THK

[THK @Jeremiahthevoid]

@BTCoptioneer raise reserve and wait. if mNAV below 1,sell btc to buy back common.

[Adam Livingston @AdamBLiv]

A man buys Bitcoin.

A second man buys Bitcoin with cheap long-duration capital.

A third man buys the second man at a premium because he expects him to keep doing it.

The internet concludes only the first man understands math.

[Flying Raven ⚡️🇺🇸 @OffshoreHODL]

Here's a summary of the issues relating to the debate around what matters wrt $MSTR Bitcoin per share related metrics, dilution, etc

1. BPS is gross Bitcoin per share

BPS = Bitcoin held / assumed diluted common shares.

Strategy’s own notes define BPS this way, and BTC Yield is simply the percentage change in BPS over time. $MSTR says it uses BTC Yield to assess whether its capital markets activity increased or decreased gross bitcoin per diluted share.

So if Strategy issues common stock and does not buy enough Bitcoin to keep BTC/share flat or rising, then BPS is diluted. That is what the critics are focused on.

In the recent dispute, Strategy’s BTC Yield reportedly fell from 13.0% to 12.8% after it bought 1,550 BTC while assumed diluted shares increased. On that narrow BTC/share metric, the critics have a point.

2. But BPS ignores senior claims

This is where Michael @saylor new clarification matters. He is basically saying:

BPS tells you how much Bitcoin is on the company balance sheet per common share before debt and preferred stock. CEBE BPS tells you how much Bitcoin exposure remains for common after debt and preferred claims.

That is a much more honest framework. Strategy itself warns that BPS and BTC Yield do not account for debt, preferred-stock liquidation preferences, dividend claims, or other senior claims ahead of common equity.

Strategy also says BPS is not book value per share, not a liquidity measure, and common shareholders do not directly own the company’s Bitcoin.

That means preferred-funded Bitcoin purchases can make BPS look great while leaving CEBE BPS nearly unchanged at issuance.

Simple example:

Before:
100 BTC, 100 shares, no debt.
BPS = 1 BTC/share.
CEBE = 1 BTC/share.
Then issue $20 BTC-equivalent of preferred/debt and buy 20 BTC.
Now: 120 BTC, 100 shares.
BPS = 1.2 BTC/share.
But if the new senior claim is economically equal to 20 BTC at today’s price, then:
CEBE = 100 BTC net to common / 100 shares = 1 BTC/share.
So BPS went up, but common’s net Bitcoin exposure did not. That is the core criticism.

3. Amplification is leverage, not magic

Saylor’s word “amplification” is basically the spread between BPS and CEBE BPS. If there are no senior claims, BPS and CEBE are the same. As debt/preferreds rise, BPS and CEBE diverge. Saylor’s point is that this divergence can create upside or risk depending on liability cost, duration, and Bitcoin’s future return.

This is the most important part:

If BTC doubles, the fiat senior claim shrinks in BTC terms. The same dollar debt/preferred burden consumes fewer sats, so CEBE moves closer to BPS.

That is good for common.

If BTC falls, the fiat senior claim grows in BTC terms. More of the stack is effectively spoken for by senior capital, so CEBE falls. That is bad for common.

That is why Saylor is right that not all liabilities are equal. Long-duration, low-cost, non-maturing capital can amplify common upside. Short-duration, high-cost, hard-maturity debt can turn the same structure into a trap.

4. mNAV is a market multiple, not the same as BPS

mNAV adds another layer of confusion. Strategy defines mNAV as enterprise value divided by BTC Reserve, where enterprise value includes common market value, debt, preferred notional value, less cash. Strategy also says mNAV is not traditional NAV and should only be treated as a supplemental metric.

So when people say “mNAV dilution,” they usually mean one of two things:

They may mean Strategy issued shares when the stock premium was not high enough to create strong BTC/share accretion.

Or they may mean the market premium itself is compressing, so even if BPS rises, MSTR can still underperform Bitcoin because the multiple collapses.

That is why mNAV is useful, but dangerous. It is partly a valuation metric, partly a sentiment metric, and partly a capital-raising window. It is not the same thing as common equity ownership of Bitcoin.

5. Saylor is right on one thing and critics are right on one thing

Saylor is right that issuing shares is not automatically economic dilution. If you sell common stock at a large premium to adjusted NAV and receive cash or Bitcoin worth more per share than what existing holders previously had, then NAV/share can improve even though ownership percentage falls. At BTC Prague, he argued that issuing equity for cash or Bitcoin is not inherently dilutive because the company receives tangible assets and can strengthen the balance sheet.

But critics are also right that BPS alone is incomplete, especially when Bitcoin is purchased with preferred stock or debt. Strategy’s own disclosures admit that non-convertible preferred or debt-funded purchases can increase BPS while increasing senior claims in ways not reflected in the KPI.

So the real answer is:

Common share count dilution: yes, if new common shares are issued.

BPS dilution: yes, if BTC/share falls.

NAV/share accretion: possible, if cash/BTC received per new share exceeds adjusted NAV/share.

CEBE accretion: only if common’s net BTC exposure after senior claims improves.

mNAV dilution: really means market multiple compression or issuing at too low a premium.

Summary

Saylor’s clarification is actually a good refinement. It admits, without saying it directly, that BTC Yield/BPS is not enough anymore because Strategy is no longer a simple common-equity-funded Bitcoin vehicle. It is now a capital structure company: common, converts, STRK, STRF, STRD, STRC, cash reserve, and Bitcoin.

The strongest bull case for MSTR common is not just “BPS goes up.” It is:

Bitcoin appreciates faster than Strategy’s all-in cost of capital, while liabilities are long-duration enough that common gets the upside before the structure becomes stressed.

The bear case is:

Funding costs rise, preferred obligations grow, mNAV compresses, and BPS becomes a vanity metric because more of the Bitcoin stack is effectively pledged to senior capital.

So Saylor’s best argument is not that dilution critics are wrong.

His best argument is that they are using one narrow metric.

And his critics’ best argument is also fair: if you only celebrate BPS and ignore CEBE, you are overstating what common shareholders really own.

[THK @Jeremiahthevoid]

@MurikanzGowhoop @saylor As a common shareholder of MSTR, having a low time preference is almost a prerequisite. If you expect superior performance within six months or one year, MSTR may not be the right fit for you.

[Grain of Salt @GrainofSaltSF]

Here's the chart WITHOUT ratios for $MSTR, Bitcoin and Shares. The amount of Bitcoin that @Strategy has grown about ~4X the amount of share increase.
Any questions? @Saylor @phongle

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

@tim_cook Don’t want it.

Either stop this creepy spyware or all Apple devices will be banned from the premises of my companies.

[Tim Draper @TimDraper]

I love Elon Musk..
Almost as much as I love Satoshi Nakamoto. #spacex #bitcoin

[THK @Jeremiahthevoid]

I retweet and I endorse this. Team Saylor. Team MSTR!!!

[Zynx @ZynxBTC]

I do not respect the pathetic attempts to kick Saylor while he is down.

The price of radical transparency is that every word, every conference and every public thought becomes a permanent record people can use against you.

As a $MSTR shareholder I am grateful for it and see it as a gift, not a weakness.

I would never enjoy the upside of such transparency and then punish the person for it on the down days.

[Lawrence Lepard, "fix the money, fix the world" @LawrenceLepard]

You don’t see it. He is Machiavelli and Sun Tzu rolled into one. He is involved in a financial war with the largest criminals on the planet: the Fiat Lords. You think he isn’t going to fight somewhat dirty? You think his strategy (pun intended) isn’t going to evolve? He wants to win. And I believe for the right reasons. I believe his motives are pure and I trust him. A sound money world would massively benefit mankind. Can you nit pick some moves. Sure. But don’t lose sight of the big picture.@saylor @CJ_Bitcoin

[THK @Jeremiahthevoid]

@saylor Thank https://t.co/2H9YiAuabk Breaks👍

[Michael Saylor @saylor]

I haven’t sold a sat. Strategy is still stacking.

[Michael Saylor @saylor]

Accretion depends on the metric. Net Assets per Share measures balance sheet strength and residual asset value. BTC per Share measures Bitcoin intensity and long-term equity upside. NAV accretion improves asset coverage. BTC Yield accretion increases Bitcoin per share. $MSTR $BTC

[Michael Saylor @saylor]

Retweets are notifications, not endorsements. When I endorse something, I say so.

Bitcoin-backed credit instruments compete with fiat and crypto yield products, not with Bitcoin. When capital moves from fiat/crypto collateral into BTC-backed instruments, it strengthens the Bitcoin network.

[THK @Jeremiahthevoid]

@mattkratter Time will tell . Don’t delete your post.

[THK @Jeremiahthevoid]

@leadlagreport please do not ever ever delete this post.

[Michael Saylor @saylor]

$MSTR & $STRC Retail Investor Q&A with @PhongLe, hosted by @NatBrunell
https://t.co/G0frA3Ekem

[THK @Jeremiahthevoid]

@BTCoptioneer The goal is to maintain strc at 99 to 101 . So i think they might sell strc as long as it’s above 99.

[Michael Saylor @saylor]

Let me recap the earnings call. $MSTR

[THK @Jeremiahthevoid]

@TheBTCTherapist Pls enlighten me how the clarity Act will boost BTC price?

[Michael Saylor @saylor]

Just another day at the office $BTC