NickyD ⚡️🟧

Bitcoin Hodler - Bitcoin Ecosystem Investor - Thrill Seeker - Always Looking for the Hypotenuse

[James E. Thorne @DrJStrategy]

Got it. Sell Bitcoin because it’s no longer outside the system.

Bitcoin, a decentralized blockchain with a fixed 21 million supply, is exactly doing what its strongest proponents said it would do: move from fringe experiment to core financial infrastructure. To then argue “because it’s becoming legit, it’s a sell” is logically weak.

The original Bitcoin thesis was that hard‑capped, censorship‑resistant money would eventually be pulled into the center of the system – into banks, ETFs, tokenized credit and regulated rails.

Legitimacy isn’t a betrayal of the thesis; it’s the payoff.

Once you accept that, you can’t coherently say: “I believed in Bitcoin when it was unregulated and misunderstood, but now that the protocol is being wired into mainstream collateral and settlement, I’m out.” That’s just an emotional trade wrapped in pseudo‑principle.

If the reason you bought Bitcoin was precisely that, one day, it would force Wall Street, Washington and global finance to treat its scarcity and neutrality as real, then the moment that process is underway is not a fundamental bear signal. It’s the confirmation that the original logic was right.

[Parker @TheOtherParker_]

What a day for $STRC. When it rains it pours.

When panic is setting in, it helps to revisit the fundamentals of why you made the investment in the first place.

The main thing to focus on is that STRC is designed as a "bend, not break" instrument. Or, better yet, a "Stretch, not snap" instrument - yes, cringe.

First, let's get some facts out there:
1. Strategy's total annual cash outlays are about $1.7B for dividends and coupons. Most of that is for STRC dividends.

2. Strategy currently has $1.4B in cash, and raised $300M last week on the $MSTR ATM. They raised $100M each of the prior two weeks as well. The stock is still trading at a small premium to mNAV as of today. They have likely raised a few hundred million additional this week, maybe even $300M .

3. Strategy's converts have put dates mostly in mid 2028; however, a third of the converts are still trading at a premium to par, meaning they would be unlikely to be put.

4. Strategy has a number of mechanisms at their disposal to help bring the price of STRC back to par.

Ok, now for some additional thoughts:
1. The $1.7B that Strategy "owes" each year amounts to $33M/wk. The MSTR common traded $11B last week. $IBIT traded $6B last week. $BTC traded about $3B on Coinbase alone, while globally, traded multiples of that. If they need to raise $33M/wk, they can, basically forever. Even if they were just selling BTC and turned off the MSTR ATM, they'd be selling 545 BTC/wk at current BTC prices. They could do a mixture of MSTR ATM and BTC sales to spread it out. To put 545 BTC into perspective, so far in 2026, Strategy has acquired 174,863 BTC. So, if they simply sold what they acquired this year on a weekly basis, they could fund dividends and coupons for 74 months beyond the 10 months they already have - total of 84 months, or 7 years. What if BTC drops to $30k you say? They can fund things for 47 months, including existing cash, so 4 years. To be VERY CLEAR, this is only selling the BTC they bought this year, it leaves the other 672,500 BTC acquired prior to 2026 in tact. If you throw that all into the mix, they can fund cash needs for 31 and 16 years at $60k and $30k BTC respectively. If BTC is at $30k in 16 years, I think it is dead.

TL;DR - cash outlays aren't a problem. No "death spiral" is triggered from selling a few hundred BTC/wk.

2. The converts seem really scary, with put dates coming up in 2 years roughly. However, there are a few things to consider. First, with a volatile stock like MSTR, they can very likely refinance the converts with another convert that has a later put date, later maturity and lower strike price on the conversion price. This is due to the very high value of the imbedded option in the convert. There's some dilution there for the common holders, but not crazy, since it's somewhat offset by the elimination of the old converts. Based on today's prices and a 30% conversion premium, that would be about 10% in net additional shares issuable upon conversion of the new convert. If the common float doubles between now and that future conversion (very likely), that's only a 5% dilution. Not amazing, but also not horrible for the MSTR common holders. That 5-10% dilution would push back the conversion date by many years. Additionally, other companies have successfully swapped converts for preferreds in the past, e.g. Strive, so there's no reason that Strategy couldn't come to an arrangement there with a number of the convert investors.

TL;DR - the converts are not a huge problem and wouldn't require the company to come up with $6.7B in cash right on the spot.

3. Strategy has no margin debt. So, BTC could actually fall to $1 tomorrow and they would not be "liquidated". There is no liquidation price in the short-term. Period.

4. So, what is the "death" scenario for Strategy? Turns out, there's no killshot, just a slow bleed. Sure, if BTC falls to $20k and stays there for 6-7 years, then Strategy has a problem. But only at that point do they have a problem. If you think this is a realistic scenario, you should leave bitcoin immediately and short every company in crypto. Very few crypto businesses would survive that.

So, putting it all together, Strategy is specifically designed as an anti-fragile fortress for bitcoin accumulation. Sure, leverage creates some risk, but it is also the ONLY reason they are able to accumulate BTC. If they had zero leverage, then IBIT would be the better investment. Any big hedge funds that want to "liquidate" them would need to keep the price of BTC generationally low for over half a decade.

The biggest advantage that Strategy has is time. They can wait and be deliberate. To flip a common phrase on its head, Strategy can stay solvent MUCH longer than the market can stay irrational.

Now, regarding STRC specifically, this is Strategy's flagship product. If they stop paying the dividends on it, they lose S3 eligibility for a year. That's a HORRIBLE outcome, so they would only stop paying the dividend in the most dire of circumstances. In fact, very few preferred stock issues ever stop paying dividends, and most that do, do it because of bankruptcy.

They very much want to see STRC trading back at par, because it is their primary cash-raising mechanism for accumulating more BTC.

That does NOT mean they are going to panic, raise the dividend to 15%, and sell a bunch of BTC to buyback all the STRC. They have plenty of time, and as long as you don't sell, you have time too. You continue to collect the dividend that you signed up for, and likely an increased one as they increase the dividend over time. You still get $11.5 per year per share of STRC, regardless of the market price.

STRC can certainly go lower, but as long as you're not margined against it, it shouldn't really matter. It's very clear that Strategy has both the capacity and the desire to continue paying the dividends and ultimately support getting the price back to par. Maybe it takes a few weeks or maybe it takes a few months. STRC is a low time preference instrument issued by a low time preference company.

The important thing is, there's no "breaking point" anytime soon. BTC basically must completely fail before there's a "breaking point". There is certainly a "panic point" though for investors, and with STRC down almost 15% so far this week, nearly 3x worse than BTC, it's very clear we are at "panic point".

Ultimately, STRC was designed to remove the possibility of "breaking points". The goal is to "bend, not break".

"Stretch, not snap."

[NickyD ⚡️🟧 @NickyD_]

@BitPaine I love the simplicity of this take. It says so much in less than 10 words.

[NickyD ⚡️🟧 @NickyD_]

@scottmelker Wow. I’m not sure if I want 2:00 minutes of my life back or I just watched the greatest video content ever created.

[Mike Levin @MikeLevin]

A brand new bridge between Detroit and Canada is finished and ready to open. It would speed up traffic for millions of trucks, cut delays for American businesses, and help the auto industry that employs people in every state. There is just one problem.

Donald Trump won’t let it open.

Here is why.

The family that owns the old bridge stands to lose business when the new one opens. So in January, they gave one million dollars to a pro-Trump super PAC.

Weeks later they met with Trump’s Commerce Secretary.

He called Trump.

Hours after that, Trump announced he would block the new bridge. The opening was set for June 12. It got canceled the day before. The bridge sits there finished and empty.

Now here is the part that should make every taxpayer angry.

Canada paid for the entire bridge.

Every dollar. And the United States already owns half of it for free. Trump is holding up a bridge we got for nothing, to protect a donor who wrote him a check, while picking a fight with our closest ally and biggest trading partner.

This is corruption in plain sight.

A billionaire pays, and the President delivers. American workers and businesses pay the price.

Open the bridge. A government should work for the people, not for whoever writes the biggest check.
https://t.co/9o9Gz9UrBo

[Samson Mow @Excellion]

$STRC is a brilliant instrument. It’s effectively what I tried to do with Bitcoin Bonds: strip out the volatility from Bitcoin and share the upside with investors. There is a massive market for a product like this somewhere in the ballpark of $200 trillion.

There’s nothing structurally wrong with the design of STRC (or SATA, MARS, etc.) unless you think Bitcoin won’t appreciate in the long term, which I’m sure none of us do.

Can STRC trade for under $100? Yes, of course it can. It moves freely according to market forces (this drop was caused by some leveraged plays). Do some people panic when it’s below par? Probably. That’s the behavior of short-term capital.

However, when STRC is trading below par, that’s an opportunity for long-term capital to arb it. It’s the same case as when stablecoins like USDt (note STRC is not a stablecoin) are trading below their peg. It presents an opportunity for people to come in and earn money by buying it at an effective discount and redeeming for $1. It happens all the time. STRC pays the same dividend whether you bought it for $90 or $100. Long-term capital will absorb any below-par STRC like a dry sponge.

Keep in mind that STRC is not even a year old. It’s still a baby, albeit one that’s growing at an incredible pace. It seems fashionable to dunk on it these days, but it’s far too soon to say it doesn’t work. Remember, the goal is to strip out the volatility from Bitcoin to package it into an instrument for investors who aren’t necessarily seeking out Bitcoin. This isn’t a year-long project. It’s a decades-long initiative that requires a massive balance sheet to shock-absorb.

And that’s exactly what @Strategy has.

[Jesse Myers @Croesus_BTC]

This post was seen by ~1M people yesterday. A few more thoughts on the topic...

A. "Steady lads, deploying more capital"

This is the infamous meme that comes from the Terra/Luna implosion. Crypto people have scar tissue from the May 2022 implosion of this algorithmic stablecoin.

Terra was designed to maintain a $1 peg by using a BTC treasury (Luna) to bid if the price went below $1, and sell if it went above $1. This works great, except in a panic.

4 years ago, panic happened. People wanted out of Terra, so the Luna treasury was automatically drawn down to protect the peg.

But this depleted the system's resources and deteriorated its capacity to keep defending the peg, which stoked more fear and exacerbated the exit pressure. Eventually the BTC treasury was depleted, the defense system was exhausted, the peg broke and Terra went to zero.

People who lived through that are wary of STRC and other Digital Credit instruments.

But, STRC is the opposite fundamental design of this.

B. Architected systems vs. free markets

Terra/Luna was an architected system that actively used its treasury resources to defend a peg.

STRC relies on free-market price discovery to find price equilibrium, and does not promise to maintain a peg.

And that is at the heart of why Strategy will be fine, and STRC along with it.

Strategy will not expend resources to try to maintain anything. Instead, the free market will find equilibrium on its own.

C. How to kill STRC

The health of STRC depends on the health of Strategy's balance sheet, because that determines whether STRC holders continue to receive dividends.

STRC's market price can depeg and trade at a serious discount... but Strategy's balance sheet is completely unaffected.

To attack Terra/Luna, you just needed to create a confidence wobble that forced the system to expend BTC treasury resources to defend the price of Terra.

To attack STRC, you need to deplete Strategy's balance sheet. Since they're not actively expending it to defend anything, you would need to send Bitcoin's price to ~$0 and keep it there. Good luck!

D. How STRC heals itself

STRC trades down in this leverage wipeout to $82. Strategy does nothing; expends no resources.

Strategy keeps paying STRC dividends with its unaffected balance sheet strength.

Now, investors are getting ~14% effective yield w/ the potential for a ~20% capital gain. STRC is more attractive than it previously was!

This attracts more investors. Price is bid up.

Strategy will likely increase dividend rate on June 30 to 11.75% or 12%. This makes STRC more attractive still. Price is bid up.

STRC dividends keep being paid. Market realizes that Strategy is unimpacted, it was just a leverage wipeout. Confidence in STRC dividends returns. Price is bid up.

Back to $100 par.

It will take weeks or maybe months, but that is how the free market (and the variable rate dividend mechanic) will restore STRC to $100.

And that's why this is the opposite of Terra/Luna's design.

[Troll Football @TrollFootball]

The award for Best Chant of the 2026 World Cup goes to the England fans

[Jesse Myers @Croesus_BTC]

STRC down to $82.6 today. Here's my read:

1. Strategy is fine. If everything stays as is, they can pay STRC dividends for 32 years. If BTC appreciates at ~2% CAGR, they can pay dividends indefinitely.

2. Why the sell-off? This appears to be a liquidation cascade.

Over the last 6 months, the narrative became that STRC volatility was reducing, and price began to spend all its time in $99-100 range.

This invites leverage. If you expect the price to always be north of $95, you can take on 20x leverage with your portfolio to buy more STRC and dramatically increase the yield on your portfolio.

This works great, until it doesn't.

STRC is designed as a free-market asset. When attention shifted to SATA and STRC price flagged, it may have raised the attention of opportunistic short-selling hedge funds.

By shorting aggressively, they could push the price down and start triggering margin calls and liquidations from folks who aggressively levered up their STRC positions.

The price action today is a clear liquidation cascade, rapidly pushing prices lower, in turn triggering additional liquidations.

3.
What happens now? The market will heal itself.

Opportunistic hedge funds will recognize that this is a firesale and the fundamentals are unchanged for STRC and step in as buyers. Shorts will close, becoming buyers. Individuals are getting a tremendous entry price for long-term holding STRC shares.

Buyers at this level will get ~13.7% effective yield. If STRC trades back to $100 and they sell, they get an easy +18% return.

4.
What will Strategy do?

Strategy will likely increase the dividend rate on June 30 - maybe to 11.75% but possibly to 12%. Buyers at the current price level then would get 14.2% effective yield from that point forward.

Strategy may also step in to buy STRC shares back. They could do this by issuing new shares of MSTR (currently at 1.14 mNAV) or by taking on traditional debt and deploying those funds to buy discounted STRC shares on the market.

If/when STRC trades back to $100, Strategy could then re-issue those STRC shares. The ~$15 delta per share could be used to buy BTC as pure accretion to MSTR holders, with no net change to amplification.

No doubt that Saylor has already at least considered this, and it wouldn't surprise me if they're currently doing this.

5.
In summary...

The market is freaked out that this depeg is like Terra/Luna... but this is not an asset like that. Strategy's balance sheet determines whether STRC continues to receive dividend payments... and Strategy's balance sheet is completely unchanged.

This is a leverage wipeout.

From this, the market will learn that Digital Credit is mostly very low volatility. But because it is a free market asset, the longer that a Digital Credit instrument trades within a tight range to par... the more leverage will inevitably pile up as people get greedy.

And that creates the conditions for a leverage wipeout depeg. Following that, the instrument will make its way back to par value as the market heals itself and recognizes that the dividend payments will continue uninterrupted because the issuer's balance sheet is unaffected.

[NickyD ⚡️🟧 @NickyD_]

@metaplanero This is good intel - thanks for sharing. Please keep it up and I will keep engaging with your posts.

[Metaplanero @metaplanero]

1/ Most people missed it, but Metaplanet just executed one of the most consequential board transitions in BTC treasury company history

Mark Yusko (Morgan Creek Capital) is off the board. Three other directors are out. Four new ones are in.

The shift in profile is dramatic and it tells you what Metaplanet is building toward 👇

[Adrian Morris @_Adrian]

Bitcoin, Digital Credit, and Digital Money:

@saylor is proposing building a full Digital Asset Stack on top of $BTC in existing capital markets. This is what he and @phongle have been doing with $MSTR.

Expanding this model would naturally involve banks, corporations and individual holders. All "peers" of different scale in the P2P Network that is $BTC. Nothing that runs contrary to the $BTC ethos.

As much as this may aggravate people, this isn't that far off from what Hal Finney himself proposed. The world transacts on top of $BTC, with fewer individual $BTC settled transactions because:

"Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain."

Think of a layered architecture that transforms BTC's natural volatility profile into a spectrum of tailored financial products that serve every type of investor and use case.

The TL/DR is that BTC remains the unchanging base layer while trad-fi creates the layers on top of it (the "rails").

[God @TheTweetOfGod]

HE STARTED THE WAR, you stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid motherfucker.

[NickyD ⚡️🟧 @NickyD_]

@CryptoJelleNL I’m not disappointed since I had money on Japan +1.5, but really thought Netherlands should have had the W there.

[NickyD ⚡️🟧 @NickyD_]

@d_1awrence Why is it mis priced and under appreciated?

[Dylan LeClair @DylanLeClair]

Introducing: Metaplanet Securities

[Gandalv @Microinteracti1]

I recommend reading the New York Times piece “Inside the White House Freakout Over the Epstein Files,” by Haberman and Swan. Briefly, it documents how the Epstein files triggered an internal crisis in the Trump White House: Vance calling it a “huge problem,” senior aides holding repeated Situation Room meetings (often without Trump) over a political scandal, officials pushing transparency moves like unsealing grand jury records that they privately knew would produce nothing new, discussions about deploying the imprisoned Ghislaine Maxwell to publicly defend Trump, and internal warfare between Bondi, the FBI and others over messaging. Throughout, the dominant fear was losing the MAGA base, not anything Democrats might do. 

And here is what struck me reading it. Across all those Situation Room meetings, in a room normally reserved for wars and terrorist attacks, not one item on the agenda was the victims. Not one discussion about fulfilling legal obligations to disclose, not one about identifying who committed crimes, not one attempt to document what actually happened to the girls at the center of the case. The “transparency” strategies were chosen precisely because they would reveal nothing. The one Epstein insider they considered putting in front of a camera was a convicted trafficker, and her job would have been to defend the president.

An entire administration mobilized its crisis machinery around a child sex trafficking scandal, and the only victim anyone in the building was trying to save was themselves.

Gandalv / @Microinteracti1

[Ted Lieu @tedlieu]

The Acting AG, @DAGToddBlanche, is a national disgrace.

His actions in covering up the Epstein Files to protect trump are unethical and likely illegal.

He will be disbarred. He will be investigated. And if the facts warrant it, he will be prosecuted.

November is coming.

[Sarah Ironside 💙 @SarahIronside6]

Has anyone paused to understand the gravity of the fact that we have a sitting president who will bomb human beings in an attempt to hide the fact that he and Epstein sexually assaulted girls and women? This is truly a level of evil that is hard to comprehend.

[Aaron Parnas @AaronParnas]

NEW: Epstein survivors release statement blasting Todd Blanche following the revelation that he worked alongside the White House to protect Trump from the Epstein files.

"We deserve better. We deserve truth, transparency, and accountability. We deserve to be taken seriously when we come forward."