Kevin Debbs

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@RyansMethod What do you make of the reversal from 86k short term

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@RyanSethod Thank you so this downturn is temporary at best

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@DynastyDadFF Thank you again . I’ll report back soon

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@HighYieldHustle Either the yield pct is wrong or the .5256 is wrong based on 9/21 closing NAV

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@YieldMaxETFs Good morning . Why is your distribution for CHPY based on Fridays closing price vs Monday’s closing price ? The distribution would be roughly .5493. Thanks

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@realannapaulina Ms Luna, thank you for your backbone and patriotism 🇺🇸. Let’s get Catalina Lauf elected , primary every RINO, and have actual arrests of Fauci to Wray going forward . Thank you again for your service 🇺🇸🇺🇸

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@BasedMikeLee Respectfully , can you please contact each of the other Republican Senators publicly on X, who haven’t committed to staying during the recess, until they publicly commit. Thank you for your efforts.🇺🇸🇺🇸

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@david_eng_mba Tremendous insight and very efficient. Best analysis street wide 💪🏻🇺🇸

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@KimYSkill @Strategy Yes, you can pay or receive a daily dividend on the Nasdaq. While publicly traded companies and ordinary stocks almost never pay daily dividends, specific listed companies and option-based ETFs do support daily cash payouts

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@KimYSkill @Strategy SATA is on the Nasdaq exchange

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@BasedMikeLee Senator Mike Lee you’re amazing , but respectfully, can you, Rick Scott, Eric Schmitt and 2 others remove Leader Thune asap and execute on the Save Act this week or next . Thank you 🇺🇸🇺🇸

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@ForgiatoBlow47 C And the media

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@BasedMikeLee a 12 !! Senator Lee, respectfully please remove Thune and either you or Senator Scott lead the Senate 🇺🇸🇺🇸

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@RyansMethod @moneyordebt Ryan thanks so much for sharing !! Excellent work as always . I sent this Stephen and wanted to share ...https://t.co/1QVqSRHuES

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

Thank you Stephen !! Your work and findings are incredible !! I asked this of Claude and here was the response ..."How does this differ with Michael Saylor's 21 million per coin in 21 years analysis?"

These are quite different frameworks — almost philosophically opposite in their approach.

Saylor's Framework

Saylor's "$21 million per coin by 2045" thesis is essentially a macro-monetary argument built on a few simple pillars: fixed supply (21 million coins hard cap), exponentially growing global capital seeking a store of value, and Bitcoin absorbing a meaningful share of global wealth (real estate, gold, bonds, equities). The math is straightforward — if Bitcoin captures X% of a $Y quadrillion global asset base, divide by 21 million coins. It's a long-run equilibrium price target derived from external demand absorbing fixed supply.

How They Differ

The contrast is stark across several dimensions:

Mechanism: Saylor's model is entirely exogenous — Bitcoin's price is determined by outside capital flows and macro monetary dynamics. Perrenod's model is primarily endogenous — the cycles arise from within Bitcoin's own system dynamics, with macro playing only a weak damping role.

Timescale: Saylor is making a single terminal value claim over two decades. Perrenod is modeling the oscillatory path — the how you get there, not just the destination.

Role of halvings: Saylor treats halvings as a core supply-scarcity mechanism central to the thesis. Perrenod's analysis suggests halvings are a secondary amplifier of cycles that would exist anyway, and their marginal contribution is declining with each halving.

Falsifiability: Perrenod's model generates specific, testable predictions about cycle timing and amplitude. Saylor's framework is essentially unfalsifiable on any near-term horizon — any price below $21M is just "not yet."

Where They Could Be Compatible

They're not necessarily in conflict. Perrenod's power law trend could converge toward something in Saylor's ballpark by the mid-2040s — the power law itself implies continued long-run appreciation. Perrenod models the trajectory and oscillations around that trend; Saylor is essentially asserting the long-run destination. You could think of Saylor's thesis as a claim about where the power law asymptotes, while Perrenod's work describes the geometric structure of the path.

The Core Tension

The deeper disagreement is about what drives Bitcoin's value. Saylor's worldview puts institutional adoption, monetary debasement, and macro capital flows at the center. Perrenod's analysis says those forces are largely noise around a self-organizing dynamic that doesn't need them to explain most of the variance. That's a genuinely meaningful intellectual disagreement about Bitcoin's nature — is it primarily a macro asset, or a complex endogenous system that macro forces merely modulate?

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

Thank you Stephen !! Your work and findings are incredible !! I asked this of Claude and here was the response ..."How does this differ with Michael Saylor's 21 million per coin in 21 years analysis?"

These are quite different frameworks — almost philosophically opposite in their approach.

Saylor's Framework

Saylor's "$21 million per coin by 2045" thesis is essentially a macro-monetary argument built on a few simple pillars: fixed supply (21 million coins hard cap), exponentially growing global capital seeking a store of value, and Bitcoin absorbing a meaningful share of global wealth (real estate, gold, bonds, equities). The math is straightforward — if Bitcoin captures X% of a $Y quadrillion global asset base, divide by 21 million coins. It's a long-run equilibrium price target derived from external demand absorbing fixed supply.

How They Differ

The contrast is stark across several dimensions:

Mechanism: Saylor's model is entirely exogenous — Bitcoin's price is determined by outside capital flows and macro monetary dynamics. Perrenod's model is primarily endogenous — the cycles arise from within Bitcoin's own system dynamics, with macro playing only a weak damping role.

Timescale: Saylor is making a single terminal value claim over two decades. Perrenod is modeling the oscillatory path — the how you get there, not just the destination.

Role of halvings: Saylor treats halvings as a core supply-scarcity mechanism central to the thesis. Perrenod's analysis suggests halvings are a secondary amplifier of cycles that would exist anyway, and their marginal contribution is declining with each halving.

Falsifiability: Perrenod's model generates specific, testable predictions about cycle timing and amplitude. Saylor's framework is essentially unfalsifiable on any near-term horizon — any price below $21M is just "not yet."

Where They Could Be Compatible

They're not necessarily in conflict. Perrenod's power law trend could converge toward something in Saylor's ballpark by the mid-2040s — the power law itself implies continued long-run appreciation. Perrenod models the trajectory and oscillations around that trend; Saylor is essentially asserting the long-run destination. You could think of Saylor's thesis as a claim about where the power law asymptotes, while Perrenod's work describes the geometric structure of the path.

The Core Tension

The deeper disagreement is about what drives Bitcoin's value. Saylor's worldview puts institutional adoption, monetary debasement, and macro capital flows at the center. Perrenod's analysis says those forces are largely noise around a self-organizing dynamic that doesn't need them to explain most of the variance. That's a genuinely meaningful intellectual disagreement about Bitcoin's nature — is it primarily a macro asset, or a complex endogenous system that macro forces merely modulate?

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@TheBTCTherapist 100%

[Kevin Debbs @debbs_kevin]

@WHLeavitt @LeaderJohnThune all of the above ! Thune must step down ASAP🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸