God | Husband & Father | ₿itcoin | Director Product @ Strive | Eager to help build products that solve real-world problems
Rocklin, CA
- Tweets 4,127
- Following 511
- Followers 461
- Likes 33,253
Pinned Tweet
Think you’re building wealth with stocks, real estate, or other “appreciating assets”?
Hate to break it to you… you’re just trying not to drown in a pool the government keeps peeing in.
Let’s talk inflation, taxation, and why Bitcoin matters 🧵👇
2
13
898
$SATA and $STRC create different risk profiles from Bitcoin-backed balance sheets.
@ColeMacro rejects the paper-gold comparison he attributes to Gromen. He says preferred holders get income and a senior position, while common shareholders take more risk for more potential upside.
"It's not a paper claim on $BTC. It's just structured products."
2
6
45
2,866
Bitcoin amplification is being discussed a lot right now, but I think there’s an important distinction getting lost.
There are two different ways to think about “amplification.”
One measures the size of the preferred claim relative to the Bitcoin treasury.
The other asks a question I think matters more to common shareholders:
How much Bitcoin does each common share effectively control?
Let’s break it down.
1
1
62
"The fastest horse"
This is why I think speed matters.
The winner may not ultimately be the company that starts with the most Bitcoin.
It may be the company that can most efficiently:
Raise capital → acquire BTC → increase BTC/share → attract more capital → repeat
And do it faster than the competition.
That's where I think @Strive has an interesting opportunity.
If Strive can consistently raise capital, deploy it efficiently, maintain strong preferred demand and generate enough trading volume to support that process, it can potentially increase BTC per common share at a faster rate.
That's the “fastest horse” I'm watching.
1
14
So when you see someone say:
“Strive has 53.2% amplification”
I wouldn't argue with the definition.
I'd simply ask:
“What are we actually trying to measure?”
Preferred capital ÷ BTC value tells us how large the preferred claim is relative to the Bitcoin treasury.
BTC ÷ common shares tells us how much Bitcoin each common share effectively represents.
The first changes when Bitcoin's price changes.
The second changes when the company's BTC holdings or common share count changes.
And ultimately, for a common shareholder, I think BTC-per-common-share is the number worth watching.
Because that's where the race is:
Who can grow Bitcoin per common share the fastest?
That's the amplification that matters to me. 🟠
16
SacTownHODL ✝️ ₿ ⚡️ retweeted
Strive acquired 2,000 $BTC for $169M at an average cost of $84,422 per bitcoin, bringing total holdings to ₿29,462.
61.5% of capital raised came from SATA, with warrants generating $56.7M.
Today’s 8-K also highlights key metrics and KPIs through 3Q26.
$ASST $SATA
182
357
3,397
291,887
SacTownHODL ✝️ ₿ ⚡️ retweeted
This matrix explains one of the most important concepts in Bitcoin treasury strategy: amplification ratio is what drives total returns. Over 99% of the variation in modeled total returns shown here is driven by amplification ratio. Cost of capital matters far less than investors realize.
Strive’s objective is to outperform Bitcoin by maximizing total returns for common shareholders. Our base case is that Bitcoin compounds at roughly 50% annually through 2030, but the principle applies more broadly. If any Bitcoin bull thesis plays out, building and sustaining a high amplification ratio will be the most important determinant of success. That is why we spent the bear market intentionally building liquidity, earning investor trust in SATA and Strive, deepening our access to capital, and building the foundation required to support a high amplification ratio at scale.
Maintaining amplification as Bitcoin compounds will require increasingly large amounts of capital and sustained investor trust, and will be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. If possible, I would like to bring Strive’s amplification ratio above 60% later this year. If our warrants exercise over the next few weeks, getting there will require elite execution from our team. It becomes even more difficult if Bitcoin rallies further. I believe our team can achieve that goal, and that Strive is uniquely positioned to sustain a high amplification ratio at scale. The math tells you what matters, and our strategy follows the math.
If I were analyzing Strive as a Bitcoin bull seeking to amplify Bitcoin returns, these are the questions I would be asking: What is Strive’s current amplification ratio? What are our goals for amplification? And to achieve those goals, do we have the capital access, liquidity and investor trust required to maintain a high amplification ratio throughout a bull market? There is real alpha in understanding the answers to those questions. Study the matrix carefully.
39
86
606
189,069
Please pray for my mother. A “normal” camera examination Tuesday went wrong, damaged her inside, so she is unconscious and on life support in ICU. I am headed straight to Denmark in few hours ✝️🙏🏻
When more people come together in prayer it is louder in heaven. Thank you for your prayers ❤️✝️🙏🏻
239
17
799
22,314
When should you add Bitcoin amplification?
I backtested it.
Everyone argues about the cost of capital.
The bigger question is where Bitcoin is trading relative to trend when you add amplification.
Here's the math.
Amplification beats holding Bitcoin if, and only if, Bitcoin's forward return beats your cost of capital.
At 50% amplification and a 13% preferred rate, every $1 of common equity controls $2 of Bitcoin. So:
Equity return = BTC return + (BTC return − 13%)
Amplification multiplies one spread: Bitcoin's forward return minus the cost of capital.
So the real question is "what is Bitcoin likely to return from HERE?"
So I tested it.
I took every day from Aug 2017 to Oct 2025 (2,958 days), added 50% amplification at 13%, held for 12 months, and grouped each day by Bitcoin's premium to its 200-week moving average.
Median 12-month return on common equity:
Below the 200WMA: +218% (beat spot 100% of the time)
0–25% premium: +234% (99%)
25–50%: +253% (85%)
50–100%: +151% (83%)
100–150%: −32% (34%)
150–200%: −40% (37%)
Above 200%: −82% (18%)
Same amplification. Same cost. Opposite outcomes.
Below a 100% premium, amplification nearly doubled the spot return. Above it, the loss was two to three times bigger than just holding Bitcoin.
Now the risk side.
How often did the senior capital grow larger than the entire Bitcoin stack at some point during the year?
Below 25% premium: 0%
25–50%: 1%
50–100%: 11%
Above 150%: 58–67%
Today Bitcoin is $84,175. The 200WMA is $65,837.
That's a +28% premium.
So stress it the way a balance sheet should be stressed: below the 200WMA.
Add 50% amplification today, then Bitcoin breaks:
10% below the 200WMA ($59.3K) → 71% amplification
20% below ($52.7K) → 80%
30% below ($46.1K) → 91%
The deepest close below the 200WMA in this data was −34% (Nov 2022).
Even a 2022-style break keeps senior claims under the Bitcoin. Barely.
And the 200WMA usually keeps rising through bear markets, so stressing against today's level is conservative.
Run the same stress from a 100% premium and a 10% break below trend puts amplification at 111%. Common NAV is gone.
The formula:
Stressed amplification = amplification × (1 + premium) ÷ (1 − break below trend)
At 50% amplification, the breakeven premium is +80% for a 10% break, +60% for a 20% break and +40% for a 30% break.
And there is an honest counterexample.
There were days in May–June 2022 at a ~40% premium.
Amplification peaked right around 100% at the FTX low, and common equity was down ~40% a year later versus ~15% for spot.
That's exactly why the stress test has to go below the 200WMA, not just to it.
So here's the risk calculus.
Amplification isn't a fixed setting. It's a position size on Bitcoin's forward CAGR.
Near trend, the expected spread is wide and the stress cushion is thick. Lean in.
Far above trend, the spread turns negative, and an ordinary pullback to trend pushes senior claims past the stack. Lean out.
Add amplification near the 200WMA.
Reduce it near the peaks.
Stress test both against a break below trend.
Cost of capital is the toll. The premium to trend tells you whether the road ahead is uphill or downhill:
15
10
122
8,371
More great insight from the ₿ 🧙🏻
@AdamBLiv
An easy way to think of it is like a volume knob:
Bitcoin depressed/near trend
- Turn amplification up
Bitcoin moderately above trend
- Moderate amplification
Bitcoin extremely above trend
- Turn amplification down
Then stress the balance sheet by asking:
What happens if Bitcoin doesn't just return to the 200WMA, but goes 10%, 20%, or 30% below it?
When should you add Bitcoin amplification?
I backtested it.
Everyone argues about the cost of capital.
The bigger question is where Bitcoin is trading relative to trend when you add amplification.
Here's the math.
Amplification beats holding Bitcoin if, and only if, Bitcoin's forward return beats your cost of capital.
At 50% amplification and a 13% preferred rate, every $1 of common equity controls $2 of Bitcoin. So:
Equity return = BTC return + (BTC return − 13%)
Amplification multiplies one spread: Bitcoin's forward return minus the cost of capital.
So the real question is "what is Bitcoin likely to return from HERE?"
So I tested it.
I took every day from Aug 2017 to Oct 2025 (2,958 days), added 50% amplification at 13%, held for 12 months, and grouped each day by Bitcoin's premium to its 200-week moving average.
Median 12-month return on common equity:
Below the 200WMA: +218% (beat spot 100% of the time)
0–25% premium: +234% (99%)
25–50%: +253% (85%)
50–100%: +151% (83%)
100–150%: −32% (34%)
150–200%: −40% (37%)
Above 200%: −82% (18%)
Same amplification. Same cost. Opposite outcomes.
Below a 100% premium, amplification nearly doubled the spot return. Above it, the loss was two to three times bigger than just holding Bitcoin.
Now the risk side.
How often did the senior capital grow larger than the entire Bitcoin stack at some point during the year?
Below 25% premium: 0%
25–50%: 1%
50–100%: 11%
Above 150%: 58–67%
Today Bitcoin is $84,175. The 200WMA is $65,837.
That's a +28% premium.
So stress it the way a balance sheet should be stressed: below the 200WMA.
Add 50% amplification today, then Bitcoin breaks:
10% below the 200WMA ($59.3K) → 71% amplification
20% below ($52.7K) → 80%
30% below ($46.1K) → 91%
The deepest close below the 200WMA in this data was −34% (Nov 2022).
Even a 2022-style break keeps senior claims under the Bitcoin. Barely.
And the 200WMA usually keeps rising through bear markets, so stressing against today's level is conservative.
Run the same stress from a 100% premium and a 10% break below trend puts amplification at 111%. Common NAV is gone.
The formula:
Stressed amplification = amplification × (1 + premium) ÷ (1 − break below trend)
At 50% amplification, the breakeven premium is +80% for a 10% break, +60% for a 20% break and +40% for a 30% break.
And there is an honest counterexample.
There were days in May–June 2022 at a ~40% premium.
Amplification peaked right around 100% at the FTX low, and common equity was down ~40% a year later versus ~15% for spot.
That's exactly why the stress test has to go below the 200WMA, not just to it.
So here's the risk calculus.
Amplification isn't a fixed setting. It's a position size on Bitcoin's forward CAGR.
Near trend, the expected spread is wide and the stress cushion is thick. Lean in.
Far above trend, the spread turns negative, and an ordinary pullback to trend pushes senior claims past the stack. Lean out.
Add amplification near the 200WMA.
Reduce it near the peaks.
Stress test both against a break below trend.
Cost of capital is the toll. The premium to trend tells you whether the road ahead is uphill or downhill:
2
61