I think the obvious answer is yes you should. I think maybe explaining to shareholders step by step what the options are if the bull market doesn’t materialize. Step 1 is obviously to protect the credit. I think doing so without selling a good chunk of BTC is ideal. The reason I stress the larger cash buffer is to focus on protecting the stack you have and the credit. Cash is a melting ice cube yes, but in certain situations, the ice cube is preferable capital to use compared to Bitcoin. I fully support it. I think there’s much opportunity to where extra cash can be beneficial for the business in many ways simply from an optionality perspective as we see from Strategy. Even without convertible debt, 75% amplification and a 24-36 month reserve is great from a standout of seeing where you can assign capital to (SATA vs BTC vs buying shares). There’s also many situations where delevering via ATM even at 1mNAV is beneficial if it helps the credit maintain par (balance between which vehicle is more accretive). When the mNAV is high, that lever is much more efficient that issuing TONS of SATA. But when the mNAV is low or 1, buying shares with cash to lever up if amp if low or selling shares to delever when high to support credit of SATA is simply optionality. I think what I’ve seen is a LACK of optionality kills the model. When you’re stuck, you’re stuck for a while. You don’t want to be at the whim of the market to give you that liquidity back. You have to earn it and provide it yourself. Overall: 1. There’s room to amplify 2. There’s room for more cash without drag (BTC and SATA printing offsets it and if they don’t print you have the tools to manage it now with more cash) 3. The MOST important thing is WHAT can keep the flywheel greased NO MATTER the price action of BTC or market conditions. Get as close to that as you can and you’re unstoppable.

Completely agree. I don’t see why you shouldn’t be able to take amplification higher as long as the USD reserve buffer goes up proportionately. This allows you flexibility and also ability to delever by buying more Bitcoin if needed through ATM or simple cash purchases.

IMPORTANT POST Our industry became too focused on protecting downside risk and inadequately focused on maximizing Total Returns to the upside. In my view, the entire purpose of our structured finance business model must be to maximize Total Returns for common equity shareholders. Our industry needs more amplification. Even at Strive, where we have the highest Amplification Ratio among Digital Credit issuers, when I look at the risk embedded in our capital structure relative to our amplification, I believe we have room to take it up another notch or two. Building a rocket ship is extraordinarily difficult and requires underwriting and taking real risk. The mission requires not blowing up, but you need an engine powerful enough to reach the moon. Based on Amplification Ratio alone, I view the risk of true issuer failure from over-amplification as very low across our industry today. Amplification Ratio obviously cannot capture every risk, including debt terms, covenants, maturity walls, liquidity constraints, and other structural risks. But controlling for those risks should give issuers significant confidence to take amplification materially higher. That is exactly what we have done at Strive, and I hope others increasingly copy it. I’ve written extensively about why Amplification Ratio will be the single most important driver of outright and relative Total Returns in a Bitcoin bull market. However, I believe incentives naturally push toward under-amplification, modest Bitcoin outperformance, and the safest possible path. My goal with this post is to light a fire and push our industry to think bigger, focus more aggressively on growth and Total Returns, and push the frontier of what our business models can achieve. We have a shared mission across the industry to grow Digital Credit from a nascent asset class into a massive global capital market. That requires trusted issuers, deep liquidity, disciplined execution, and investor confidence. That is where we all should work together, but make no mistake about what will crown the fastest horse in a Bitcoin bull market: the engine. Our mandate at Strive is to build the thing we actually want to own and recruit and retain exceptionally talented people who desire that risk and return opportunity and understand the business model that needs to be built. That mindset drove our execution in building a high Amplification Ratio, helped create strong liquidity, and is also why we are not satisfied with where we are. With Bitcoin under $100,000, our desire is to take Amplification Ratio higher from here. If the Bitcoin bull thesis is right, amplification will be the most important thing. If the Bitcoin thesis is wrong, a few hundred basis points of cost of capital won’t be the difference between success and failure. The model itself will have failed. I love capitalism. I love competition. I want more competition for the fastest horse. The next 10–15 years will be the Digital Gold Rush for Bitcoin. Let’s act like it.

Cash flow over cash

It’s the worst non-recessionary labor market we’ve had in a long while.

This is wild 🤣

As long as there’s debt, you always need inflation. I love Jeff Booth but I think it’s too much of a fantasy or at least not anytime soon where we’ll have TRUE deflation. What instead we’ll have is an UNEVEN deflation and inflation economy. Those who use AI and have Bitcoin will experience deflation (things get cheaper overtime relative to their purchasing and earning power). Those who do not, will experience inflation (things get more expensive overtime relative to their purchasing power and earning power). The fractional reserve banking system requires inflation. Unless we abandon this and the immense amount of global debt, it’s not possible to have even deflation.

He’s doing this all wrong. What he should do if only send to those who vote for Republican candidates in the midterms. 1. This ensures more turnout 2. This ensures more people that turnout actually vote for his party

Light is infinite. Bitcoin is finite. Terrible analogy.

The point is they’re trying to get to 5% to challenge bonds. They’re making their way.

A milestone for Digital Credit: $STRC’s 30-day historical volatility is now 9%, below $SPY. We’re harnessing the power of Bitcoin while reducing price volatility for income investors. This is what financial engineering should do.

You’re missing the overall goal… What was the first main issue Trump and Bessent discussed? Monetary transition. Ushering in a new order. It all has to do with their view (private money, unleashing growth, routing capital to infrastructure, tariffs to reroute trade, Iran war to take control of global shipping) VS. The democrats way which was CBDC, control AI, centralized capital in a few growth areas, high taxes, etc. You’re not looking at what this is which is a battle of the way the U.S. should transition into the new world order. But sure, it’s just surface level “enriching my own family”. Sure if you want to believe that’s all but you’re missing the bigger picture. The era that Trump and Bessent are ushering in would’ve happened with the democrats but in a much different way.

I think the war premium/inflation is overstated. Would it be a bit lower? Sure. Majority is all fiscal and it’s a global phenomenon.

The whole move had always been fiscal

I very very very strongly disagree and think that AI adoption in the enterprise beyond coding is basically at the starting line

Makes sense if we’re moving to a stablecoin regime. More stablecoins (dollars) means higher Bitcoin. Strong stablecoin = strong dollar.

BREAKING: President Trump says higher US inflation will "pay off" US debt "very rapidly" in response to total US debt rising above $40 trillion. "I know I'm the best in the world... you can pay off the debt through other means. But the one thing that you can do is pay it off through growth, and we've never had growth like this," Trump said. US Treasury yields hit a new high of the day after the statement.

Because bonds are being driven by supply/demand fiscal dynamics…a soft NFP print doesn’t matter.

Warsh: One print doesn’t decide our moves. Market: We know you’re lying, no hike in October. They’re just so incompetent.