When $STRC fully activates, it will buy in a day what $SATA purchases in a week, and in a week what SATA buys in a month. Both products will be successful. Both can find product-market fit. But critical mass is what matters. What we are watching is the birth of Bitcoin’s financial gravity, expressed through structured products that act as tentacles reaching deep into TradFi. Once enough capital, liquidity, and collateral accumulate around that structure, the gravity starts pulling capital toward Bitcoin rather than merely pushing Bitcoin into the existing financial system.

Also, throughout the bull, many of his investors will take profits along the way into STRC & he’ll continue to aggressively stack his reserves for the next 2030 bear likely over 1M by then maybe even before the 1 millionth block lol

Cycle theorists are just traders

Or, it’s people fascinated with studying natural patterns.

I don’t disagree that natural patterns matter. I’m questioning whether the underlying system generating the pattern is changing. That’s actually what makes Scale interesting. Power laws and cycles describe relationships within systems. But we’re potentially entering two simultaneous paradigm shifts: AI is changing the economics of intelligence, labor and production, while Bitcoin is changing the architecture of money, scarcity and potentially collateral. Those aren’t small variables inside the existing system. They may change the system itself. So the question isn’t whether historical Bitcoin cycles were real. They clearly were. The question is whether you can extrapolate those same patterns through a structural regime change. Patterns persist until the conditions producing them change. I’m studying the transition. While you are studying the pattern. I’m studying the mechanism generating the pattern and asking whether that mechanism is changing.