- Tweets 476
- Following 376
- Followers 120
- Likes 1,516
First time in 31 editions that JPM puts a number on Bitcoin. Interesting though that the same report keeps it out of its allocation models. The reason given is the 55% expected volatility sitting next to the 10%. Two thirds of that base case is a model of global money supply growing against a fixed supply of 21 million.
The 55% is exactly what a Bitcoin treasury company’s capital structure is built to carry. The equity absorbs the volatility, the preferred holds a fixed claim on the asset compounding underneath it. An allocator who cannot hold 55% vol can hold a fixed claim secured by it, i.e., digital credit.
J.P. Morgan Asset Management’s base case projects Bitcoin to outperform U.S. stocks, bonds and gold over the next decade. Wall Street is doing the math.
7
16
123
7,924
cittal retweeted
All of this ended up happening
STRC down to $82.6 today. Here's my read:
1. Strategy is fine. If everything stays as is, they can pay STRC dividends for 32 years. If BTC appreciates at ~2% CAGR, they can pay dividends indefinitely.
2. Why the sell-off? This appears to be a liquidation cascade.
Over the last 6 months, the narrative became that STRC volatility was reducing, and price began to spend all its time in $99-100 range.
This invites leverage. If you expect the price to always be north of $95, you can take on 20x leverage with your portfolio to buy more STRC and dramatically increase the yield on your portfolio.
This works great, until it doesn't.
STRC is designed as a free-market asset. When attention shifted to SATA and STRC price flagged, it may have raised the attention of opportunistic short-selling hedge funds.
By shorting aggressively, they could push the price down and start triggering margin calls and liquidations from folks who aggressively levered up their STRC positions.
The price action today is a clear liquidation cascade, rapidly pushing prices lower, in turn triggering additional liquidations.
3.
What happens now? The market will heal itself.
Opportunistic hedge funds will recognize that this is a firesale and the fundamentals are unchanged for STRC and step in as buyers. Shorts will close, becoming buyers. Individuals are getting a tremendous entry price for long-term holding STRC shares.
Buyers at this level will get ~13.7% effective yield. If STRC trades back to $100 and they sell, they get an easy +18% return.
4.
What will Strategy do?
Strategy will likely increase the dividend rate on June 30 - maybe to 11.75% but possibly to 12%. Buyers at the current price level then would get 14.2% effective yield from that point forward.
Strategy may also step in to buy STRC shares back. They could do this by issuing new shares of MSTR (currently at 1.14 mNAV) or by taking on traditional debt and deploying those funds to buy discounted STRC shares on the market.
If/when STRC trades back to $100, Strategy could then re-issue those STRC shares. The ~$15 delta per share could be used to buy BTC as pure accretion to MSTR holders, with no net change to amplification.
No doubt that Saylor has already at least considered this, and it wouldn't surprise me if they're currently doing this.
5.
In summary...
The market is freaked out that this depeg is like Terra/Luna... but this is not an asset like that. Strategy's balance sheet determines whether STRC continues to receive dividend payments... and Strategy's balance sheet is completely unchanged.
This is a leverage wipeout.
From this, the market will learn that Digital Credit is mostly very low volatility. But because it is a free market asset, the longer that a Digital Credit instrument trades within a tight range to par... the more leverage will inevitably pile up as people get greedy.
And that creates the conditions for a leverage wipeout depeg. Following that, the instrument will make its way back to par value as the market heals itself and recognizes that the dividend payments will continue uninterrupted because the issuer's balance sheet is unaffected.
44
33
932
125,400
cittal retweeted
⚡️Strategy is building the first major financial institution whose reserve asset is Bitcoin and whose purpose is to turn Bitcoin’s monetization into an expanding balance sheet.
The key is the direction of causality:
Bitcoin appreciates.
The reserve base expands.
The balance sheet gains credibility.
Capital markets lend against that credibility.
New claims are issued.
Proceeds return to the reserve asset.
The reserve base expands again.
Bitcoin becomes collateral for acquiring more Bitcoin.
That is the machine.
Saylor has discovered a way to convert a monetary asset into financing capacity without selling the monetary asset.
That is much deeper than leverage.
Leverage usually consumes collateral.
This structure attempts to make the collateral more economically useful as it appreciates.
The longer Bitcoin monetizes, the more financing capacity the reserve can support.
Then something strange happens.
Strategy begins manufacturing financial instruments whose ultimate economic gravity comes from Bitcoin underneath them.
Common equity.
Preferreds.
Convertibles.
Debt.
Different risk profiles.
Different durations.
Different investors.
But beneath the entire stack sits the same reserve.
Bitcoin becomes the monetary base of a private capital system.
That is why the analogy to ordinary corporations increasingly fails.
A normal company raises capital to build factories, hire workers, create products, and earn cash flows.
Strategy increasingly raises capital to enlarge the reserve base that makes future capital raising possible.
The balance sheet itself becomes the product.
And if Bitcoin reaches the monetary status Saylor believes it will, this architecture could look obvious in hindsight.
Gold once sat beneath banking systems.
Government bonds sit beneath the modern collateral system.
Strategy is testing whether Bitcoin can sit beneath a new one.
That is the wager.
And the real danger is equally clean.
The machine requires Bitcoin to continue becoming stronger collateral over long horizons.
If Bitcoin permanently loses monetary credibility, the architecture collapses inward because the reserve no longer generates expanding financing capacity.
But if Bitcoin keeps monetizing, Strategy does something historically important:
it proves that Bitcoin can support layers of credit without surrendering the underlying asset.
That is where this stops being a corporate curiosity.
Because once one institution proves the architecture works, others copy it.
Then Bitcoin begins acquiring something gold and sovereign money already possess:
a financial system above the base layer.
That is the real endgame hiding inside Saylor’s experiment.
Bitcoin started as money without a bank.
Strategy is testing what happens when someone builds the bank around it.
And the deepest line is:
Saylor is trying to make Bitcoin productive without making Bitcoin spendable.
If that works at scale, the reserve never has to leave the vault.
The world simply builds claims around it.
⚡️ UPDATE: Strategy now holds $66 billion in total reserve capital, ranking second among S&P 500 financial firms behind Berkshire Hathaway.
10
29
211
29,214
cittal retweeted
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
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.
104
226
1,376
220,715
cittal retweeted
Some are trying to bring Bitcoin to billions. Others are trying to win arguments on the internet.
986
970
12,783
694,353
cittal retweeted
We transferred 5,014 BTC between Metaplanet custodial addresses over the past 24 hours. This was a routine custody operation. No bitcoin was sold, and our holdings remain 43,000 BTC.
All of our addresses are published, which is why the transfers were observable in real time.
Total network fees to move $322 million in bitcoin: approximately $8.
108
208
2,695
275,182
MSTR prints money by issuing $STRC near $100 and buying it back below $100.
Every share retired under par permanently kills a $100 claim and its dividend obligation for less than face value. Market efficiency says this arbitrage can’t last forever — STRC should trade closer to par over time.
When it does, Strategy flips the switch back on: sell more STRC → buy more BTC. That’s the flywheel. Bitcoin is the engine.
Betting against STRC (or MSTR) long-term is a loser’s game. Time and Bitcoin favor the patient.
36
31
605
32,038
cittal retweeted
Here's the genius thing about the $STRC buyback using $MSTR and/or $BTC proceeds.
Both $MSTR and $BTC are FAR more liquid than $STRC, so anyone who decides to do a short push on $STRC needs to figure out a way to also tank $MSTR and $BTC, which requires far more capital.
Almost no fund can must as much capital to defend $STRC as @strategy can. So, the game theory would then be that no one will try once they get run over by the current buyback.
Given how big the short position is on $STRC (>3M shares), Strategy can very likely just bid $STRC back to $100, and then sell shares back to those shorts at $100 as they are forced to cover. They will very likely make back all of the cash that they spent on the buybacks, plus the profit of buying at a discount, and then can roll all of that into more $BTC.
Again, genius move the more you look at it.
26
31
317
12,544
cittal retweeted
I really want to go on record
This thing absolutely FUCKS
Always has, always will
Nothing changed about it
Thing rips. Bookmark the tweet.
13
4
84
4,102
