We will be going live in 90 minutes to talk about WOO and Starchild
Featuring special guests @Benyorke, @ole_eth, and @duldul
Any topics you want discussed, drop them in the comments
New: OpenAI is developing a "real-humans-only" social network to take on the bot problem, sources say. The play? OpenAI considered gating access with biometric verification like World’s eyeball scanning "Orb", or Apple's Face ID.
https://t.co/GCcUaZtp2p #OpenAI#TechNews#Forbes
Thank you to every builder who submitted a project to #BuildWars!
The quality and range of ideas are meaningfully evolving MvX's and our DEX's onchain capabilities.
Congratulations to all the winners, and special shoutout to DCAi for winning our xExchange Special Prize!
Strategy bought an eye-watering $3.38B of BTC over the past two weeks ($1.25B + $2.13B). Plenty of takes on these moves, but I want to provide some color on what they're doing to the capital structure, which I find to be especially notable.
Firstly, STRC is obviously having its moment in the sun. $119M two weeks ago, $294M this past week—all while STRC stays pinned within 1% of face value.
This $STRC issuance has been in tandem with a large amount of $MSTR ATM . What does this mean, and is this accretive for shareholders?
Most MSTR was sold between 1.0x-1.10x mNAV. This is accretive in net asset terms, however with market cap below the value of BTC holdings, in isolation, it would be negative to BTC/share. However, Saylor is intelligently pairing the MSTR ATM with the STRC ATM. STRC was ~14% the size of MSTR issuance over this period. In BTC per fully-diluted share terms, despite selling of common with BTC below market cap value (while indeed above 1.0x in enterprise value terms), BTC per fully diluted common shares increased over the past two weeks —up 0.4% on the year. So, indeed accretive, but in my view, the bigger story is the focus on deleveraging the convertible bonds to focus on attaining "amplification" through prefs instead.
If we assume constant 92K BTC for consistency, from the start of the year to today:
Converts (less USD) as % of BTC: 9.67% → 9.18%
Prefs (less USD) as % of BTC: 9.19% → 9.36%
Strategy has flipped its outstanding convertible debt with notional prefs, which of course never come due in principal. In just one year.
Why is this being done? Strategy's team has made clear they see the perpetual pref (dubbed "digital credit") as the big idea. The fact that prefs can IPO, with ATMs attached, with no maturity cliff speaks for itself.
But I believe there's an additional motivation potentially: minimizing the gamma effect convertible debt has on the credit spreads of the prefs.
If you correctly view the convertible bonds as debt + an equity call option, at $400 MSTR the weighted delta on the converts was approximately 73%. The market effectively viewed Strategy as having ~$2.18B of effective debt with ~$6.06B that would become equity. This is rough back-of-napkin math, but you can use Black-Scholes to input the convertible bond strikes and first put dates, you can approximate a delta for each bond. In aggregate, you get a weighted average delta.
So yes, while technically $8.2B of debt has been outstanding for almost a year, the market doesn't
treat this as 100% debt—it probabilistically moves with MSTR stock price.
When BTC fell sharply in November and MSTR (as well as all other BTC proxies) followed, the stock price falling essentially partially 'de-equitized' the converts. A move from $400 to $150 is sort of like ~$2.5B more debt becoming senior to the prefs. The delta of the converts—their sensitivity to MSTR price—changed. This change in delta is called gamma.
The point here is that it wasn't necessarily just BTC NAV itself contracting that changed the profile of the prefs in the eyes of some credit investors. It was BTC price moving MSTR price, which impacted the likelihood of conversion of the converts, which impacted the assumed senior liabilities above the prefs.
With the massive purchases in recent weeks, it's clear that Strategy is diligently deleveraging the converts off the balance sheet (relatively), which means the convert gamma will have minimal—and eventually no impact on pref credit spreads.
Having no convertible bonds senior to the prefs should not only improve absolute credit spreads but should diminish credit spread volatility, as the volatility of the size of the assumed senior liabilities above the prefs goes away entirely. This should make prefs like STRC even less volatile, reinforcing the strength and efficiency of the system further.
So to answer the question: yes, this mix of STRC and MSTR issuance is accretive in BTC Yield terms, but I think the bigger story here is the deleveraging of the balance sheet (relatively) of convertible bonds, and it's shifting the focus to pref-style "amplification"—exactly as the MSTR team has stated.
The USD reserve is another recent shift worth noting. It looks to have further dampened credit spread volatility in the prefs by quieting market concerns around dividend coverage and immediate capital raising needs.
Congrats to the Strategy team on having notional prefs surpass converts in just one year.
Wildly impressive.
In this episode of Solana is Global:
@afscott interviews @kashdhanda, COO of @JupiterExchange, discussing the evolution of Solana's ecosystem, user behavior shifts, and the importance of building a comprehensive on-chain finance platform.
Listen to full episode 👇
Welcome a new futures pair with @Lighter_xyz:
$LIT-PERP: https://t.co/64C1SnbWZg
The asset is available for futures trading only.
Stay tuned for new futures updates!
Realms of the Haunting
1996, sealed, US Director's Cut, first gen release, PC (Gremlin Interactive / Interplay)
A fully explorable,cinematic, 3D first-person survival horror precursor, bridging towards later psych / environmental horror... the haunted mansion as a character.
Extremely rare, vaulted 👻🕳️