplanet. One thing that has become clear is that we have not done a good enough job of explaining how our structure and decisions are designed to create long-term value for all shareholders. We can do better, and we will.  It has also become clear that while opinions differ, we all want the same thing: for company leadership and shareholder interests to be aligned in creating as much long-term value as possible, and for Metaplanet to operate with the highest standards of transparency and governance.  Through this lens, we announced several significant changes to the 10th Series stock acquisition rights on August 18, including eliminating the adjustment provision, fixing the share count, and implementing additional alignment measures. We are continuing to review our governance and compensation policies and will share any updates when that work is complete. Separately, I’d like to clarify details regarding the structure of MMXX Ventures. The basic facts are these: MMXX is a shareholder in Metaplanet, and I am a significant but non-majority shareholder of its parent company. I am neither a director nor officer of MMXX, and have no role in its investment or trading decisions. What I can speak to, and will, are the decisions made at Metaplanet. Bottom line: going forward, you should expect to hear more from us around the decisions we make and how they shape the future of the company.  Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to engage.

How Metaplanet can solve this situation. 1. Lock the 10th series retroactively to the 46 million shares pool size at the beginning of the Bitcoin pivot. 2. Retroactively add an employee incentive program similar to Strive (about 1-1.5% annual dilution when all targets are met, including stock price targets). 3. Full transparency with regards to MMXX and the economic interest held by Simon, explanations of every big share transaction in the past (share lendings, share sales etc.), and a disclosure on any past or present conflicts of interest. 4. Disclosure of any other past or present conflicts of interest, e.g. is there any with regards to EVO Fund? Then, and only then, can we shift the discussion back to the future. @DylanLeClair @gerovich

“When you have $5M in T-bills, you’re financially secure and can never go broke again. I just use the interest to pay for dinner and take care of my family.” —Kevin O’Leary

The @COLDCARDwallet had less entropy than my Netflix password. What a joke.

Too many viral clips taking my Iced Coffee Hour Bitcoin quote out of context. Been long Bitcoin for years. My point was simple: a 12% Bitcoin allocation seems concentrated and unaligned with Graham’s stated goal of capital preservation. Disagree with the allocation take but calling me anti-Bitcoin is just intellectually dishonest.

The $30k net profit per Robotaxi reverse-engineers from base-case assumptions in analyst models/Tesla vision: 60k-80k miles/yr utilization (24/7 ops minus ~20-30% downtime) × $0.40-$0.50 net per mile to owner. Per-car unit economics (annual example at 75k miles): - Rider revenue: $1/mi avg fare = $75k - Tesla platform fee (30%): -$22.5k - Owner share: $52.5k - Ops costs: energy $5k (0.07/mi), maint/tires $7.5k (0.10/mi), ins $4k, cleaning $2k = -$18.5k - Net: ~$34k (tuned to $30k conservative) At scale, robotaxi fleets explode supply (Cybercabs at $25-30k cost pay off in <1 yr). Ride-hailing costs drop 60-80% (driver pay was ~70% of Uber economics), prices crash, demand explodes 5-10x via elasticity/new use cases. Market balloons; shifts to decentralized ownership + Tesla network monopoly via software moat; crushes legacy taxis/Uber margins; reduces personal car ownership. Transport becomes abundant & cheap.