Yes, that's more or less in line from what I read that in the future they could lend or "stake" their Bitcoins (ETFs can't do that, to my knowledge; some ETP however can). But would that be enough to justify such a high premium?

Apart from that we could also question if having big "Bitcoin banks" is desirable or even viable, if Bitcoin was made and provides features to reduce the importance of banks (and bailouts, see genesis block).

Of course for the question I'm asking here Satoshi's ideology doesn't matter, what does matter is the commercial viability of a "Big Bitcoin Bank". But would people need Bitcoin banks and pay fees for their services? Maybe for some use case where Bitcoin credits make sense, but would they need big banks, i.e. centralization? We talk all the time about decentralization, so would people continue to support Strategy also in the future just because they're "the biggest one"? Or would that business model eventually erode?

I agree that a part of the investments in MSTR probably was attracted because the business model was unique and that in fact they were a monopoly.

But now we return to the topic of the thread: they aren't alone now, 21 Capital is one of the first of a potential larger group of competitors. So the "monopoly bonus" doesn't apply already. There's still a first mover advantage for MSTR. But in the banking sector for example, the oldest banks aren't necessarily the biggest banks, so they can't rely on that in the future.

I guess that once the market has been more populated we would see smaller premiums, and that means that the earlier investors would tend to lose money in comparison to direct BTC investments or leveraged ETF exposure.