The Bitcoin Wizard | Vice President, Investments @Strive Christ. Family. Bitcoin. In that order.

I’m absolutely elated to announce that I have joined Strive as Vice President, Investments. As you can probably tell, I’ve been obsessed with Bitcoin, capital markets, and the extraordinary financial architecture emerging at the intersection of the two. Now I get to work on that frontier every day. Strive is building alongside one of the most consequential transformations happening in modern finance. Bitcoin becoming productive collateral for an entirely new generation of capital markets instruments, corporate finance, and digital credit. The opportunity to help think through these markets, communicate them, and contribute to what comes next is something I could not be more excited about. Even better, I get to do it alongside an incredible team of talented, ambitious people who are genuinely pushing the frontier forward. I also understand the responsibility that comes with the role. I intend to work relentlessly on behalf of Strive’s shareholders and do everything I can to contribute to the long-term value we are building for them. I’m deeply grateful for the opportunity. Time to build.
Strive had gone far too long without hiring a podcaster. As our Bitcoin holdings have grown exponentially through accretive capital formation, our podcasters-per-share metric was beginning to move in the wrong direction. Several astute investors have been calling on us to defend our lead in this critical metric, and I agree with them: now is the time to lean in. Today, I’m excited to announce that @AdamBLiv has joined @Strive. Adam represents true excellence as a podcaster, but the reason for this hire is rooted in one of Strive’s foundational principles: meritocracy. Strive has been publicly opposed to DEI from the beginning, but we have also consistently opposed credentialism. Rejecting credentialism has been one of the main reasons we have been able to hire with excellence throughout Strive’s Bitcoin journey. Credentialism causes institutions to outsource their judgment to resumes, pedigrees, titles, and conventional career paths. It puts too much weight on what someone has previously been permitted to do and not enough on the agency, principles, original thinking, work ethic, and demonstrated ability of the person in front of you. At Strive, we give people significant responsibility because of how they think and what they have demonstrated they can do. The results speak for themselves. Our board and management team are young by public-company standards because we select for deep, principled belief in Bitcoin and demonstrated track records, not age, pedigree, or the number of boards someone has served on or executive positions they have already held. When True North was getting started, I publicly supported the “kid analysts” there because they represented the same principle. They were not waiting for an institution to give them permission or a title. They were doing the work, publishing thinking that was better than both traditional media and institutional investment analysis at the time, and allowing the public to judge the quality of it. Adam is an exceptionally clear example of that principle. Before becoming a Bitcoin analyst and creator, his last full-time role was as a manager at @Target. A credentialist sees a former Target manager and asks why he should hold an important analytical role at a public financial company. A meritocrat studies Adam’s body of work and asks how quickly he can start. Adam has consistently published deeply researched, first-principles analysis. He works extraordinarily hard, communicates complex ideas clearly, and has the courage to put contrarian views into the public record where everyone can evaluate them. It also does not hurt that he is freaking hilarious. Nowhere has that been clearer than in his work on Strive. When Strive was at its weakest point in terms of public perception, Adam was buying and explaining why. What impressed me was not simply that he was bullish. It was that he independently arrived at his view through rigorous, first-principles work when sentiment was terrible and almost nobody else saw what he saw. Without any affiliation with Strive or access to internal information, his work was remarkably consistent with what we were seeing from the inside and, at times, even pushed our own analysis a step further. His analysis of Strive’s future growth has been among the most holistic I have seen anywhere, including internally. Most importantly, he was right. There was real value in having such a credible and completely independent voice analyzing Strive. But Strive has too many opportunities, too much complexity, and too much work ahead of us not to bring the best talent we can find in-house. I view Adam as a potential generational talent in financial analysis. The idea that someone could go from being a manager at Target to helping the most ambitious public company in capital markets navigate an extraordinarily complex competitive landscape may seem absurd to a credentialist. To me, it is meritocracy working exactly as intended. Adam will join Strive as Vice President of Investments, working within our investment function and reporting to our Chief Investment Officer, @Werkman. He will build a systematic research function around the most important companies across the pure-play Bitcoin landscape. He will read every consequential filing, analyze capital structures and capital-markets decisions, and continuously evaluate positioning, valuation, growth rates, competitive dynamics, risks, and forward trajectories. Adam will apply an even deeper level of that same rigor to Strive, now with full access to our internal data and dashboards. His work will help us pressure-test our assumptions, identify opportunities earlier, and make better long-term decisions for our shareholders. He was able to see Strive with extraordinary clarity from the outside. Imagine what he will be able to do from the inside. We also intend for Adam to continue publishing through his existing channel under the @TNorth brand, now with the appropriate disclosures and responsibilities that come with working for a public company. His ability to research deeply and communicate complex ideas in an entertaining way is part of what makes him special, and we want him to keep doing it. The bad news for public markets is that what I consider the best source of independent Strive analysis will no longer be independent. The good news for Strive shareholders is that we are bringing that mind in-house and putting it to work for them. Adam did not earn this opportunity despite lacking a conventional Wall Street resume. He earned it because his public body of work is better evidence of his ability than any conventional résumé could be. Credentialism would have missed Adam. Meritocracy brought him to Strive. Welcome to Strive, Adam. $ASST $SATA
628
207
4,260
210,086
$SATA traded 486.6K shares today, representing roughly $48.7M of dollar volume - about 54% above its 315.8K average volume. Closed above par at $100.01.
11
18
171
5,526
Jeff is posing a very interesting question about what the market is signaling when you look at Bitcoin and the rising 30Y yield. And his framing gets even stranger when you separate the trend of what is happening from the shock. June 30th was the Bitcoin low, and since then: 30Y Yield: +49 bps BTC: +44.2% Gold: +6.7% QQQ: +0.7% Go back to 2020 and look across every 60-trading-day window since 2020 where long yields rose. Bitcoin's outperformance vs. QQQ ranks in the 81st percentile. The weird part is Bitcoins 60-day correlation to DAILY 30Y yield changes is still -0.26... which is in roughly the 1ST PERCENTILE since 2020. So what is the market saying? I think the regime pushing the cost of 30-year dollar duration higher is simultaneously pushing monetary assets higher. And BTC's 120D correlation with gold being +0.50, in the 99th percentile since 2020 seems to help. Gold is hearing the same monetary signal from the bond market, but Bitcoin is just expressing it with an absolute flamethrower. Essentially, the bond market is now asking for 5.4% to hold dollars for 30 years. Bitcoin, rightfully so, is asking why you would hold them for 30 minutes.
negative rho bitcoin is when bitcoin is "priced in dollars" positive rho bitcoin is when bitcoin is "priced against dollars" what do you think the market is signaling, and which scenario do you think is more violent?
3
3
73
8,622
Bitcoin is the new foundational monetary architecture of civilization. We are moving from trust-based collateral to truth-based collateral. The implications are staggering. The genie is out of the bottle, and it will not be put back in. bitcoin:native
9
13
115
4,907
SATA became the first U.S.-listed security to pay dividends every business day on June 16. Since then, $SATA notional is up 49%, from $751M to $1.12B. $335M of that came in just the last five weeks, since mid-August. 5.6x since the November IPO:
11
20
237
10,147
Trading in $ASST + $SATA per Bitcoin Strive holds is up 6x since mid-August. Weekly avg per BTC: ASST: $1.6K → $11.2K (7x) SATA: $0.6K → $2.1K (4x) And that's with the stack growing ~30% (20.2K → 26.35K BTC).
10
12
149
6,555
Adam Livingston retweeted
Bitcoin’s recent drawdown felt significant, but when looking at Bitcoin's history, it has been relatively mild. At its recent low, Bitcoin was ~53% below its all-time high. Previous cycle drawdowns reached: 2011: -93% 2015: -86% 2018: -84% 2022: -77% Volatility is not new to Bitcoin. What’s more notable is that, nearly a year after the 2025 high, this cycle’s drawdown has remained materially shallower than prior major cycles. Bitcoin has always tested conviction through volatility. So far, this cycle has required a lot less of it.
20
11
151
16,396
Bitcoin's 3M MVRV momentum just flipped back positive (+7.3%) after sitting below zero all summer. 18 prior flips since 2012. Median return after, applied to today's $84.4K: 1M: +14% → ~$96.6K 3M: +14% → ~$96.6K 6M: +46% → ~$123K 1Y: +111% → ~$178K Any day at +5–10% momentum returned a +59% median over 1Y (~$134K), below the all-days baseline. 1Y win rate after flips: 83%. But 2 of the 3 misses (2021, 2025) are recent. Small sample. Not financial advice. But I'm bullish on Bitcoin here :)
4
8
96
6,994
Adam Livingston retweeted
Say NO to leaky capital
1
11
68
9,560
BITCOIN IS THE APEX CAPITAL - CORPORATIONS NEED IT There is no better asset than Bitcoin. For some reason, most people don't bat an eye at share buybacks. Unfortunately, share buybacks are capital destruction. This case study makes the point for Bitcoin on a balance sheet:
10
18
193
9,566
Please like this video and subscribe to my channel to support my mission of spreading the ORANGE GOSPEL of BITCOIN to the masses! piped.video/-wQS7w-BQsA
2
20
4,242
The Mag 7 vs. Bitcoin Mag 7 profits look a lot less heroic when you stop measuring them in melting ice cubes. I converted quarterly operating income for the Mag 7 into BTC using each company’s fiscal period-end Bitcoin close. From each company’s first available 2020 quarter to its latest available quarter in this dataset: NVIDIA: +746.8% Amazon: -24.4% Alphabet: -43.9% Meta: -65.0% Microsoft: -65.6% Apple: -71.1% Tesla: -84.6% Only one company is up in Bitcoin terms: NVIDIA. In dollar terms, every Mag 7 company grew operating income over the window. In Bitcoin terms, 6 of 7 still finished lower. Median BTC-denominated change: -65.0%.
8
8
103
7,389
The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield is at its highest level since June 14, 2007 - more than 19 years ago. The bondfire continues. Got Bitcoin?
22
30
362
10,707
Just filmed a video on the utility of Bitcoin on balance sheets. In the intro, I make a reference to They Live and the sunglasses. After filming, I log on here to find this. Unbelievable synchronicity. The simulation is getting crazy.
Out of ₿ubblegum.
18
14
253
16,741
Some very interesting data on Bitcoin/Gold/QQQ: Bitcoin and gold have become the same trade for now. The 90-day correlation between their daily returns just hit a record 0.58 and the 6-year median is only 0.12. Look at the last year: → BTC peaked Oct '25. Gold peaked Jan '26. → Both crashed (BTC -53%, gold -28%) → Both bottomed this summer → Both are still 20-30% below their highs → Both are flat in 2026 Meanwhile the Nasdaq-100 just made an all-time high and is up 20% YTD. The market isn't pricing "digital gold vs tech" anymore. It's two buckets: AI/earnings, and the hard-asset/debasement trade. Bitcoin picked its bucket. Gold is even trading like crypto some month... its volatility hit 55% in March. The only precedent: October 2020 (0.54). 6 months later BTC was up 5x. Gold was down 10%. The glue didn't hold then. Watch which one breaks first:
17
6
93
6,540
Digital Credit vs T-Bills How much mark-to-market uncertainty should an investor rationally accept to capture materially more cash yield - and what happens when that income compounds for a decade? Start with a five-year checkpoint. I ran 500,000 simulated paths per model, starting with $100,000 in each and reinvesting the income. For Digital Credit, I assumed a 13% annual cash distribution, 6% annualized price volatility, and price mean reversion toward $100. The main scenario assumes every scheduled distribution is paid. These are hypothetical inputs, not measured characteristics of a particular security. For T-bills, I modeled rolling three-month Treasuries with a 4% starting yield and a 3.5% long-run mean. Rates fluctuate, bills are marked daily, and principal plus interest is reinvested at maturity. The model does not assume the starting income rate lasts forever - or that rate volatility equals investment-return volatility. After five years: Digital Credit: $190,965 median ending wealth. +91.0%. T-bills: $119,876 median ending wealth. +19.9%. A $71,090 difference between the median balances, on the same $100,000 starting investment. The middle 90% of simulated ending values ran from $179,083 to $203,690 for Digital Credit, versus $115,488 to $124,441 for T-bills. Those are conditional model ranges, not guaranteed floors or ceilings. The price of the extra income showed up along the way: median maximum drawdown was 5.03% for Digital Credit versus roughly 0.03% for T-bills, measured on daily total portfolio value. But a smooth price model can make a credit instrument look safer than it really is. Six percent volatility does not impose a six percent limit on losses. So I added the dashed orange stress line: at year three, recover only 50% of the credit position’s then-current market value, stop all subsequent credit distributions, and roll the recovery into T-bills. That separate scenario ended with median wealth of $79,078. A 20.9% loss on the original investment. I am not assigning that event a probability. It is a stress test showing how permanent impairment can overwhelm years of income. The base-case income gap is substantial. Whether an investor can capture it depends on payment continuity, reinvestment opportunities, and the balance sheet supporting the instrument - not the smoothness of the chart alone. A Monte Carlo can calculate the consequences of your assumptions. It cannot underwrite the issuer for you. Hypothetical five-year model; no specific security modeled:
9
7
82
6,738
Good morning to everyone except the people who begged for cheaper Bitcoin and are now terrified because Bitcoin got cheaper.
32
22
644
14,051
If you believe Bitcoin appreciates over time, when should a treasury company deliberately increase BTC sensitivity using variable-cost perpetual capital? Bitcoin treasury companies should underwrite amplification like a spread trade... look at the cost of capital against the expected return on the Bitcoin it buys. So I built a hypothetical Bitcoin treasury and ran four full cycles since 2015. Each one raises 50% of NAV in a 10% perpetual preferred, with every dividend paid by selling BTC. Identical start dates. The only variable is how far above the 200-week moving average Bitcoin traded when the preferred capital went in. Issued at the 200WMA: common ended a median 39% richer than the unamplified twin four years later. Issued at +100%: 26% richer. Every cycle slopes down. The 2022 cycle, the one where treasury companies actually existed, is the one that bites. Amplify at the 200WMA and common gained 22%. Amplify at +100% and common lost 8% against simply holding. Same security, same coupon, same size, and the only thing that changed was the price paid. Across the grid, moving entry from the 200WMA to +80% cost about twice as much as moving the coupon from 8% to 16%. Bitcoin sits 29% above its 200WMA today. Amplification is a purchase. Check the price tag:
9
13
130
9,881
Yet another bullish Bitcoin signal. But first you must understand that Bitcoin volatility isn't risk, kids. It's a state variable. I pulled every daily Bitcoin observation since late 2015 and split 90-day realized volatility by whether BTC sat above or below its 200-day moving average. When volatility was low, Bitcoin did well in both trend regimes. Median 1-year return: +133% above the 200DMA, +121% below it. When volatility was high, trend decided everything. Above the 200DMA: +78%. Below the 200DMA: −36%. Same energy. Opposite outcomes. High volatility above trend has looked like expansion. High volatility below trend has looked like a crime scene. Bitcoin today: Price: $84,378 200DMA: $70,759 (+19.2%) 90-day realized vol: 39.2%, the 13th percentile of its history. Price tells you direction. Volatility tells you energy. Right now Bitcoin is quiet, above trend, and sitting in the best-performing cell on the board:
21
26
311
12,577
Awesome convo with @PunterJeff and @IIICapital regarding Bitcoin as digital capital. Check it out:
The Berkshires of Bitcoin | True North Podcast | Ep. 80 Featuring @PunterJeff, @IIICapital, and @AdamBLiv. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 03:27 Episode Overview: Market close, balance sheets, Berkshire, derivatives 05:47 Meet the Crew: Adam Livingston joins Strive 11:29 Strategy $MSTR Balance Sheet: $BTC holdings, cash, converts, $STRC buybacks 15:23 Strive Balance Sheet: $ASST $SATA, dividend coverage, warrants, amplification 26:13 Risk Management and Volatility: Four-year cycle, drawdowns, credit flows 29:09 Traditional Credit vs. Digital Credit: Probability of outcomes, tail risk 40:35 Berkshire Hathaway Parallels: Capital, insurance float, risk taking 51:39 Strategy vs. Berkshire: Float growth, digital credit engine 58:55 Derivatives Market: ASST warrants, options open interest 1:04:26 MSTR and $IBIT Options: Open interest, hedging, liquidity 1:08:02 STRC Options Market: Puts, strikes, yield enhancement 1:15:01 Final Thoughts
10
14
142
13,617