Real talk about taking on a business partner: Business partners can be great. They can take you to heights that would've been impossible on your own. But most of the time, the opposite happens, and things often end in disaster. Gotta be honest with yourself about why you're taking on a partner, and what you're giving up. Making money in the business world is really hard. Your overhead's going to be big, you may have investors, and if you're lucky enough to pay lots in taxes, well you're paying lots in taxes. Giving somebody half of what's left over, forever, better make a whole lot of sense. Even if you have the best relationship in the world, life circumstances always change. One of you may suddenly get divorced, or run into personal financial issues that require a career change. You may wake up at 40, wanting more autonomy than you did at 30. And, most common: Cracks start to form when one person feels like they're doing more than the other, adding more value for the same % ownership. "I brought in that client that is now half our business" "She's working 20 hours a week the last few months" "I brought in our last 10 investors" Thoughts like this will inevitably come up for most. In the real estate world, I cannot tell you how often great deals come about because of partnership disputes. Good people who once worked great together falling victim to life circumstances changing as the years go on. Because of the huge added risk of taking on a lifelong business partner, it is best to ask yourself some hard questions. Why am I taking on this partner or co-founder? Much of the time, the answer is simply fear of going at it alone. If that's the case, the cost's far too steep. You're paying too much to avoid the discomfort of taking the risk alone. Partner or not, growing a business comes with lots of discomfort/pain anyway. "Loneliness" is not a valid reason to give up half your future earnings. The right questions to ask yourself: What are the real reasons for me to take on a partner and add all this risk and uncertainty? Is there really no way for me to start the business, or grow it, without that partner? Am I so fearful of going at it alone that I will never get myself off the ground without them? Can I handle relying on someone, and them relying on me for many years to come? Can I survive if the partnership breaks one day, and what will that look like? Co-Founders in the tech world make more sense because of how important it is to have a founder with an engineering background, along with someone who can tell the story/raise money/be the face of the organization, for example. This is often not the same person. Besides: The pie is MUCH bigger when you can potentially end up with a billion dollar IPO. Not the case for almost any other type of business. So, as you look towards your next business venture, the default should be do go at it alone. If you absolutely can't, and your honest answer is that a business partner will increase the pie tremendously, and you've gone through all the risks, Go for it. But remember, 1 + 1 usually does not equal 3. Often times, in the end, 1 + 1 = 0

My last consignment 🧇 (for the foreseeable future)! 2x Pkmn center celebration 30 ETBs, prismatic pc ETB, psa 10 inteleon — via 🛞 of 💀 ‼️ $10/🪑, 116💺 Payment only due once all spots fill 1 free RT spot (must grab 1 spot to qualify) Shipping included in US

There's a tiny chance that they raise rates just to establish their bona fides and that turns out to be a really bad decision which leads to an emergency meeting down the road and a rate cut the likes of which President Trump wants

My reply to Simon Gerovich, CEO of Metaplanet. TL;DR: The only way out is to roll back the 273 million extra shares, and to replace them with a new, retroactively applied incentive program. Thank you for breaking the silence. 1. The 10th series and the adjustment clause was not published in a transparent and widely accessible manner. Companies like Strategy and Strive publish full cap tables with line items for options, RSUs/PSUs, and warrants. This information was not easy to find at Metaplanet. It took even Japanese shareholders 17 months to find it. Here's the first public mention I found from September 2025 (x.com/metaplanetdays/status/…). 2. Dylan explained the removal of the adjustment clause in his reply to me (x.com/DylanLeClair/status/20…) like follows: "When shareholders strongly expressed their feedback on the 2022 structure, the company extinguished the feature". Why extinguish a feature that you believe is fair and reasonable? And if it wasn‘t fair and reasonable, why keep the extra 273 million shares the feature created? 3. The company, in their August 18 notice, said the adjustment clause "amplifies the dilution borne by existing shareholders" and raised "concerns regarding the relationship between capital-raising decisions and the interests of the SAR holders". (contents.xj-storage.jp/xcont…). I can't agree more. But if that's the case, how can you justify keeping the 273 million extra shares the clause created? 4. Last year's International Offering created an extra 96.25 million shares from the adjustment clause. The community has raised this very publicly and loudly in September/October last year, see (1) x.com/RoaringRagnar/status/1… and (2) x.com/zynxbtc/status/1977797…. There is no way management hasn‘t seen this. So the only logical explanation is that you chose to ignore it. Why did you do that? 5. While there is a new 5 year lockup, the 273 million extra shares have never had any performance conditions attached to them. They have been a blanc prepayment for future performance. This is not acceptable, especially not when compared to compensation plans of other companies like Strive. And especially not if we are talking about a value of over $500 million today and $3.2 billion if the company ever reclaims their all-time high of 1,930 Yen. 6. The company, in our private discussions, claimed that this clause was necessary to attract and retain talent. If they rolled back the extra 273 million shares, 46 million shares with a current value of $80 million and $552 million (at a future all-time high) would remain. The company hasn't explained why this would not be enough to satisfy this purpose. 7. Bitcoin per share would be 20% higher if the extra 273 million shares did not exist. Or said differently, the adjustment clause caused sats per share to decline from 3,167 sats/share to 2,637 sats/share. This is a massive drag for shareholders and significantly worsens any benefits from a potential lower cost of capital in Japan, one of the core thesis why many shareholders are interested in the stock. 8. This situation clearly doesn't pass the Warren Buffett newspaper test. (x.com/RoaringRagnar/status/2…) 9. The reaction of the community is overwhelmingly clear. The only way out is to roll back the 273 million extra shares, and to replace them with a new, retroactively applied incentive program. 10. It's still not clear whether there are (or have been) conflicts of interest, and if so, to what extent, with regards to MMXX or EVO Fund. We need a lot more transparency.

Yea, the international offering was a disaster and they benefitted immensely from it. I detest people who run companies in this fashion. @gerovich is a joke if he does not right this wrong.

Metaplanet update 2. I just wanted to make a follow on post with some additional observations. The response has been incredible. A brief overview: -Since the Bitcoin treasury strategy launched in April 2024, the 10th Series pool grew from 46 million shares to 319.5 million, a 273 million share increase equal to 17% of the fully diluted company, created not by any grant decision but by an anti-dilution clause. -When this was raised last year by me and a few others, it was completely ignored. Only after the issue resurfaced this year was the clause removed. -This was disclosed years ago in Japanese with no widely spread updates in English ever since. -Without the anti-dilution clause, the CEO would have still got $50m at today's share price. I have created a small table down below to show it in simple terms at today's share price. At last year's highs the numbers would go into the billions. Most people have been incredibly supportive of my posts. Some have doubted my intentions. Let me make it clear. 1) $500m in compensation for 2 and a half years of work is extremely excessive and unfair to shareholders. This number was in the billions when the share price was much higher last year and an order of magnitude higher than any other company in the space. Nvidia's CEO is getting paid $37m this year including equity for comparison. 2) The whole point of these posts is to pressure the team to do the right thing and roll back the additional shares created at the expense of shareholders. It was a legacy clause that is irrelevant to the business today. 3) Quite frankly, to put the industry on notice. This is not meant in an arrogant way or to say I matter at all, I don't... but management teams might get the wrong idea if they see this sort of profligacy go unchallenged. Already we have had the CEOs of Strive, Smarter Web and Capital B come out and explain their compensation structure in fine detail. The last point matters to us as shareholders. When we are comparing the cost of capital for each company, you cannot ignore things like this. In Metaplanet's case, part of the thesis relies on the low cost of capital due to Japan's low yields. However, the drag of these additional shares from the 10th series is substantial, even if you spread it out over 5 years... therefore negating the benefit of such low yields in Japan. It's a shame that some shareholders seem to think I have shorted the stock lol. This is obviously not true. As an analyst and shareholder who has been covering the company for a while, you are damned if you do, damned if you don't. If I am bull posting for a year straight but go quiet when the difficult questions need to be asked, people will call me out. If I ask the difficult questions, I am told I have ulterior motives. The whole purpose of Bitcoin is to not be unfairly diluted. I am surprised that some do not care about it at all. Ironically it was my dissatisfaction, along with some others, that led to management pausing the anti-dilution clause. They have said this themselves both publicly and privately. Such is life. As for Metaplanet, the core thesis remains intact. This is just one issue that I hope can be resolved and then be put behind us. It's a shame it had to come to this but a good outcome for shareholders is all that matters. Thank you to everyone who has shown support. It is much appreciated. Let's see what happens.

Strive increased gross BTC holdings by 8.4% week over week (21,355 > 23,156). In the last two weeks, we have increased our Bitcoin stack by 14.4% (20,245 > 23,156). BTC Yield of 5.8% over last 2 weeks in isolation (2,267 > 2,399 sats per share) #5 Global pubco by BTC