Everyone is wondering what the next $SNDK is going to be. My answer is $ASST. Market cap of $1.1 billion. One of the fastest growing public Bitcoin holders in the world, currently ranked 9th with 15,000 Bitcoin on the balance sheet. Their ambition is to become the second largest issuer of Bitcoin credit in America. That is a trillion dollar opportunity at a billion dollar valuation.

🚨Important Question with Regards to the New Metaplanet Share Count... I hope @dylanleclair or @gerovich can help us out. Share count (before international offering): - Basic: 755,974,340 - Diluted: 953,142,925 - Difference: 197,168,585 Share count (after international offering): -Basic: 1,140,974,340 -Diluted: 1,434,392,925 - Difference: 293,418,585 Additional fully diluted shares after international offering: 96,250,000 Where do those additional shares come from? Any new warrants or options? If I've missed anything please do point it out. Just struggling here. I know @RoaringRagnar has asked this too!

Since we're still on the topic - let's examine the economics of #Metaplanet's IO in Sep 2025. Who benefitted and by how much - as I think that better informs the conversation here. Disclaimer: I am still a shareholder of MP as I write this and haven't decided to sell my shares. However my position may change as the conversation evolves. Here are the numbers- Amount raised: ¥212.9bn ≈ $1.44bn gross (385,000,000 shares at ¥553) Deployed into BTC: ¥183.7bn BTC held pre raise (8 Sep 2025): 20,136 BTC held post raise (30 Sep 2025): 30,823 Stack growth: +53.1% Fully diluted shares pre raise: 953,142,925 new shares issued to investors: 385,000,000 new shares to 10th series holders (0.25 per share issued): 96,250,000 = fully diluted shares post raise: 1,434,392,925 Dilution: +50.5% BTC per 1,000 diluted shares pre raise: 0.02113 BTC per 1,000 diluted shares post raise: 0.02149 BTC yield from the transaction: +1.7% BTC gain to pre-raise shareholders: 277 BTC ≈ $32M BTC claim handed to 10th series holders via the 96.25m new shares: 2,068 BTC ≈ $236M (at ¥553 issue price net of the ¥10 strike: ¥52bn ≈ $355m) 10th Series pool received 7.5x what the company's shareholders received. So, importantly, what if the 10th Series hadn't participated / received shares in the deal? Let's run the numbers again.. Fully diluted shares post raise: 1,338,142,925 BTC per 1,000 diluted shares post raise: 0.02303 BTC yield from the transaction: +9.0% BTC gain to pre-raise shareholders: 1,458 BTC ≈ $166m 10th Series cost on this one raise: 7.3 points of yield, 1,181 BTC, ≈ $134m moved from shareholders to the option holders. I think the numbers speak for themselves - so I have no further comment here. $MPJPY $MTPLF $DN3 @RoaringRagnar @ZynxBTC

These are fair questions, and I agree with the core principle behind them. Compensation should be structured so that the team does well when shareholders do well, and the incentives should be tied as directly as possible to the outcomes we are trying to create. I wrote about our philosophy last September: x.com/ColeMacro/status/19701… Our short-term incentives are driven by increasing Bitcoin per share and meeting all of our obligations. Our long-term incentives are driven primarily by outperforming Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is the hurdle rate, as well as our performance relative to the broader stock market. If we fail to pay any dividend on $SATA, bonuses do not get paid. On the long-term side, the highest payouts require us to outperform Bitcoin and perform among the top tier of publicly traded companies. We worked with compensation consultant Mercer to build the framework. My direction was to benchmark overall compensation around the 50th percentile of the market for comparable roles, while making the incentive structure as aligned with shareholders as possible. Across our 30+ employees today, annual salaries total approximately $8 million. Aggregate short-term (annual) incentives have a target of approximately $5 million and a maximum of approximately $11 million, while long-term incentives have a target of approximately $21 million per year and a maximum of approximately $41 million. The long-term incentives are earned over a three-year period. That means total annual compensation across the entire Strive team is approximately $34 million at target, including salaries, short-term incentives and long-term incentives. Maximum compensation under the current structure would be approximately $60 million, but getting there requires exceptional performance. At today’s roughly $2.1 billion equity value, target equity compensation represents less than 1% of the company annually, and even if we maxed out the current performance framework, the annual equity component would be approximately 1.9% of today’s equity value. Importantly, because these are three-year awards and are tied to both outperforming Bitcoin and being a top equity performer, the actual percentage of the company represented by that compensation on a forward-looking annual basis would likely be substantially lower if those maximum outcomes were actually achieved. On the 5% incentive reserve specifically, that is simply capacity under the plan. It is not an annual grant, an annual target, or an expectation that 5% of the company will be issued every year. We have not issued 5%, and as you can see from the current structure, we are not operating at anything close to a 5% annual pace. The purpose of the reserve is to give the company enough flexibility to recruit and retain talent without repeatedly going back to shareholders simply to replenish the plan, while actual compensation remains capped and tied to performance. There is another side of this that I think is important to be transparent about. My responsibility as Chairman & CEO is not only to recruit the best people, but to retain them. I believe we have an exceptional team that works incredibly hard, has great chemistry, and has produced results that reflect that. When I look across the industry, there are companies that offer similar or greater compensation with substantially easier performance hurdles. If Strive continues to outperform, grow Bitcoin per share and scale the company, I am much more concerned about losing great employees to competitors than I am about our team being overcompensated. As Strive grows, I expect we will continue to reassess compensation to make sure we can recruit and retain the best talent. But the principle will not change: compensation should be competitive enough to retain exceptional people, tightly aligned with shareholder outcomes, and structured so that significant upside for employees comes from significant performance for shareholders.

Here are my conclusions on the Metaplanet 10th series situation. Over the past week I spoke with the Metaplanet team. I appreciate that they took the time. We did not agree. I do not expect the pool to be unwound to the April 2024 size. I want to be as accurate as I can. The 10th series is not a new grant. It was approved in early 2023 as a paid turnaround option pool (¥18 per unit, ¥10 strike), with a three-year wait. One-third became exercisable in February 2026. It was disclosed in TSE filings and sat inside the fully diluted share count - as well as the BTC-per-share figures - all along. Legally, that part is clean. The problem is the adjustment clause, which kept the stake of the 10th series holders to 20% of the company, no matter how many shares were issued. Did the company disclose it? Yes. In the official TSE filings, in Japanese. Were the 10th series options part of the fully diluted share count from the beginning? Yes. Did the company ever do a non-accretive raise in BTC/share terms? No. Will the BTC/share metrics change when the 10th series options are exercised? No. Part of me is unhappy with myself. I trusted, and did not verify enough. Every shareholder could have found this. I just was not aware that such a clause could even exist. My AI research confirms that it is a very uncommon and unusual clause to have as a public company. But this doesn’t change the fact that it was disclosed, and we could have found it. So this part is on us. From my understanding, the community was largely unaware of this until a few weeks ago. After many posts on this topic the company reacted within 8 days by removing the anti-dilution ratchet, locking themselves up for 5 years, and transferring 20% of the pool to a future employee incentive pool. It felt like they listened, agreed that there were misalignments with shareholders, and fixed it going forward. Which I appreciate a lot. But I can’t shake the feeling that if the community had publicly rejected the program 12/18/24 months ago, they likely would have stopped it then. But as we didn’t, it wasn't. That’s my main moral issue. There’s nothing wrong with having a legacy program persist a little too long. Things like that can happen. But it’s wrong to not change it all the way, once you realize it was wrong. The company took the stance that this perpetual 20% stake was necessary to hire and incentivize key talent, and that the 2024 and 2025 performance would not have been possible without it. To be honest, I doubt it. I still believe the right thing would have been to lock the pool in April 2024 when they announced the Bitcoin pivot. The team held 20% of the company at that point, which is totally fair when you start a company, and should be more than incentive enough. This would have represented 46 million shares, or about $90 million at today’s stock price. Instead, the adjustment clause allowed them to grow these 46 million shares to 319 million shares today. That’s an additional 273 million shares, or almost $600 million at today’s price. When they reclaim the all time high of 1,930 Yen, those additional 273 million shares will represent $3.2 billion. Was the performance excellent so far? Hell yeah. In 2025, they generated a BTC Yield of 568%, which is almost a 7x in Bitcoin terms. The 2024 performance was stellar as well, although they started from a much smaller base. I let every shareholder decide for themselves whether almost $600 million today is a fair compensation for this performance so far. As I said many times, I strongly believe in fair compensation. But as a general rule, I believe the incentives between team and shareholders need to be as perfectly aligned as possible, and all team incentives need to be tied to performance, in this case, tied to the delivered BTC Yield. Unfortunately, that was not the case with the 10th series. How to view the 20% stake. If they end up not fixing it, you have to view the 20% as a blanc pre-payment for past and future performance. And every shareholder needs to assess how much performance will need to be delivered for this 20% to be justified one day. It’s also likely that this pool won’t cover all employee incentives into perpetuity. So it’s best to expect additional incentive programs for key people that have not been covered so far by the 10th series. The future. Having said that, I believe the company will do well in the future. They are ambitious, have great talent, and a full pipeline of interesting programs in Japan and the US. They plan to run the perpetual preferred playbook both in Japan with MARS and in the US with Superplanet, starting in Q4 in the US and hopefully Q1 in Japan. I believe that Strategy, Metaplanet and Strive will be the top 3 players in the world, and I believe that it will be a hard fight between Strive and Metaplanet for the #2 spot. Conclusion. Not gonna lie, this whole situation leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. I was also not particularly happy with the amount of communication and engagement with the community over the past 12 months. Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but I like the frequency, transparency and engagement of companies like Strive or Strategy much better. So my hope is that the Metaplanet team will take this to heart and engage more often on X, on podcasts, and shareholder Q&A’s. And I hope that their future performance will be so good so that we all feel like the 20% was an excellent deal. But that’s now their responsibility to deliver. Again, thanks to the team for the constructive and open discussions, which I appreciate a lot. We are adults, and it’s normal that we don’t always agree on things.

I would not rule out the possibility of Bitcoin going to $400k over the next 2 years. People have forgotten how violently Bitcoin can move at the top of a euphoric cycle. There will only ever be 21 million bitcoin:native. The last 5 years have been relatively underwhelming compared to what came before. Bitcoin has lagged Gold, the S&P and the AI trade. Maybe this underperformance will be what fuels an overshoot over the next few years. Silver's run to $125 was incredible. Gold added more than $20 trillion to its market cap in 2 years. Bitcoin is scarcer, more liquid and globally accessible than both of them. There is a real chance that those who believe in diminishing returns are caught off guard. There is an increasing amount of capital chasing a finite and decreasing pool of available Bitcoin. $400k within 2 years should not surprise anyone.

I think it's time to move $STRC to daily dividends. It's clearly just better. There is no shame in admitting that. If that doesn't do the trick then I would be looking at raising the yield. Let's get this thing back to par.

Strategy has acquired 4,603 BTC for $370M, increased USD Cash by $29M, and repurchased $152M of $STRC. As of 8/30/26, we hold 845,050 bitcoin:native and $6.71B of USD Assets, bringing Net Leverage to 0.0%. $MSTR strategy.com/press/strategy-…

We’re ₿ack.