We are House Strategy. There is no call we do not answer. There is no faith that we betray. The Emperor asks us to bring order to chaos. House Strategy accepts! STRATEGY STRATEGY STRATEGY

The single biggest difference between humans and AI agents is the amount of actions they execute on a computer per unit of time. AI agents can look and act just like humans, but execute 10,000X more actions per unit time. that's the tell. so the key to defending cyberspace from AI slop or AI attacks is to target ACTION, not IDENTITY. trying to detect AI is a fool's errand; targeting its BEHAVIOR is the key. So if you want to deter AI from accessing your website/system, simply make it expensive in computational tokens to ACT on your website. Make every command or button cost a token, and suddenly it's 10,000X more costly for AI to act than a human. You can't stop AI, but you can make it extraordinarily expensive to use it. We already know this intuitively, because everybody who has ever run openclaw or their own personal AI agents knows that the single biggest LIMFAC is compute tokens. your AI is only as good as your compute token wallet. but AI compute is constantly getting cheaper and better, and some countries have far better AI compute than others, creating a major imbalance of power. so the key to long term success is to create some kind of universal, non-sovereign, geopolitically neutral compute token network. that is, we need some kind of network that accounts for a bunch of transferable tokens that are computationally expensive to produce. that no amount of AI compute can produce more of. we need a proof-of-compute token network. and we need it to be fully decentralized so that no single person or polity can gain permanent or centralized control over it. we need this network to be globally dispersed. and we need to figure out a way to distribute those compute tokens in a way that's fair, that gives no single person or polity an advantage over the others. perhaps in some kind of first-come first-served basis, where the users who provide the computational power are given the tokens and free to spread them out however they want. if we had this compute token network, the final step to saving ourselves against AI is to simply adopt the habit of making every online action cost some fraction of a compute token, so that it's orders of magnitude more expensive for AI agents to operate online than humans. the first nation to discover this compute token network and use it to its defensive advantage against the threat of agentic AI will win the 21st century. BTW that compute token network is Bitcoin.

This one is different. For the daily dividends proposal on STRC (and STRF/STRK/STRD), only Strategy common stockholders vote. Preferred holders including STRC have no vote on it—per the preliminary proxy. (The prior semi-monthly switch did require STRC approval too.)

Maybe one day… 😔

"theres no reason why the volume of all digital credit cant get to a scarily high percentage of BTC traded volume" -Dan "well it should push it higher" -Jeff "in a hyperbitcoinized world if SATA or STRC are the high powered money that is issued against BTC as the collateral that is settled between institutions then the percentage of daily traded volume of BTC derived equities(digital credit...ect) COULD EXCEED THE VOLUME OF BTC" - @hillery_dan

Strategy is proposing daily dividends on $STRF, $STRC, $STRK, and $STRD, accruing every calendar day, including weekends and holidays, and paid the next business day, with economics unchanged. The proposed changes aim to support price stability, liquidity, and demand.

Never ₿een this ₿ullish ₿efore

Here's how the data looks if we take the period from May 26 instead. This was the week following Saylor's announcement that SATA was the most interesting story in Bitcoin and the material reduction in Strategy's cash reserve. This was before the major STRC price dislocation and ongoing recovery to par. As you can see, it tells a very different story to the data presented by Adrian from True North (a Strive subsidiary), which uses a longer period and therefore paints a more favorable picture for STRC.

I think much of the conversation around $STRC | $SATA and dividend rate(s) is missing a critical point: Proximity to Bitcoin and the respective issuers is central to understanding why $STRC (and $SATA) carry the highest stated dividend rates among the five Digital Credit offerings. The rate is not simply SOFR plus a spread. Strategy’s own guidance says they review trading levels, market yields, credit spreads, $BTC price and volatility, USD Reserve coverage, capital market conditions, and capital structure together. The dividend rate(s) compensate holders, in part, for risk in the capital structure that flows from $BTC and the respective issuer. The path of $STRC moving that rate from 9% at launch to 12% (as of September 2026), in my view, reflects that risk premium being discovered in real time. In the case of $SATA, I view the higher dividend rate as partly reflecting a different issuer risk profile: a smaller issuer with a smaller $BTC balance sheet. The key is the coverage that $BTC provides relative to the issuer’s obligations, alongside its liquidity. The rate (and frequency) are product features; I see the higher rate as compensation for the additional risk holders are taking. An offering with a 12% stated dividend rate does not necessarily attract the same investor cohort as a bank-issued preferred like JPM-PC or WFC-PL. These Bitcoin-derivative perpetual preferreds naturally appeal to a different cohort; one native to (and familiar with) $BTC risk, yield-seeking, and, in some cases, leverage. Which, ironically, is what @PhongLe pointed to as a contributing factor in $STRC volatility: they did not expect that amount of leverage to build up. The product isn’t broken; it’s finding market | cohort fit driven by the TAM of its investor base as it scales alongside the $BTC on the balance sheet, not by dividend frequency or rate alone. Over the same 215 sessions through September 18, both offerings closed in the $95–$99.99 band most days, with $STRC spending more time at or above $95 than $SATA did: 78.1% versus 69.8%. $STRC also spent more time below $90 [14.4% versus 5.1%], and that detail matters. This is consistent with the product finding the market cohort willing to hold a BTC-deriviative | BTC-linked pref. I don’t read it as evidence of a failed offering.

$40,000,000,000,000. The U.S. national debt has gotten so large that the number almost loses meaning. So how big is the debt, really?

Got this challenge coin from the SEC today. Love the slogan: “The Best Regs For Your Nest Eggs” and the culture: mission, innovation, and approachability. This SEC has the leadership @SECPaulSAtkins and mindset to help transform U.S. capital markets for the digital asset era.

$STRC closed in the target range. ₿ig

$STRC is a passenger jet. $BTC is a fighter jet. $MSTR is a rocket ship. Buckle up.

High today on $STRC of $99.05. We have breached the target trading range. **JAWS MUSIC INTENSIFYING**

$MSTR bounced with strength from its 100 month simple moving average. Now reclaimed the 12month EMA, too. Big things.

you are going to fail, so fail while daring greatly

Slammed buy as we rocked off the bottom of the range. Conviction in my favorite assets at an ATH. bitcoin:native

Jaws music intensifies $STRC $MSTR

Fun thread from BitStrategy; I enjoyed reading the discussion. Not afraid to ask the hard questions, this guy. Check it out!

This ended up being longer than I thought, so I made grok TLDR it: One quiet week near the target range doesn’t overturn the analysis. Over STRC’s life, BTC and MSTR still explain the most weekly variance. Sitting just under $100, it wasn’t supposed to run. Full post of my thoughts: I hear you, but last week was a weak falsification test on statistical models. Statistically over the life of STRC, weekly BTC and MSTR moves still explain the largest share of STRC’s weekly variance (R²). It’s about what explains STRC’s weekly moves over its life. It isn’t a claim that a strong BTC or MSTR week has to push STRC through par. I would also suggest that distance to the target range is an important thing to consider. While trading near $99–$100, STRC is designed not to run. A $0.13 decline last week, with STRC already around the target range, does not carry the same weight as −$14 the week of June 22, +$13 the week after, or +$5.50 the week of August 3. Those weeks where “lots happened”dominate the variance analysis. A print of less than a dollar near the cap barely moves R², and it shouldn’t. The hard part of this analysis is exactly what I’ve attempted to describe above: how should a model treat economically real, less-than-a-dollar moves around par compared to the large, unconstrained weeks I mentioned above. It’s hard to call last week a missed variable, or an exception to the analysis, when STRC was already sitting just under the range it is designed to hold. Stability should be expected in (near) the target range as MSTR and BTC perform well, that’s the “corporate objective” that Saylor and Phong have been vocal about supporting. More so than additional issuance, we must encourage, maintain, (insert-your-favorite-applicable-verb), STRC’s stability. Regarding the analysis and models, choosing these variables is a difficult decisions made in attempting to perform this kind of statistical analysis. It’s all done in an attempt to explain the past, hoping it will help us understand the future, knowing there will be outliers that will mess up the math. Yet, we persist in our analysis. What else can we do?