Trevor Lawrence asked to be paid in Crypto currency

[The Frankish Reich]

On 6/21/2022 at 3:28 PM, KDIGGZ said:

Any investment you make can go up or down.

Except its not an "investment." It is pure speculation. I suppose some people consider it a hedge, akin to buying gold or Swiss francs when you hold a lot of other dollar or other fiat currency assets. But "investment?" No. 

[Alphadawg7]

13 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Does that 30k even cover payments on a $5M note and assuming no repairs and 100% occupancy the entire time

Go back and read it again, there is no note, no debt, no mortgage.  I said pay cash for the properties, no mortgages.  You own them free and clear 100%, no debt.  Rents are mostly profit where your only holding costs are taxes, insurance and the 9-11% of the rents you pay to the property management team, which is only paid while rented.  
 

Hence why I said $30k+ a month of “income”.  

[Alphadawg7]

10 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

I'm not against investing in rental real estate but it does have risks like all investments. 
 

 

Sure, I def agree that every investment has risk.  I acknowledged that in my last post.  But comparatively to other high yield return investments, real estate is substantially the most secure.  
 

Biggest risk of real estate investing is over extension from buying more than you can afford.  But when you are paying cash for homes in full and carry zero debt and holding costs like in the $5M example we are discussing, then you eliminate that risk.

 

I bought a house in Stockton, CA for $82,000 and paid cash in full.  Gutted it, but then invested into starting another business before I did the remodel.  I let that house sit for 4 years gutted while I used my liquid capital to grow my other business.  I could do that because I only had to cover property taxes.  4 years later spent about $40k remodeling it and then sold it in 2 days for $285,000.  I didn’t even collect a penny of rent and still made almost $150,000

in profit just letting it sit there.  
 

Now imagine having 20 of these properties.  And with $5M I could have bought 40 actually at those prices and remodel costs.  And at the time I sold it 2 years ago, I could have rented it for probably $1600-1700 a month.  

 

10 hours ago, SoTier said:

No matter how good your property is, you cannot dismiss the reality that tenants can be problematic.   They may suffer economic reverses of their own which can make formerly top rated tenants unable to pay their rent. 
 

 

Again, if you own the house free and clear, the amount of risk you take on with this scenario is minimal because you have very little overhead while you deal with this situation.  And when you own 20 houses as I proposed with the $5m example, the others will keep you substantially profitable while dealing with a problem or 2. 

 

10 hours ago, SoTier said:

Certainly a house fire could easily keep your house empty for months and probably cost you tens of thousands in repairs beyond whatever insurance covers.  A tornado can level even the best built and maintained house or apartment building. 

 

 

Insurance covers fires.  And when you’re making $30k a month in profit, you can sustain some occasional costly repairs.  Again, the benefit of not having mortgages.  As far as tornados, don’t buy in a tornado zone lol.  

 

10 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

No investment is perfect for everyone or without risk.   It's best to spread your investments among various types of investments.

Never said it’s perfect, said it’s the most secure compared to other investments.  like I said earlier, you can still make bad decisions in real estate, nothing is fool proof.  But the mind of investing in discussing here makes it as close to fool proof as it can possibly get.  It’s almost impossible to not remain profitable annually.  

And the best part, in this $5M example, that’s not using all the investors money.  That’s just say using $5M of Trevor’s $24M contract.  Which after agents, managers, taxes, etc is probably more like $12M in his account, leaving him $7M+ on par to handle any issues, make any other investments, etc.  

 

And every year, use your profits to buy one more house, or two.  So your portfolio and rental profits grow every year the rest of your life on top of that moving forward.  

Edited June 24, 2022 by Alphadawg7

[K D]

9 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Except its not an "investment." It is pure speculation. I suppose some people consider it a hedge, akin to buying gold or Swiss francs when you hold a lot of other dollar or other fiat currency assets. But "investment?" No. 

I was painting with a broad brush to make a point. Sure it is speculation but Bitcoin specifically is no more risky than a piece of art or an expensive piece of sports memorabilia. Like any such commodity (notice I didn't say currency), you need a buyer on the other end for it to be worth something. I can scribble on a piece of paper and it's worth nothing and Josh Allen can scribble on a piece of paper and it's worth potentially hundreds of dollars. Is the utility of his ink more impressive than what I produced? Or is it equally worthless but certain buyers are willing to give it a high value because they find it desirable to own?

 

With Bitcoin there is a set amount of only 21 million and many thousands if not millions have already gone missing. There's 8 billion people in the world. If more and more people decide to buy, whether as a commodity, a currency, a hedge, or whatever, at some point people will have a harder and harder time getting someone to sell to them and then we are in a supply/demand situation.

 

I personally see it as digital gold. The next guy might see it as better than USD (inflation anyone?) and easier to transact with online (internet/metaverse). And yet another person might see it as just something rare to collect. When I see people say it has no utility I laugh because it is more useful than most things people buy. 

[starrymessenger]

I wonder who Trevor’s financial advisors are. Putting so much of a young player’s income in a pure and volatile trading asset seems pretty aggressive. 

[SoTier]

22 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

I was painting with a broad brush to make a point. Sure it is speculation but Bitcoin specifically is no more risky than a piece of art or an expensive piece of sports memorabilia. Like any such commodity (notice I didn't say currency), you need a buyer on the other end for it to be worth something. I can scribble on a piece of paper and it's worth nothing and Josh Allen can scribble on a piece of paper and it's worth potentially hundreds of dollars. Is the utility of his ink more impressive than what I produced? Or is it equally worthless but certain buyers are willing to give it a high value because they find it desirable to own?

 

With Bitcoin there is a set amount of only 21 million and many thousands if not millions have already gone missing. There's 8 billion people in the world. If more and more people decide to buy, whether as a commodity, a currency, a hedge, or whatever, at some point people will have a harder and harder time getting someone to sell to them and then we are in a supply/demand situation.

 

I personally see it as digital gold. The next guy might see it as better than USD (inflation anyone?) and easier to transact with online (internet/metaverse). And yet another person might see it as just something rare to collect. When I see people say it has no utility I laugh because it is more useful than most things people buy. 

 

The difference between gold and "digital gold" is that gold has a track record; it's been desirable for at least five thousand years.   As long as others view crypto as "digital gold", your investment has value.  If too many others decide that something else is the new "gold" digital or otherwise, crypto may go the way of the Dutch tulip in the 17th century.  

 

 

[K D]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

 

The difference between gold and "digital gold" is that gold has a track record; it's been desirable for at least five thousand years.   As long as others view crypto as "digital gold", your investment has value.  If too many others decide that something else is the new "gold" digital or otherwise, crypto may go the way of the Dutch tulip in the 17th century.  

 

 

I think we are way past the dutch tulip comparison at this point. Bitcoin has been around for over a decade and has survived numerous market corrections and is still in the infancy stages of being regulated and institutionally adopted. I think it has proven staying power. I think people are too caught up with how it correlates to USD and that might be the case for other cryptos but Bitcoin has a finite number and 1 Bitcoin always equals 1 Bitcoin. People need to start thinking like that and less about how much it's worth in paper money which can be printed at a government's whim to pay for it's social/political programs. Hello inflation!

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I don’t blame him, the dollar will probably be worthless in 2 years. If he was really smart he would ask to be paid in rubles which is at least backed by the gold standard.

[NoSaint]

So the original tweet not aging well as TL indicates his signing bonus for his endorsement of the crypto platform was in crypto not the signing bonus for the jags….

 

and many articles continuing to point out no one knows the date it was paid and if/when it was possibly cashed out. 

2 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

The difference between gold and "digital gold" is that gold has a track record; it's been desirable for at least five thousand years.   As long as others view crypto as "digital gold", your investment has value.  If too many others decide that something else is the new "gold" digital or otherwise, crypto may go the way of the Dutch tulip in the 17th century.  

 

 

Yea, and good crypto projects often have more utility than pretty jewelry so it’s still a little apples oranges 

[nedboy7]

But but there is only a finite amount of bitcoin.  with a million other cryptos.  it's like logic from a moron.