u/No-Grocery-7553

I’ve been following the lawsuit closely, and I keep coming back to the same question.

The states argue that Paramount and Warner Bros. merging reduces competition. But are Paramount and Warner really each other’s biggest competitors anymore?

Today’s entertainment landscape looks nothing like it did 15–20 years ago. Legacy studios aren’t just competing against one another—they’re competing against Netflix, Disney, Amazon, Apple, YouTube, gaming, and social media for consumers’ time and money.

Movies are increasingly going straight to streaming, theatrical windows are shorter, cable is shrinking, and traditional studios are under tremendous financial pressure.

To me, this feels less like a merger to eliminate competition and more like a merger to survive. If Paramount and Warner remain separate while tech companies and streaming giants continue investing billions into content, both companies may simply become weaker.

Ironically, blocking the merger could preserve one additional competitor on paper today while making it more likely that, in the long run, entertainment is dominated by just a handful of global giants.

I understand the concern about reducing the number of legacy studios, but shouldn’t antitrust law also consider what the competitive landscape actually looks like in 2026—not what it looked like 20 years ago.

As someone who’s acted in more than 20 short and independent films and had a film released on Prime Video, I’ve seen this industry from the inside. The reality is that only a small percentage of actors make a full-time living from acting alone. Most are juggling multiple jobs while chasing opportunities, and when productions slow down, it’s the working actors and crews who suffer first—not the celebrities.

From where I sit, this industry doesn’t need more fragmentation; it needs a way to survive. If Paramount and Warner can’t scale to compete, I worry we’re not preserving competition—we’re simply paving the way for the real giants to acquire whatever’s left at a severe discount.

In the long run, that could leave the entertainment industry in the hands of just a few massive companies instead of maintaining another viable competitor against the real market competition.

I’m genuinely interested in hearing both sides. What do you think?

Disclosure: I’ve followed this company for years, from its evolution through Gryphon Digital Mining (GRYP), the merger into American Bitcoin (ABTC), the previous reverse split, and the dilution that followed. I’ve watched the financing structure evolve through multiple stages rather than reacting to a single bad trade.

I’ve also been invested in Hut 8. Overall, I did very well. I sold most of my position in roughly the $70-$80 range. It never reset and kept running, unexpectedly. Beautiful. I didn’t believe it would continue climbing toward $120, as I had traded it through pull backs to the $10 range, but I’m grateful for the gains I made. I have no financial loss driving this post.
That’s exactly why I’m writing it.

My concern isn’t about my own investment. It’s about the people who came afterward.
Here’s how I understand what happened.

Hut 8 had a large Bitcoin mining operation. Rather than launching that business through a traditional IPO, the mining assets were contributed and transitioned to American Bitcoin through a merger with Gryphon Digital Mining, providing a faster route to the public markets, rather than building an entirely new publicly traded company from scratch.

From Hut 8’s perspective, I actually think this was a clever corporate restructuring. Hut 8 retained a majority ownership stake in American Bitcoin while increasingly emphasizing businesses such as energy infrastructure, hosting, and power management—segments that generally have different economics than pure Bitcoin mining. A win for HUT 8 and their investors.

My concern is what happened to the public shareholders of American Bitcoin.

Bitcoin mining is an extremely capital-intensive business. Companies often need to raise additional capital to purchase equipment, expand operations, service debt, or continue growing. One common way to do that is by issuing additional shares.

That’s where dilution comes in.

Imagine owning 10 slices of a pizza cut into 100 pieces. If the company later creates enough new shares that the pizza is cut into 1,000 slices, you still own 10 slices—but they’re a much smaller percentage of the whole.

A reverse split doesn’t solve that problem. It simply changes the math by reducing the number of shares and increasing the share price. If additional shares are issued afterward, existing shareholders own a smaller percentage of the company than they did before.

When that cycle repeats over time, your ownership percentage continues shrinking unless you keep investing more money.
That’s the risk I think many retail investors underestimate.

My concern goes beyond dilution itself. It’s also about incentives.

Sophisticated investors, executives, and early participants generally understand these financing structures far better than the average investor. That knowledge isn’t inherently wrong, but it creates an information gap between those structuring the transactions and those buying shares in the public market.

As someone completing a master’s degree in a field that includes professional ethics, I don’t think the only question should be, “Is it legal?” I think we should also ask, “Is it fair? Is it transparent? Are the incentives aligned with long-term shareholders?”

The involvement of the family of a sitting U.S. president adds another layer to that discussion. Even if every transaction complies with the law, I believe the appearance of potential conflicts of interest and the incentives surrounding these ventures deserve heightened public scrutiny.

My goal isn’t to tell anyone what to buy or sell. It’s to encourage people to understand how reverse splits, dilution, and capital raises work before investing in highly capital-intensive companies.

So here’s my question: Is American Bitcoin creating long-term shareholder value, or are existing shareholders primarily financing that growth through repeated dilution?

Am I misunderstanding the economics of Bitcoin mining, or is this simply the cost of funding an industry where retail investors repeatedly absorb the dilution—or both?

I’ve been watching American Bitcoin (ABTC) since before it came to market, and to me it represents everything that’s wrong with modern markets.

I was an early investor in Hut 8 years ago. It was a wild ride. I watched it run into the $30s, collapse back toward $10, bought more, and eventually sold most of my position between roughly the $50 and $70+ range. Looking back, I left money on the table because Hut 8 has continued climbing, but overall it was one of my better investments.

What frustrates me is what happened afterward.

Instead of keeping the mining business inside Hut 8, they reorganized it into American Bitcoin through a reverse-merger structure.

From a corporate standpoint, it’s actually a clever move. Bitcoin mining is capital-intensive, margins are thin, and separating assets can make financial sense.

But here’s where I think retail investors lose.
The stock debuted after a reverse split, traded around $12-$15, and has since fallen below $1 in less than a year. Now another reverse split (reported to be between 1-for-15 and 1-for-40) has been authorized, and unless the underlying economics improve, it feels like the same cycle repeats:

Reverse split.
Issue more shares.
Dilution pushes the stock lower.
Another reverse split later.

It’s a pattern that many small-cap companies fall into, and retail investors usually end up holding the bag.

The bigger issue isn’t just one company. It’s information asymmetry. Institutions, insiders, and connected investors often understand these deals long before the average investor does. By the time the public is excited, the people who structured the transaction may have already created enormous value for themselves.

That’s what bothers me. Markets are supposed to allocate capital efficiently, but increasingly they feel like they’re rewarding access more than analysis.

I don’t know what American Bitcoin ultimately becomes. Maybe Bitcoin explodes and everyone wins. Maybe the company finds another path. It will go up one day, but, after how many reverse splits? How much dilution? When it goes up, if you held it, will your initial dollar be essentially worth one penny as you realize a tremendous loss when the company trades at 100x. No one knows, and owners, insiders, and most individuals with capital support will have made their money and ran on each cycle.

Mainly, based on what I’m seeing today, I wouldn’t touch it until the reverse split is complete, the next round of dilution settles, and the company proves it can create value without constantly issuing new shares.

Curious to hear what everyone else thinks. Am I missing something fundamental, or is this just another example of how retail investors end up financing the entire process?