Crypto_Cleve

@Crypto_Cleve

Simply just a liquidity provider

Freedom

Joined December 2015

609 Following

556 Followers

10.2K Posts

Pinned Tweet

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

6 months ago

2026 will be a big year. Lots of real life changes coming, along with what appears to be a nice opportunity year in crypto/equities. To fully reset and avoid noise and chop, I have decided I will be stepping away from all socials and side chats and really just focus on me and my strategy, and then be fully charged when it comes to executing on everything. Shoutout to the real ones on here that were really the only ones I got on this app to check on and gain knowledge from. Come 1/1/26 I will be deleting it all for at least the first half of the year but we’ll see how I hate or enjoy the excess of free time and brain power. Good luck everybody 🫡

0

6

0

0

182

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

3 days ago

@Crypto_Chase I can’t help but laugh scrolling on ct an seeing all the hate now when majority of these pages were doing just what are saying and thinking he was crypto Jesus. Shows most didn’t learn their lessons from prior cycles. Fear and greed cycles really do just repeat over and over

0

1

0

0

89

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

3 days ago

@WatcherGuru One of the worst states for bill gate’s lonestar ticks and now this 😭

0

1

0

0

35

Crypto_Cleve retweeted

Quinten | 048.eth

@QuintenFrancois

4 days ago

My entire timeline expects this

QuintenFrancois's tweet photo. My entire timeline expects this https://t.co/aONBN249lO

245

2K

116

305

174K

Who to follow

@crypto_cowboy02

Verified account

Capital markets enthusiast | CFO @BecauseBitcoin & @BB_TraderX

Verified account

researching the human condition.

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

4 days ago

Sol Imagine if this is just one big range. I’m not saying it happens but ct bulls would be in shambles if this somehow happened

Crypto_Cleve's tweet photo. Sol

Imagine if this is just one big range. I’m not saying it happens but ct bulls would be in shambles if this somehow happened https://t.co/QJfg5dAB88

0

1

0

0

70

Crypto_Cleve retweeted

4 days ago

$MSTR At this point, it should be clear that applying aggressive financial engineering to an asset with no native yield or cash-flow generation was a major mistake. The company had one job: keep the balance sheet structurally sound enough to do the only thing it was designed to do, which is hold $BTC forever. Instead, the crisis was handled in the worst possible way. Buying more BTC while the market’s core concern was preferred dividend coverage only reduced the cash buffer further. The company offered no credible solution other than potentially diluting common shareholders below mNAV. Then Saylor’s conference comments, where he framed prior guidance as advice to shareholders rather than the firm’s own issuance posture, only damaged credibility further. Hope is not a strategy. Reflexivity has now reversed. The premium-to-NAV flywheel once worked like this: Issue equity above implied cost of capital → buy BTC → BTC per share rises → premium is justified → issue more equity. Below 1.0x mNAV, that machine runs backwards. Drastic times require drastic measures. So how does the bleed stop and confidence get restored? First, acknowledge the mistakes. Then act decisively. Time allows fear to spread into panic. Only decisive liability management can restore the image of $MSTR and Saylor at this point. A. Liability management is the core solution. Repurchase discounted preferreds through a combination of open-market accumulation via a Rule 10b5-1 plan and a fixed-price or Dutch tender under Reg 14E, priced roughly 5 to 8 points above market. Buying back discounted senior claims is far more NAV-accretive per dollar than buying back common stock. It also cuts cash burn. A common buyback at 0.82x mNAV transfers only about +22 cents of value per dollar and does nothing to reduce cash burn. The sequencing matters: Start with STRD and STRK because they trade at the deepest discounts and offer the highest claim accretion per dollar. Then move to STRC for scale, because it is the largest single cash-burn line and the keystone security to defend. Leave STRF alone for now. It is money-good, the most senior, and trades at the smallest discount. Bidding for it would signal stress in the best part of the capital structure for very little economic capture. B. Fund it with BTC-collateralized debt, not BTC sales. The company should create a Bitcoin-collateralized term facility, not sell BTC. Use a secured BTC facility at roughly 8% all-in, with a likely range of 7% to 9%, and 30% to 50% LTV. The carry is positive across the structure: Borrow at roughly 8% secured to retire preferred claims costing 13% to 16% on an effective basis. That creates 500 to 600 basis points of positive carry, plus the discount capture. This is the cornerstone of the new narrative. Financed deleveraging could restart the reflexive premium. An asset sale would confirm the bear case. C. Restore capital discipline. Suspend the common ATM while the stock trades below 1.0x mNAV. Pause net-new BTC purchases while below 1.0x mNAV. Redirect all available capacity toward discount capture. A small common-buyback sleeve can exist for signaling purposes, but it should not be the primary tool. The real opportunity is in retiring discounted preferred claims. The math is compelling. Net of roughly $240 million per year of facility cost, the program is approximately +$177 million per year cash-flow positive on day one. It would deliver roughly $1.14 billion of immediate NAV accretion to common shareholders and retire approximately $4.1 billion of par claims for $3.0 billion of financed cash. The maximum-scale option is full STRC retirement. At roughly $85.85, full STRC retirement would require about $9.0 billion of cash, capture approximately $1.49 billion of discount, and remove roughly $1.21 billion per year of dividends. That is the single largest lever on coverage. The most important thing is getting rid of the negative reflexive loop MSTR is in, that can only be done through very strong action and taking the hit now rather than later.

TheShortBear's tweet photo. $MSTR

At this point, it should be clear that applying aggressive financial engineering to an asset with no native yield or cash-flow generation was a major mistake.

The company had one job: keep the balance sheet structurally sound enough to do the only thing it was designed to do, which is hold $BTC forever.

Instead, the crisis was handled in the worst possible way.

Buying more BTC while the market’s core concern was preferred dividend coverage only reduced the cash buffer further. The company offered no credible solution other than potentially diluting common shareholders below mNAV. Then Saylor’s conference comments, where he framed prior guidance as advice to shareholders rather than the firm’s own issuance posture, only damaged credibility further.

Hope is not a strategy.

Reflexivity has now reversed.

The premium-to-NAV flywheel once worked like this:

Issue equity above implied cost of capital → buy BTC → BTC per share rises → premium is justified → issue more equity.

Below 1.0x mNAV, that machine runs backwards.
Drastic times require drastic measures.

So how does the bleed stop and confidence get restored?

First, acknowledge the mistakes. Then act decisively. Time allows fear to spread into panic. Only decisive liability management can restore the image of $MSTR and Saylor at this point.

A. Liability management is the core solution.

Repurchase discounted preferreds through a combination of open-market accumulation via a Rule 10b5-1 plan and a fixed-price or Dutch tender under Reg 14E, priced roughly 5 to 8 points above market.

Buying back discounted senior claims is far more NAV-accretive per dollar than buying back common stock. It also cuts cash burn.

A common buyback at 0.82x mNAV transfers only about +22 cents of value per dollar and does nothing to reduce cash burn.

The sequencing matters:

Start with STRD and STRK because they trade at the deepest discounts and offer the highest claim accretion per dollar.

Then move to STRC for scale, because it is the largest single cash-burn line and the keystone security to defend.

Leave STRF alone for now. It is money-good, the most senior, and trades at the smallest discount. Bidding for it would signal stress in the best part of the capital structure for very little economic capture.

B. Fund it with BTC-collateralized debt, not BTC sales.

The company should create a Bitcoin-collateralized term facility, not sell BTC.

Use a secured BTC facility at roughly 8% all-in, with a likely range of 7% to 9%, and 30% to 50% LTV.

The carry is positive across the structure:

Borrow at roughly 8% secured to retire preferred claims costing 13% to 16% on an effective basis. That creates 500 to 600 basis points of positive carry, plus the discount capture.

This is the cornerstone of the new narrative.

Financed deleveraging could restart the reflexive premium. An asset sale would confirm the bear case.

C. Restore capital discipline.

Suspend the common ATM while the stock trades below 1.0x mNAV. Pause net-new BTC purchases while below 1.0x mNAV.

Redirect all available capacity toward discount capture.

A small common-buyback sleeve can exist for signaling purposes, but it should not be the primary tool. The real opportunity is in retiring discounted preferred claims.

The math is compelling.

Net of roughly $240 million per year of facility cost, the program is approximately +$177 million per year cash-flow positive on day one.

It would deliver roughly $1.14 billion of immediate NAV accretion to common shareholders and retire approximately $4.1 billion of par claims for $3.0 billion of financed cash.

The maximum-scale option is full STRC retirement.

At roughly $85.85, full STRC retirement would require about $9.0 billion of cash, capture approximately $1.49 billion of discount, and remove roughly $1.21 billion per year of dividends.

That is the single largest lever on coverage.

The most important thing is getting rid of the negative reflexive loop MSTR is in, that can only be done through very strong action and taking the hit now rather than later.

TheShortBear's tweet photo. $MSTR

At this point, it should be clear that applying aggressive financial engineering to an asset with no native yield or cash-flow generation was a major mistake.

The company had one job: keep the balance sheet structurally sound enough to do the only thing it was designed to do, which is hold $BTC forever.

Instead, the crisis was handled in the worst possible way.

Buying more BTC while the market’s core concern was preferred dividend coverage only reduced the cash buffer further. The company offered no credible solution other than potentially diluting common shareholders below mNAV. Then Saylor’s conference comments, where he framed prior guidance as advice to shareholders rather than the firm’s own issuance posture, only damaged credibility further.

Hope is not a strategy.

Reflexivity has now reversed.

The premium-to-NAV flywheel once worked like this:

Issue equity above implied cost of capital → buy BTC → BTC per share rises → premium is justified → issue more equity.

Below 1.0x mNAV, that machine runs backwards.
Drastic times require drastic measures.

So how does the bleed stop and confidence get restored?

First, acknowledge the mistakes. Then act decisively. Time allows fear to spread into panic. Only decisive liability management can restore the image of $MSTR and Saylor at this point.

A. Liability management is the core solution.

Repurchase discounted preferreds through a combination of open-market accumulation via a Rule 10b5-1 plan and a fixed-price or Dutch tender under Reg 14E, priced roughly 5 to 8 points above market.

Buying back discounted senior claims is far more NAV-accretive per dollar than buying back common stock. It also cuts cash burn.

A common buyback at 0.82x mNAV transfers only about +22 cents of value per dollar and does nothing to reduce cash burn.

The sequencing matters:

Start with STRD and STRK because they trade at the deepest discounts and offer the highest claim accretion per dollar.

Then move to STRC for scale, because it is the largest single cash-burn line and the keystone security to defend.

Leave STRF alone for now. It is money-good, the most senior, and trades at the smallest discount. Bidding for it would signal stress in the best part of the capital structure for very little economic capture.

B. Fund it with BTC-collateralized debt, not BTC sales.

The company should create a Bitcoin-collateralized term facility, not sell BTC.

Use a secured BTC facility at roughly 8% all-in, with a likely range of 7% to 9%, and 30% to 50% LTV.

The carry is positive across the structure:

Borrow at roughly 8% secured to retire preferred claims costing 13% to 16% on an effective basis. That creates 500 to 600 basis points of positive carry, plus the discount capture.

This is the cornerstone of the new narrative.

Financed deleveraging could restart the reflexive premium. An asset sale would confirm the bear case.

C. Restore capital discipline.

Suspend the common ATM while the stock trades below 1.0x mNAV. Pause net-new BTC purchases while below 1.0x mNAV.

Redirect all available capacity toward discount capture.

A small common-buyback sleeve can exist for signaling purposes, but it should not be the primary tool. The real opportunity is in retiring discounted preferred claims.

The math is compelling.

Net of roughly $240 million per year of facility cost, the program is approximately +$177 million per year cash-flow positive on day one.

It would deliver roughly $1.14 billion of immediate NAV accretion to common shareholders and retire approximately $4.1 billion of par claims for $3.0 billion of financed cash.

The maximum-scale option is full STRC retirement.

At roughly $85.85, full STRC retirement would require about $9.0 billion of cash, capture approximately $1.49 billion of discount, and remove roughly $1.21 billion per year of dividends.

That is the single largest lever on coverage.

The most important thing is getting rid of the negative reflexive loop MSTR is in, that can only be done through very strong action and taking the hit now rather than later.

TheShortBear's tweet photo. $MSTR

At this point, it should be clear that applying aggressive financial engineering to an asset with no native yield or cash-flow generation was a major mistake.

The company had one job: keep the balance sheet structurally sound enough to do the only thing it was designed to do, which is hold $BTC forever.

Instead, the crisis was handled in the worst possible way.

Buying more BTC while the market’s core concern was preferred dividend coverage only reduced the cash buffer further. The company offered no credible solution other than potentially diluting common shareholders below mNAV. Then Saylor’s conference comments, where he framed prior guidance as advice to shareholders rather than the firm’s own issuance posture, only damaged credibility further.

Hope is not a strategy.

Reflexivity has now reversed.

The premium-to-NAV flywheel once worked like this:

Issue equity above implied cost of capital → buy BTC → BTC per share rises → premium is justified → issue more equity.

Below 1.0x mNAV, that machine runs backwards.
Drastic times require drastic measures.

So how does the bleed stop and confidence get restored?

First, acknowledge the mistakes. Then act decisively. Time allows fear to spread into panic. Only decisive liability management can restore the image of $MSTR and Saylor at this point.

A. Liability management is the core solution.

Repurchase discounted preferreds through a combination of open-market accumulation via a Rule 10b5-1 plan and a fixed-price or Dutch tender under Reg 14E, priced roughly 5 to 8 points above market.

Buying back discounted senior claims is far more NAV-accretive per dollar than buying back common stock. It also cuts cash burn.

A common buyback at 0.82x mNAV transfers only about +22 cents of value per dollar and does nothing to reduce cash burn.

The sequencing matters:

Start with STRD and STRK because they trade at the deepest discounts and offer the highest claim accretion per dollar.

Then move to STRC for scale, because it is the largest single cash-burn line and the keystone security to defend.

Leave STRF alone for now. It is money-good, the most senior, and trades at the smallest discount. Bidding for it would signal stress in the best part of the capital structure for very little economic capture.

B. Fund it with BTC-collateralized debt, not BTC sales.

The company should create a Bitcoin-collateralized term facility, not sell BTC.

Use a secured BTC facility at roughly 8% all-in, with a likely range of 7% to 9%, and 30% to 50% LTV.

The carry is positive across the structure:

Borrow at roughly 8% secured to retire preferred claims costing 13% to 16% on an effective basis. That creates 500 to 600 basis points of positive carry, plus the discount capture.

This is the cornerstone of the new narrative.

Financed deleveraging could restart the reflexive premium. An asset sale would confirm the bear case.

C. Restore capital discipline.

Suspend the common ATM while the stock trades below 1.0x mNAV. Pause net-new BTC purchases while below 1.0x mNAV.

Redirect all available capacity toward discount capture.

A small common-buyback sleeve can exist for signaling purposes, but it should not be the primary tool. The real opportunity is in retiring discounted preferred claims.

The math is compelling.

Net of roughly $240 million per year of facility cost, the program is approximately +$177 million per year cash-flow positive on day one.

It would deliver roughly $1.14 billion of immediate NAV accretion to common shareholders and retire approximately $4.1 billion of par claims for $3.0 billion of financed cash.

The maximum-scale option is full STRC retirement.

At roughly $85.85, full STRC retirement would require about $9.0 billion of cash, capture approximately $1.49 billion of discount, and remove roughly $1.21 billion per year of dividends.

That is the single largest lever on coverage.

The most important thing is getting rid of the negative reflexive loop MSTR is in, that can only be done through very strong action and taking the hit now rather than later.

52

339

30

191

80K

Crypto_Cleve retweeted

4 days ago

MSTR pickle continues: What I laid out 2 weeks ago is still the only viable path to save $BTC and $MSTR in the short-run. Either sell an enormous amount of BTC and MSTR to help bring $STRC back up near par, and at least buy yourself some time, or continue to watch every part of your cap structure melt because of the uncertainty you've created. My base case right now: -70% odds they just keep doing what they're doing, selling small amounts of MSTR every month at non-accretive levels, crushing the stock til it falls to .70 mNAV. This would give STRC holders at least a glimmer of hope, and BTC would be fine, but MSTR would get hammered. - 25% chance he does the right thing, admits he messed up when he bought back the debt, sells $3-4 bn of BTC, buys a ton of time (marginally good for MSTR, good for STRC, bad for BTC short-term but good long-term) -5% chance he does the nuclear option -- kills the dividends, letting the prefs fall to 30-40 cents on the dollar, which will close the capital markets to him, but at least shuts off the $1.7 bn per year cash outlay problem, and gives BTC a chance to recover over several years. FWIW -- MSTR is still trading at 1.15 mNAV using the correct calculation: $54 bn BTC on balance sheet + $1 bn USD cash - Less $5.2 bn debt - Less $14.6 bn prefs (including STRC) = $35.2 bn of unencumbered BTC $40.4 bn MSTR equity market cap $40.4 bn / $35.2 bn BTC = 1.15 mNAV Which means -- MSTR still going a lot lower (should trade at a discount to NAV now).

55

361

44

138

124K

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

4 days ago

@Crypto_R0D If or when strc blows up, I’d imagine mstr gets a fud leg down and that’s where the believers should be able to get a nice buy entry imo

1

2

0

0

200

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

4 days ago

@CryptoKaleo What’s funny though is how many people were eating it up when he posted and thought he was some giga chad. He was crypto Jesus and you couldn’t question him on here or most said you were bear fud. It’s always funny how these things play out

0

0

0

0

98

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

4 days ago

0

2

0

0

45

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

4 days ago

@crypto_condom @Trader_XO Btc at $88 is gonna be crazy

1

2

0

0

30

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

5 days ago

@x256xx I’m not saying it happens, and I dont think the odds are high but people acting like $9 isn’t possible do show a little ignorance to the past. Eth went from over 1000 to sub 100 and sol went 250+ below 10. Anything is possible

0

2

0

1

475

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

5 days ago

@Stefan_B_Trades A bit worrisome seeing all the comments saying they got in as well 🤔

1

3

0

0

111

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

6 days ago

@utdMaggie Yet bragged about how he’d be drunk for a week straight if they won it back in April.

1

0

0

0

310

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

6 days ago

@NoLimitGains On the day options become available too lol

0

0

0

0

481

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

6 days ago

@TylerDurden I didn’t do an update for like 3 years and my phone started bugging out. Got an old Apple watch to try and track sleep and it wouldn’t air unless I updated it.

0

0

0

0

2K

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

7 days ago

0

0

0

0

9

Crypto_Cleve retweeted

DG🎭 @DanielGilr44222

7 days ago

As the Roman Empire crumbled, its rulers ramped up massive gladiator arenas and bloody spectacles to keep the public distracted from the growing rot & corruption in the halls of power. It’s all starting to click. wake up humanity

171

3K

1K

309

67K

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

9 days ago

@KillaXBT How much of those profits get burned though in funding fees if it takes 2 years to play out?

1

0

0

0

25

Crypto_Cleve retweeted

10 days ago

just thinking for a moment. when was the last time a bank came out and advised you to buy a legit market bottom?

9

64

2

5

8K

Crypto_Cleve @Crypto_Cleve

12 days ago

@Trader_XO Eth went 1000+ to sub 100. Sol went 250+ to sub 10. Anything is possible. It makes me laugh when you throw that out there and people think you’re crazy for even sharing the thought when other alts with way more success have done it. Stink bids no doubt

2

1

0

0

222

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users