$MSTR has already won. And they know it. Anyone hating on these AI ads doesn’t fully understand what’s happening.

You can buy $STRC and collect 12% daily. You can buy $SATA and collect 13% daily. Both backed by Bitcoin, great leadership and responsible leverage. The market will choose the better product. And 13% is objectively better. $MSTR’s stack is bigger, but that should make no difference if they are both using the same asset and leverage.

Have fun playing with your dollars.

Eventually, people will stop trading their time for dollars. This is a fact. Even if you don’t think Bitcoin is the answer, there’s no way you can think dollars will last forever. Study and plan accordingly.

Sub $80k Bitcoin is gone forever. Again.

You know, @ColeMacro , just when I think you couldn't possibly be any better of a CEO, you go and do something like this...

PSA: Go buy $10 of Bitcoin on Cash App and they give you $20 of Bitcoin. 🔥

$MSTR bears and @saylor

Lads, I’m not able to remain steady.

How do you factor in convexity to the fair value mNAV calculation? At a theoretical 100% amplification ratio (i.e. $1b of BTC, $1b notional perpetual prefs), residual BTC NAV less senior claims would be $0. Yet the market cap wouldn’t trade at zero. Merton model: equity is a call option on the assets, struck at the senior claims. These perp prefs have no maturity, and no put. Equity = perpetual ATM call option on levered BTC. At one point in 2022, MSTR’s bitcoin was worth less than its debt. Residual equity negative. Market cap traded far above that, obviously. Why? Convexity. Go check the IBIT options chain for 2028 leaps. Theoretical fair value of equity is greater than its residual value because of the embedded convexity. You should talk to a vol arb fund, or a credit desk pricing capital structures off Merton. It would broaden your understanding of the capital structure you are attempting to analyze.

Took profits from $STRC ($84 cost basis) today and bought more $ASST First time averaging up on something in a long time. Finally in profit on $ASST and $MSTR.

Another very long macro post, but I don't write these often. We are watching the most interesting macro backdrop of the last several decades take shape in real time. One important piece of the long-term dollar view I wrote about last week is what happens at the long end of the Treasury market. Stan Druckenmiller published an excellent piece in the WSJ last night titled "Let the Bond Market Speak". The U.S. fiscal trajectory is unsustainable, running deficits near 6% of GDP at full employment with inflation still above target is reckless, the entitlement trajectory is generational theft, and attempting to suppress long-term Treasury yields does nothing to fix the underlying fiscal problem. Druckenmiller's argument is that suppressing yields delays the fiscal reckoning that higher rates would otherwise impose on Washington. He is right about the economic logic, but I am not even sure our expectations for what ultimately happens are different. By the mid-2010s, I had come to the conclusion that there was never going to be a realistic path where sustained pressure from the bond market produced the kind of fiscal conservatism necessary to solve this problem. That realization was a major part of why I became a Bitcoiner in the first place, and Druckenmiller's own investments in Bitcoin and other hard assets suggest to me that he has come to the same underlying conclusion. I read his piece less as a prediction of what Washington will actually do and more as a warning about what it should do before it is too late. I view it as a Hail Mary from one of the greatest macro investors of all time telling policymakers to let the market impose the discipline that the political system has been incapable of imposing on itself. I hope they listen, but unfortunately I know they won't. Druckenmiller makes the political constraint explicit himself when he writes that neither party will run on entitlement reform. That is precisely the problem. The fiscal solution that works mathematically is not a solution that wins elections, and the people administering Treasury and other parts of the government are appointed officials operating within mandates ultimately created by elected politicians and the voters who put them there. That distinction matters because the appointed officials can be extraordinarily intelligent, deeply patriotic and genuinely committed to making the country stronger while still being constrained by a political system with completely different incentives. Scott Bessent obviously understands the fiscal problem, and I believe he and Druckenmiller agree on the underlying diagnosis. But Bessent is running Treasury inside a political system whose mandate is set by elected officials, not by the optimal answer on a macroeconomic spreadsheet. We just saw a version of this with DOGE. Elon Musk, the most capable private-sector operator of our generation, entered government with an explicit mandate to dramatically reduce spending. The institutional and political forces were stronger, DOGE did not change the fiscal trajectory, and the deficit continued moving in the wrong direction. That is not an indictment of the intelligence or intentions of the people involved. It is evidence that the constraint is structural, and that is why we have to invest in the world that exists rather than the world we wish existed. As the fiscal arithmetic continues to deteriorate and policymakers refuse to allow long-term interest rates to fully reflect it, the adjustment will not disappear. It will be expressed somewhere else, and the dollar will be the release valve. The Treasury market is already far from an untouched free market. The Federal Reserve owns approximately $1.6 trillion of Treasuries with more than ten years remaining, roughly 28% of the entire >10-year maturity bucket. Treasury has now also doubled its planned purchases of 10-to-30-year securities after long-term yields pushed toward levels not seen in nearly two decades, while making clear that the size of those operations can increase materially further. Those actions are important less because of their current size than because of what they reveal about the government's reaction function. Treasury has now told the market that it is sensitive to the level of long-term yields before committing enough capital to actually change their trajectory, and the market has already largely looked through the initial announcement. Druckenmiller is right that once the market believes Treasury is defending a price, every further increase in yields becomes another test of how much policymakers are actually willing to do. I think Treasury will ultimately regret going this small this early. By showing its sensitivity without overwhelming the market, it has effectively invited the market to find out where the real line is. My expectation is that the current intervention will not be enough, long-term yields will continue higher, and the bond market will eventually force Washington to prove that it is serious. I believe it will prove to be serious when tested. The signaling around larger Treasury purchases and the potential use of the TGA matters, but signaling will not be enough if the long end keeps selling off. At some point the market will force Treasury to move from telling investors what it could do to actually deploying capital with enough size to change the outcome. The resistance zone on the long-term 10-year Treasury chart attached here is one I have been watching for several years. The 5.25% to 5.85% area has long stood out to me as the place where this secular move higher in rates would face its most important test, and this is not a zone I identified because of anything that happened over the last week. It came out of a fundamental view about the U.S. debt trajectory, the natural direction of long-term yields as the fiscal problem worsened, and the level at which Treasury and/or the Fed would be forced to respond. The chart matters, but this has never been about drawing squiggles and assuming price will reverse at a line. The resistance zone mattered because I believed the underlying fiscal mechanics would eventually push yields into it while the political and financial consequences of allowing yields to move materially beyond it would become increasingly intolerable. If the 10-year moves into the 5.25% to 5.85% range, the headlines will write themselves. Ten-year Treasury yields would be trading at levels not seen since around 2007, except this time the United States would be arriving there with a dramatically larger debt burden and a vastly more difficult fiscal position. Narrative follows price, and a large enough decline in Treasury prices will quickly become a story about the Treasury market failing, government financing becoming unstable and the world's most important bond market entering a crisis. That narrative itself will increase the political pressure to act. Mortgage rates, government interest expense, equity valuations and broader financial conditions would all be under substantially greater pressure, while every move higher in yields would make the fiscal arithmetic worse. Treasury is already showing its sensitivity before the market has even reached the zone I have been watching. If yields ultimately move into that area, I expect Treasury and/or the Fed to blink substantially. The response could include much larger Treasury buybacks, heavier reliance on bills, actual deployment of the TGA, renewed Fed balance-sheet expansion, some form of explicit or implicit yield management, or a combination of those tools. I would not be surprised if we ultimately see intervention in the Treasury market on a scale that looks nothing like what has been announced so far. The path into that moment could create significant stress across financial markets. Higher long-term yields would put additional pressure on equity valuations at exactly the same time that AI is creating a growing question around the durability of many corporate moats, which could make the environment particularly difficult for traditional equities and other risk assets. Bitcoin is more interesting because the endgame is becoming increasingly obvious. I think it is roughly a coin flip whether Bitcoin experiences meaningful weakness during the final move higher in yields or simply continues grinding higher while other risk assets struggle. If we are fortunate enough to get a meaningful Bitcoin selloff during that period, I would view it as a potentially once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to increase exposure before policymakers are ultimately forced to respond with size. But I would not build a portfolio around the hope that opportunity appears. The macro backdrop is already bullish enough that, in my view, the time to be positioned is now if you are not already positioned. A dip would be an extraordinary gift, but the market may simply look through the short-term stress because the eventual policy response is becoming increasingly obvious. From a traditional fixed-income mandate, the 5.25% to 5.85% zone has always looked interesting to me as an area where I would want to get very long duration. If Treasury and/or the Fed respond the way I expect, long-term Treasury bonds could perform extremely well as policymakers push yields back down. But at Strive we do not run a fixed-income mandate. We run a Bitcoin mandate, and this is the kind of setup that calls for responsibly maximizing Bitcoin amplification. Treasuries would be a beneficiary of the intervention, but I want to be long risk, long scarcity and, above all, long the fastest horse. Bitcoin is the fastest horse, and the ability for Strive to amplify Bitcoin into this kind of macro environment is far more attractive to us than owning an asset whose yield policymakers are explicitly trying to suppress. That brings this directly back to the dollar thesis I wrote about last week. Druckenmiller is right that governments defending prices against fundamentals ultimately lose, but that does not mean they cannot suppress the specific price they are targeting for a meaningful period of time. If Washington refuses to meaningfully reduce spending, then suppressing long-term yields and allowing the dollar to weaken may actually be the least damaging of the politically available alternatives. The correct solution is obviously fiscal conservatism. But because that solution is politically unavailable, allowing an uncontrolled rise in long-term yields against today's debt burden risks creating a much more immediate Treasury-market crisis. Financial repression and a weaker dollar are deeply imperfect outcomes, but they are preferable to simply allowing the financing structure of the U.S. government to break in real time. That is why the dollar becomes the release valve. Treasury and the Fed can suppress long-term yields, but they cannot make the underlying fiscal imbalance disappear. The cost gets transferred somewhere else, and a weaker currency is the most politically tolerable place for a meaningful portion of that adjustment to occur. This is also why I don't view a DXY move into the high-60s or low-70s as some extreme end-state for the dollar. It would take the dollar to the weakest levels we have experienced in the modern era, but not by an historically extraordinary margin. Bitcoin has repeatedly benefited from weakening-dollar environments throughout its history, but it has never existed through a secular move in the dollar to these kinds of lows. Bitcoin was created after the 2008 dollar low and has spent its entire history with the dollar either recovering from those lows or operating materially above them. A secular move to new lows in the dollar would therefore represent something genuinely new for Bitcoin, and this Treasury dynamic adds another fundamental layer to the framework I have been writing about. Dollar debasement increases the pool of capital seeking scarcity. Bitcoin's continued monetization allows it to capture a growing share of that expanding pool. AI abundance simultaneously increases the uncertainty around the long-term value of traditional corporate moats, strengthening the relative appeal of an asset whose scarcity cannot be competed away. The explosive scenario is when these forces begin aligning at the same time: a growing pool of global capital seeking scarcity, Bitcoin capturing a growing share of that pool as it continues to outperform other scarce monetary assets, and Strive amplifying Bitcoin on top of both. Those are not independent tailwinds. They compound. That is the grand slam scenario I continue to see forming. The dollar declines, policymakers increasingly suppress the long end of the Treasury market, AI continues to debase traditional corporate scarcity, Bitcoin reasserts itself as the fastest horse among scarce monetary assets, and Strive is positioned to maximally amplify Bitcoin through that environment. If the bond market gives us a temporary Bitcoin selloff on the way there, I want to buy it aggressively. If Bitcoin sees through the endgame and never gives us the dip, I want to already be positioned. Druckenmiller ends his piece by urging Washington to let the bond market speak. I agree with the warning and share his frustration with the generational consequences of refusing to address the underlying problem. The bond market is going to have to speak much louder before policymakers respond with the size ultimately required, and when it does, they are far more likely to suppress the message than undertake the fiscal restructuring necessary to eliminate it. The path I have been watching for years is increasingly coming into view: the 10-year moves into that 5.25% to 5.85% resistance zone, the Treasury-market narrative turns into a crisis narrative, Washington is forced to respond with real size, and the secular dollar decline accelerates as pressure that would otherwise have been expressed through long-term yields is redirected elsewhere. TLDR: YOU ARE NOT BULLISH ENOUGH^3

Bitcoin priced in gold is reinforcing my view that the next Bitcoin cycle will be the strongest we have ever seen. The dollar thesis I wrote about below and the growing hunt for scarcity in an AI-driven world of abundance both point toward a powerful structural tailwind for scarce assets. The BTC/gold ratio adds another important signal: within that expanding scarcity trade, Bitcoin may be beginning to reassert its relative leadership and reclaim the title of fastest horse. The case starts with two structural forces driving more capital toward scarcity. The first is the dollar. As I wrote earlier this week in the post below, I believe the dollar is likely entering a secular leg lower, with the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) showing the long-term structure behind that view. Bitcoin has never experienced that macro environment before, and it would create a tailwind unlike anything in its history. The second is the growing hunt for scarcity in an AI-driven world of increasing abundance. With intelligence becoming cheaper and more abundant, many things investors historically valued because they were scarce, including knowledge, software capabilities and many traditional corporate moats, become easier to replicate. Capital will increasingly place a premium on forms of scarcity that cannot be manufactured away, and scarce assets like Bitcoin, gold and silver stand to benefit substantially from that shift. This is also a structural macro force Bitcoin has never had at its back before. Together, those forces will drive substantially more capital toward scarce monetary assets. Gold will benefit. Bitcoin will benefit. My strongly held long-term view remains that Bitcoin will be the fastest horse in the global debasement and scarcity trade, and the BTC/gold ratio is the way to see when that leadership is showing up in the market. If Bitcoin is outperforming gold while capital flowing into both assets is expanding, the opportunity becomes significantly more powerful than either tailwind on its own. Over the last two years, BTC/gold has also been a remarkably strong leading indicator of Bitcoin itself. Bitcoin topped against gold in December 2024, while Bitcoin didn't top against the dollar until October 2025, nearly a year later. Bitcoin kept making new highs in dollar terms, but had already stopped making new highs against gold. For an emerging monetary asset, that matters because bull markets are reinforced by incremental capital, liquidity and the reflexivity that comes from being the asset investors increasingly want to own. In hindsight, BTC/USD was signaling strength while BTC/gold was showing that the underlying bull market was becoming increasingly fragile. Eventually, that fragility showed up in the dollar price too. That helps explain why sentiment became so negative during this bear market despite the drawdown in dollar terms being relatively mild by Bitcoin's historical standards. The bull market that preceded it never delivered the kind of relative leadership Bitcoiners expect. Bitcoin reached new dollar highs while underperforming gold and then rolled into a bear market from that weaker underlying position. A mild nominal drawdown can still feel brutal when it follows a bull market that never delivered on the fastest horse thesis. The bottom has given us a similar signal in reverse. Bitcoin bottomed against gold in February 2026, while Bitcoin didn't bottom against the dollar until July, roughly five months later. That is a major reason I kept discussing BTC/gold during the first half of this year at the True North event during Strategy World, at Bitcoin Prague and at times on The Hurdle Rate. The ratio had called the deterioration well before BTC/USD and was beginning to look like it might be forming a bottom even while Bitcoin remained weak in dollar terms. It was one of the signals I was watching for evidence that the broader Bitcoin bear market might be closer to ending than the dollar chart suggested. There was another important difference from prior Bitcoin bear markets: capital markets remained largely open and broader equity markets remained strong, making new all-time highs. Historically, Bitcoin bear markets have often occurred alongside much weaker conditions across risk assets. This time, the weakness was far more concentrated in Bitcoin and the Bitcoin-related ecosystem, which made the improving BTC/gold signal even more interesting. What makes this week particularly interesting is that Bitcoin has now broken out against both the dollar and gold. The breakout has been explosive. A meaningful retracement from here would not surprise me, but it may not happen at all. If it does, my expectation is that any meaningful dip will be bought aggressively, and my conviction is very strong that the Bitcoin bear market is over. If BTC/gold was again the earlier signal, seeing both relationships now turn higher together gives me more confidence in the next 12 to 18 months and in the much larger opportunity that could unfold over the years ahead. A weaker dollar alongside continued monetary debasement, combined with the growing hunt for durable scarcity in an AI-driven world of abundance, will create an extraordinarily favorable backdrop for scarce assets. Relative performance within that trade will help determine where incremental capital and liquidity flow. When Bitcoin is the fastest horse, it will attract a disproportionate share of that capital. Stronger relative performance will deepen liquidity, greater liquidity creates more optionality, and that optionality will attract still more capital. If these structural forces expand the overall scarcity trade while Bitcoin simultaneously reasserts leadership against gold, Bitcoin will likely be capturing a growing share of a growing pool of capital. That setup has me more bullish on Bitcoin today than I have ever been. Gold has thousands of years of monetary history behind it, while Bitcoin combines absolute scarcity with global liquidity, portability and a monetary network capable of moving and settling value anywhere in the world, 24 hours a day. The combination of a secular dollar decline, an AI-driven hunt for durable scarcity and Bitcoin reasserting relative leadership would create a setup Bitcoin has simply never had before. This framework has heavily influenced how we built Strive. When we think about risk, we do not only think about surviving a severe Bitcoin drawdown. With an emerging asset that has the upside potential we believe Bitcoin has, we think the bigger risk is being too conservative: either not being bullish enough or being bullish but structuring the company in a way that prevents the common equity from maximally participating when the upside scenario arrives. That is why we have been staunchly opposed to the idea that acquiring, investing heavily in or primarily focusing on building cash-flowing businesses is the optimal way to maximize total returns relative to Bitcoin itself. If your underwriting says Bitcoin will appreciate substantially, waiting for future cash flows to buy Bitcoin means buying less Bitcoin at higher prices. A cash-flowing business likely looks safer, but if monetizing that economic value today and buying more Bitcoin produces a higher expected total return across the scenarios you believe are most likely, then the more conservative cash-flow strategy ends up underperforming from a total-return perspective. Across a probabilistic range of outcomes, we believe the expected total return of $ASST is maximized by driving Bitcoin amplification as high as we can responsibly support while maintaining strict capital discipline, including no debt, no margin requirements and no financing structure that creates a forced-liquidation mechanism. The structure looks optically simple, which was intentional, but the real work is underwriting both sides of the distribution: how much downside can the structure survive, and how much upside are you giving away if Bitcoin performs the way you believe it ultimately can? If the macro thesis plays out, the setup becomes unusually powerful. The scarcity trade itself is expanding, Bitcoin will likely be capturing a growing share of that growing pool of capital, and $ASST is designed to amplify Bitcoin exposure on top of that. You effectively have three reinforcing layers of upside working together: a larger opportunity set, Bitcoin taking more share of it, and our common equity amplifying the Bitcoin return. That is why we care so much about getting the structure right. The upside is not simply Bitcoin going higher. It is Bitcoin becoming the fastest horse inside an expanding scarcity trade while $ASST is structured to amplify that outcome as much as we can responsibly support. The bear market has allowed us to test that design in real time. Particularly as Bitcoin approached its weakest point, we continued buying aggressively, including nearly every week over the last few months before this breakout. We built the structure to remain durable through difficult Bitcoin environments while preserving high amplification and the ability to deploy capital when the opportunity becomes most attractive, and we now have a real track record of it doing exactly that. There is another part of the bear market I find particularly interesting in the context of BTC/gold. Bitcoin bottomed against gold in February, roughly five months before it bottomed against the dollar in July. ASST also bottomed in February, well before much of the broader Bitcoin-equity complex reached its lows around July. I don't think that timing was coincidental. In both cases, the market seems to have been showing the turn first in the places most levered to improving liquidity and risk appetite. BTC/gold was beginning to signal renewed strength in what I believe will be the fastest horse in the debasement trade, while ASST was beginning to strengthen as a highly amplified expression of that same thesis. As confidence in Bitcoin improves and capital moves further out on the risk spectrum, our structure, amplification and liquidity are designed to make $ASST a natural place for incremental capital to flow. The timing of those two turns is another reason I find the parallel so interesting. It is one thing to underwrite a structure on paper and another to see both the balance sheet and common equity perform through a real drawdown. I believe our ability to create and sustainably support high Bitcoin amplification, backed by the capital structure and liquidity needed to maintain it through different market environments, is what will ultimately support a leading valuation relative to our Bitcoin holdings. The bear market was for building this performance engine, and we now have substantial liquidity in both our common and preferred equity, a capital structure built without debt or margin, and a company positioned for the type of Bitcoin environment I believe is developing. Dollar weakness and monetary debasement, AI-driven abundance and the bitcoin:native/gold ratio are telling us different but complementary things. The first expands the broader monetary opportunity, the second increases the premium on forms of scarcity that cannot be replicated away, and bitcoin:native/gold helps tell us how much of that opportunity Bitcoin is positioned to capture relative to the other scarce monetary assets competing for the same capital. Any one of those developments would be constructive on its own. If they continue moving in the direction of the thesis together, Bitcoin will be entering the most favorable macro and relative-performance setup of its history, creating the potential for a level of upside over the next several years that we simply have not seen before. TLDR: YOU ARE NOT BULLISH ENOUGH^2

All of last year, I would have killed to buy Bitcoin at $78k. Still cheap.

Finding it hard to stay humble... $MSTR $ASST $STRC $SATA #Bitcoin

👀 The breakout I'm watching. $NVDA BTC/NVDA

I have believed for more than a decade that the U.S. Dollar Index, DXY, is in a structural decline that is likely to continue. I also think we may now be approaching a much more significant leg lower, and that has major implications for Bitcoin. If that view is right, the next five to seven years could be a materially more bullish environment for Bitcoin than anything it has experienced in its history. This chart goes back to the late 1960s. What makes it so compelling to me is not just the technical picture of lower highs and lower lows that has developed over roughly 45 years, but that the technical picture is supported by the fundamentals behind it. I spent much of my career thinking about those fundamentals, including while managing the U.S. Treasury portfolio at CalPERS. That was before I became a Bitcoiner, but the work directly contributed to it. The trajectory of federal debt and deficits, the risks embedded in long-duration Treasuries, and the policy incentives created by an increasingly indebted sovereign all pointed me toward the same conclusion: the dollar was in structural decline. More than a decade later, that thesis has remained remarkably unchanged. The debt burden is dramatically larger today, fiscal deficits remain enormous, and policymakers continue to face the same basic tradeoffs. They can accept the pain through materially higher real rates and tighter financial conditions, or they can try to manage that pain through lower real rates, maintaining market liquidity, nominal growth, and some degree of currency depreciation. There is no painless path. The question is simply where the adjustment gets absorbed. That matters enormously for Bitcoin. Each of Bitcoin’s major bull runs has coincided with meaningful dollar weakness. DXY fell from roughly 103 to 88 during the 2017 run, declined from around 103 toward 89 during the 2020-2021 cycle, and then weakened from roughly 108 during the 2025 move that helped take Bitcoin to new all-time highs before the current 2026 bear market. Those were meaningful moves, but they were still relatively modest compared with the major dollar declines of the last 45 years. The breakdown beginning in the mid-1980s lasted for years, as did the decline from the early 2000s into the Global Financial Crisis. My base case is that we are approaching another multi-year move lower in the dollar, potentially over the next three to seven years, with a real possibility that DXY eventually challenges the 2008 lows around 70. If that happens, Bitcoin would be entering a macro environment it has never experienced before. Its previous bull markets have benefited from periods of dollar weakness, but never from a true secular breakdown in the dollar of the kind this chart suggests is possible. Today is an interesting day to post this chart because the Treasury announced that it is at least doubling liquidity-support buyback operations in 10-to-30-year Treasuries. That comes as long-term Treasury yields have been under significant pressure, and the dollar has moved sharply lower today. To me, this is simply another data point in a thesis that has been playing out largely as I expected for more than a decade. The fiscal constraints are greater, the debt load is larger, and the policy incentives are becoming more obvious. None of that weakens the original thesis. It strengthens my conviction in it. That is also why I think people are not bullish enough on Bitcoin over the next five to seven years. Most Bitcoin forecasts are based on what Bitcoin has already done, but Bitcoin has never had the tailwind of a genuine secular dollar breakdown. We are used to saying that past results are not indicative of future performance because the future may be worse than the past. In this case, I think the asymmetry may run the other way. It is also why I am so focused on amplifying Bitcoin exposure, and why I joked yesterday about feeling under-amplified. If this 45-year dollar structure finally breaks to the downside, the macro backdrop for Bitcoin could be materially more powerful than anything it has experienced before. TLDR: YOU ARE NOT BULLISH ENOUGH.

Today I became a Metaplanet shareholder. $MPJPY

Reading the comments and nobody understands. Buying more $MSTR