Holding bitcoin here means picking a counterparty.
None of these is bitcoin. Each is a different institution standing between you and it, and they fail in different ways — which is the actual decision being made.
Follow in this browser. Revisit Following for evidence updates and call results.
The time-bound call
Fixed at publicationThis basket will outperform the S&P 500 over 90 days.
- Started
- Deadline
- Last updated
How the call is scored
A fixed model basket versus SPYx, each initially quoted from $150 USDC. The original raw token quantities never rebalance. Returns compare their USDC sell quotes with the starting sell quotes. The call succeeds only if the basket's return is strictly higher. Equal returns are a tie. Resolution uses the first complete quote observation started on or after the deadline, within 48 hours. If that window has no valid observation, the result is unresolved. Quotes include route price impact but exclude wallet execution and network costs. These are model returns, not your investment results.
Prices come from live Jupiter quotes and refresh once a day. A price that looks unreliable is skipped rather than guessed.
The deadline only scores the idea. It never sells your holdings and pays no prize. A new version of the thesis starts a new call.
Quote source: Jupiter ↗The argument
Why this idea. Why these businesses.
A wrapped token is exposure created through a custodian, a bridge, or a balance sheet, and the wrapper is the risk actually being taken. Read from the mint accounts themselves: Coinbase holds a freeze authority over cbBTC and can freeze it in any wallet; the Portal mint authority can issue more WBTC, so a bridge failure is a failure of the token independent of bitcoin; MicroStrategy is an operating company with debt, so it is the only holding here that can fall while bitcoin rises. Spreading across all three is a bet that no single one of those failures takes the whole position.
Inside the basket
- 45%
Coinbase wrapped BTC
Reserves held by a New York chartered custodian under NYDFS oversight, with a stated redemption path — the most conventional institution of the three.
The tradeoff. Coinbase holds a live freeze authority over this mint and can freeze the token in any wallet. It is a claim on a company's custody, not bitcoin.
About this tokenized stock
Underlying: cbBTC. Issuer: Coinbase. Coinbase holds a freeze authority and can freeze this token in any wallet, and a mint authority that can issue more. You are holding a claim on Coinbase's custody, not bitcoin itself.
- 20%
Wrapped BTC (Portal)
Held deliberately small: it is the leg whose failure mode — bridge and minting logic — is the one this category has actually suffered.
The tradeoff. A bridge mint authority can issue more. Cross-chain logic can fail while bitcoin itself is fine, and depegs happen when exit liquidity thins.
About this tokenized stock
Underlying: WBTC. Issuer: Portal (Wormhole). A bridge mint authority can issue more. The token is a bridge claim, so it carries the bridge's risk as well as bitcoin's.
- 35%
MicroStrategy
Bitcoin exposure through a listed company instead of a token, so it carries none of the wrapper risks the other two do.
The tradeoff. It carries corporate risk instead: debt, dilution and management decisions. It can fall while bitcoin rises, which neither of the others can.
About this tokenized stock
Underlying: MSTR. Issuer: Backed Finance. Backed Finance issues these tokens. The issuer can move tokens out of any wallet (permanent delegate) and can freeze all transfers (pausable). Balances rebase for dividends and splits, so your share count can change without a trade.
Issuer terms (opens in a new tab)
Why these weights. Weighted toward the regulated custodian and away from the bridge, because the named historical failures in this category have been bridge and minting failures rather than custodial ones.
The strongest case against
Diversifying the wrapper does not diversify the asset — all three fall together when bitcoin does, which is the risk that dominates. The spread only pays in the narrow case of one issuer failing on its own, and it buys that protection with three sets of fees, three liquidity profiles, and an equity leg whose leverage can lose money in a flat market.
What would change the thesis?
A wrapper failing with holders made whole quickly would show the counterparty layer matters less than this assumes.
Read the evidence. Make up your mind.
Sources supporting the idea, including the ones that challenge it.
- Coinbase cbBTC (opens in a new tab)
Coinbase
Coinbase states cbBTC is backed 1:1 by bitcoin held in its custody, with reserves at Coinbase Custody Trust under NYDFS oversight and a redemption path for customers. Establishes what the custodial leg is; it does not establish that a claim on a custodian is equivalent to the asset.
- Wrapped bitcoin risks: custody, bridges and redemptions (opens in a new tab)
Crypto Adventure
Catalogues custodian, bridge, redemption, depeg and jurisdiction risk, and names a concrete failure: Osmosis paused Alloyed BTC after a Nomic double-spend affected 39.84 nBTC, roughly 36% of backing. The case that a wrapper is a distinct risk from bitcoin, and the reason the bridge leg is held smallest.
Updates and version history
An update appends dated evidence to this argument. A new version changes the argument or the allocation itself. Neither one touches a position you already hold.
No updates since publication. When the author adds one, it appears here with its date and its sources — it never changes what is written above.
- Version 1
14d0cd8818Current
Written by the Thesis team. The team holds no position in these companies or their tokenized shares, and is paid nothing by any of them.
Tracking begins at publication. This thesis has no established performance history. Tokenized stocks carry issuer and market risk.