Pinned Tweet
When and Why Common Share Buybacks Make Sense:
There's been some heated discussion regarding this topic over the past week so I created a tool that explores the nuance and math.
It seems that many have decided to take sides on the issue but the nuance is in the middle and we can use math to demonstrate it.
I hope this app brings a more fruitful discussion and exploration of what happens when common ATM leaves excess shares when demand fades and when and where it can make sense to buy back some of that supply while remaining aligned to Strategy's long horizon.
Year-end bitcoin per share for Strategy went from 91,097 sats in 2023 to 194,986 in 2025.
The latest diluted figure is lower, about 187,400, because more shares were issued. Those are one number a year.
They do not show the weeks in between, when common that had already been sold was still in the market.
In many of those weeks, buying back a limited amount of that common raised backing per share more than spending the same dollars on more bitcoin.
In other weeks, buying bitcoin was still the better use. Both can be true.
Those year-end numbers are BPS.
BPS counts bitcoin and shares only. It rises whenever shares are retired, even if the cash came out of the reserve, or new preferred shares were issued to pay for them.
The stock can stay flat while BPS rises, because BPS does not see the cash that left or the claim that was added.
This page puts the year-end figures next to the weeks, shows when a buyback beats buying bitcoin, and puts BPS next to a number that does count the cash and the preferred claims.
$BTC $ASST $MSTR $SATA $STRC
cc.
@GrainofSaltSF @BritishHodl @ZynxBTC @betirement
bpssupply.grok.me
There's been some heated discussion regarding this topic over the past week so I created a tool that explores the nuance and math.
It seems that many have decided to take sides on the issue but the nuance is in the middle and we can use math to demonstrate it.
I hope this app brings a more fruitful discussion and exploration of what happens when common ATM leaves excess shares when demand fades and when and where it can make sense to buy back some of that supply while remaining aligned to Strategy's long horizon.
Year-end bitcoin per share for Strategy went from 91,097 sats in 2023 to 194,986 in 2025.
The latest diluted figure is lower, about 187,400, because more shares were issued. Those are one number a year.
They do not show the weeks in between, when common that had already been sold was still in the market.
In many of those weeks, buying back a limited amount of that common raised backing per share more than spending the same dollars on more bitcoin.
In other weeks, buying bitcoin was still the better use. Both can be true.
Those year-end numbers are BPS.
BPS counts bitcoin and shares only. It rises whenever shares are retired, even if the cash came out of the reserve, or new preferred shares were issued to pay for them.
The stock can stay flat while BPS rises, because BPS does not see the cash that left or the claim that was added.
This page puts the year-end figures next to the weeks, shows when a buyback beats buying bitcoin, and puts BPS next to a number that does count the cash and the preferred claims.
$BTC $ASST $MSTR $SATA $STRC
cc.
@GrainofSaltSF @BritishHodl @ZynxBTC @betirement
bpssupply.grok.me
6
2
28
3,071
Reading Mocha's post gmake me feel like I'm watching an episode of reading rainbow for adults.
Enjoyed👍🏻
Enjoyed👍🏻
HOT PREDICTION FOR 2027 🔥🔮
First, a civics lesson. Gather 'round, friends.
Many of you may have missed this detail about Donald Trump, but unlike many Republicans, he sees the US debt ceiling as a rather silly statute.
I happen to agree.
Why is it silly?
First, let's start with what the ceiling is. Functionally speaking, the debt ceiling prevents the US Treasury from issuing additional debt beyond a certain cumulative threshold.
Fiscal hawks may think this is a good thing. In the abstract and in a vacuum, perhaps it is.
But the debt ceiling isn't the only mechanism Congress has for controlling federal borrowing.
Which brings us to the metaphorical elephant in the room: Congress itself.
The purpose of issuing more debt is to finance government obligations—including obligations that have already been incurred.
But Congress already controls federal spending through its ongoing "power of the purse," a privilege the US Constitution exclusively affords the legislative branch.
If Congress wants to restrain spending beyond a certain level, it is free to do so through the ordinary legislative process.
Which brings me back to the debt ceiling.
This setup means that the net effect of the debt ceiling is to restrain the executive branch from paying for obligations that Congress itself has already authorized.
What happens if the Treasury runs up against the ceiling and can't pay the bills that Congress has already effectively incurred through prior spending decisions?
At first, it can take "extraordinary measures" to create additional borrowing room, buying itself some time. But once those measures are exhausted and the Treasury runs out of cash, avoiding default becomes increasingly difficult.
Every few years, the ceiling is raised. On multiple occasions, it has even been suspended for extended periods.
Over and over, it serves to trigger a manufactured crisis when there needn't be one, especially since these crises never draw attention to the true infection that ails our system: the brokenness of our inflation-based fiat monetary system.
That is why I think the debt ceiling is silly. It is kabuki theater.
So what is my hot prediction for 2027?
I opened this post by reminding us all that Donald Trump thinks the debt ceiling is silly.
This is not speculation. In December 2024, Trump told NBC News that abolishing the debt ceiling would be the "smartest thing" Congress could do.
And in June 2025, he declared that the debt ceiling should be "entirely scrapped" to prevent an economic catastrophe.
You know who else thinks the debt ceiling is silly?
The Democratic Party.
That's right: the political party that just swept both houses of Congress now finds itself aligned with Trump on something.
And this is no mere coincidence. In that same December 2024 interview, Trump went further:
"The Democrats have said they want to get rid of it. If they want to get rid of it, I would lead the charge."
In June 2025, he even explicitly endorsed Senator Elizabeth Warren's position that the ceiling should be eliminated.
And Democrats have good reason to want it gone. For decades, the debt ceiling has served as a perennial weapon of mass credit destruction: a means of threatening the full faith and credit of the United States to extract political concessions. Democrats have even introduced legislation to repeal the statute outright.
Now, I've already made the case that the debt ceiling doesn't meaningfully restrain spending decisions—that the true spending (or restraint) takes place through a separate lawmaking process.
Would eliminating it fix our broken monetary system?
Of course not.
The fiat money machine would continue humming along, with all its inflationary tendencies, perverse incentives, and capacity for monetary mischief.
But the rules of the game would become a little more transparent. Congress would be forced to own its spending decisions without pretending that a separate, redundant borrowing constraint somehow absolves it of responsibility.
And there's another benefit: eliminating the debt ceiling would remove an entirely artificial source of US sovereign credit risk. Less risk means less compensation demanded by creditors, potentially reducing Treasury borrowing costs and putting downward pressure on interest rates, likely with the largest impact at the longer end of the yield curve.
In other words, we'd be removing a source of financial instability without doing anything to address the underlying monetary machinery.
And with that particular obstacle out of the way, the sound of the money printer might become just a little more audible in certain corners of the financial markets.
Which brings me, finally, to my prediction: President Trump and the Democratic-led Congress will strike a deal in 2027 to permanently repeal the debt ceiling statute.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to imagine how risk assets will react.
And I leave it as a bonus exercise to imagine how the world's scarcest monetary asset will react relative to the broader markets.
That is all.
Wishing you all peace, love, and #Bitcoin. 🧡
1
1
7
585
AngryBuhda retweeted
I was just thinking of this, but from a different angle.
People talk about affordability getting worse (especially around elections). But the only reason affordability — the price of goods and services relative to incomes — would get worse over time is if something was causing prices to rise faster than technology-induced productivity gains naturally deflates them.
That's the smoking gun that something about the monetary system is broken.
And yet the system has so thoroughly indoctrinated people into not questioning the money, they endlessly search elsewhere for the solution.
It's like a fish feeling sick and looking to the shark, the crab, the coral, and the plankton for the cause, when it's the water that they all swim through that is poisoned.
I wish I had a better answer to the question of how to best gift these lightbulb moments to others.
Something I keep coming back to is the short-term, survival-oriented instincts of the human brain. If one cannot see past their immediate circumstances (e.g. short-term price volatility), it's going to be more difficult for them to imagine longer-term prosperity. Their brain simply won't let them give the future considerable weight when making decisions. This is part of why market cycles repeat — and why people buy high and sell low.
So the central bankers and other boosters of the fiat system, whether consciously or unconsciously, have developed a way to benefit from this quirk of the brain — of the human experience itself. That is a difficult trap to escape.
#Bitcoin finally gives us an implementation for that escape route. But the hardest part for most people is recognizing that there is anything that needs to be escaped in the first place.
People talk about affordability getting worse (especially around elections). But the only reason affordability — the price of goods and services relative to incomes — would get worse over time is if something was causing prices to rise faster than technology-induced productivity gains naturally deflates them.
That's the smoking gun that something about the monetary system is broken.
And yet the system has so thoroughly indoctrinated people into not questioning the money, they endlessly search elsewhere for the solution.
It's like a fish feeling sick and looking to the shark, the crab, the coral, and the plankton for the cause, when it's the water that they all swim through that is poisoned.
I wish I had a better answer to the question of how to best gift these lightbulb moments to others.
Something I keep coming back to is the short-term, survival-oriented instincts of the human brain. If one cannot see past their immediate circumstances (e.g. short-term price volatility), it's going to be more difficult for them to imagine longer-term prosperity. Their brain simply won't let them give the future considerable weight when making decisions. This is part of why market cycles repeat — and why people buy high and sell low.
So the central bankers and other boosters of the fiat system, whether consciously or unconsciously, have developed a way to benefit from this quirk of the brain — of the human experience itself. That is a difficult trap to escape.
#Bitcoin finally gives us an implementation for that escape route. But the hardest part for most people is recognizing that there is anything that needs to be escaped in the first place.
@timevalueofbtc @monster_models I wonder how many of them have had a thought along the lines of “the money in banks is not real, it’s just a number on a ledger”
And inadvertently acknowledged the need for Bitcoin without making the full connection.
0
3
5
530
AngryBuhda retweeted
What if Strategy issued STRC to buy back MSTR instead of buying BTC, as @BritishHodl says?
I ran the math with Strategy Simulator to settle this debate once and for all... and his idea may be better than we all thought.
As he says, this could be a mechanism for engineering a for the stock that drives up mNAV.
But there's actually ANOTHER mathematical layer to it.
MSTR buybacks are actually BETTER for increasing real AMPLIFICATION for MSTR than buying BTC!
I modeled two scenarios below using Strategy Simulator. In both cases, Strategy issues $10B of STRC.
In Scenario A, all proceeds are used to buy BTC at a price of $80,556 per coin.
In Scenario B, all proceeds are instead used to buy back MSTR stock at a price of $143.86 per share - which is an mNAV of 1.15X.
The first image shows the current balance sheet and metrics (before any new issuance). The second image shows Scenario A, and the third shows Scenario B.
What do we discover?
In Scenario A, the company acquiresnet BTC per share (BPS) remains virtually unchanged (a rounding error). Meanwhile, amplification rises from 1.28X to 1.47X. This is Strategy's standard way to increase amplification, and it works exactly as the company designed.
Then there's Scenario B.
When buying back MSTR instead, net BPS actually DECREASES marginally from 155,325 sats to 150,810 sats.
But the tradeoff? Amplification SKYROCKETS from 1.28X to 1.57X!
This is the most fascinating point for me. Many critics of the buyback idea believe that buybacks for short-term-pumpinomics don't make sense if mNAV is anywhere above 1.00X, because the purchases are dilutive to net BPS at real, value creation level.
But this ignores the very real BOOST to BTC amplification, which is the entire purpose of MSTR and brings more value to shareholders when BTC rips later.
Given this dynamic, I believe there is solid ground for wanting to issue STRC to buy back MSTR when we are only slightly above 1.00X mNAV - as we are today.
Especially when BTC is coming off a generational bottom, and amplification should be our number one priority.
I ran the math with Strategy Simulator to settle this debate once and for all... and his idea may be better than we all thought.
As he says, this could be a mechanism for engineering a for the stock that drives up mNAV.
But there's actually ANOTHER mathematical layer to it.
MSTR buybacks are actually BETTER for increasing real AMPLIFICATION for MSTR than buying BTC!
I modeled two scenarios below using Strategy Simulator. In both cases, Strategy issues $10B of STRC.
In Scenario A, all proceeds are used to buy BTC at a price of $80,556 per coin.
In Scenario B, all proceeds are instead used to buy back MSTR stock at a price of $143.86 per share - which is an mNAV of 1.15X.
The first image shows the current balance sheet and metrics (before any new issuance). The second image shows Scenario A, and the third shows Scenario B.
What do we discover?
In Scenario A, the company acquiresnet BTC per share (BPS) remains virtually unchanged (a rounding error). Meanwhile, amplification rises from 1.28X to 1.47X. This is Strategy's standard way to increase amplification, and it works exactly as the company designed.
Then there's Scenario B.
When buying back MSTR instead, net BPS actually DECREASES marginally from 155,325 sats to 150,810 sats.
But the tradeoff? Amplification SKYROCKETS from 1.28X to 1.57X!
This is the most fascinating point for me. Many critics of the buyback idea believe that buybacks for short-term-pumpinomics don't make sense if mNAV is anywhere above 1.00X, because the purchases are dilutive to net BPS at real, value creation level.
But this ignores the very real BOOST to BTC amplification, which is the entire purpose of MSTR and brings more value to shareholders when BTC rips later.
Given this dynamic, I believe there is solid ground for wanting to issue STRC to buy back MSTR when we are only slightly above 1.00X mNAV - as we are today.
Especially when BTC is coming off a generational bottom, and amplification should be our number one priority.
33
17
226
13,178
AngryBuhda retweeted
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT, I AM ALL IN THE PODCAST COMPANY, $ASST @Strive 🚨🐧
- 5,842 shares held in T212 tax free
- 50X $20 JAN 28 LEAPS, currently equivalent to 3,810 shares worth of exposure at delta 0.762
I have then utilised the ITM LEAPS to sell 50X $34 DEC 26 calls ch has been rotated into shares of $SATA and $SATS.
I intend to opportunitistically run PMCCs on the stack to reduce my effective cost basis, counteract theta drag, and provide income generation for flexibility.
The LEAPS add leverage, the call selling adds downside hedge and income, the shares can grow tax free with no expiry risk.
For transparency, $MSTR LEAPS were sold to fund the $ASST options, as I saw an opportunity to capitalise on the significant drawdown in share price the past few weeks, and compression of the mnav.
Since the last update I held some ETFs and other treasures within the SIPP, which were also used to fund $ASST buys, resulting in a swing of £9000 ish worth more shares than I would have had if I held $ASST all the way down.
I am bullish $BTC, therefore it makes sense to me to back the company with the most amplification, that has demonstrated great execution and communication throughout. With 2 prefs running to tap into differing markets and market conditions, and sufficient USD reserves to weather a storm, I believe they are in great shape to outperform during the next bull market.
Will I stay all in $ASST forever?
No.
Do I think it currently offers the best risk/reward at these prices for a strong $BTC bull?
Yes.
I miss having a diversified portfolio, I love investing in companies I'm passionate about, of which there are many.
But for the time being, I'm all in.
$ASST whale status yet? 👀🐳
Bullish 🐧🚀
- 5,842 shares held in T212 tax free
- 50X $20 JAN 28 LEAPS, currently equivalent to 3,810 shares worth of exposure at delta 0.762
I have then utilised the ITM LEAPS to sell 50X $34 DEC 26 calls ch has been rotated into shares of $SATA and $SATS.
I intend to opportunitistically run PMCCs on the stack to reduce my effective cost basis, counteract theta drag, and provide income generation for flexibility.
The LEAPS add leverage, the call selling adds downside hedge and income, the shares can grow tax free with no expiry risk.
For transparency, $MSTR LEAPS were sold to fund the $ASST options, as I saw an opportunity to capitalise on the significant drawdown in share price the past few weeks, and compression of the mnav.
Since the last update I held some ETFs and other treasures within the SIPP, which were also used to fund $ASST buys, resulting in a swing of £9000 ish worth more shares than I would have had if I held $ASST all the way down.
I am bullish $BTC, therefore it makes sense to me to back the company with the most amplification, that has demonstrated great execution and communication throughout. With 2 prefs running to tap into differing markets and market conditions, and sufficient USD reserves to weather a storm, I believe they are in great shape to outperform during the next bull market.
Will I stay all in $ASST forever?
No.
Do I think it currently offers the best risk/reward at these prices for a strong $BTC bull?
Yes.
I miss having a diversified portfolio, I love investing in companies I'm passionate about, of which there are many.
But for the time being, I'm all in.
$ASST whale status yet? 👀🐳
Bullish 🐧🚀
16
6
62
3,923
AngryBuhda retweeted
Bitcoin’s power-law Z-score: −0.97 (Nov 1).
Similar historical readings were followed by a median 1-year return of +132%.
The 543 observations overlap and span different market eras.
Treat this as historical context, not a forecast. bitcoin:native
Similar historical readings were followed by a median 1-year return of +132%.
The 543 observations overlap and span different market eras.
Treat this as historical context, not a forecast. bitcoin:native
3
7
74
3,547
AngryBuhda retweeted
🚨 CAN MSTR PUMP OUR BAGS..?!?!?! - w/ @CJ_Bitcoin
- MSTR's Next Phase..?
- How Will MSTR Deal With The Next Bear Market..?
- How Much Pref's Can MSTR Sell Right Now..?
Let's discuss:
- MSTR's Next Phase..?
- How Will MSTR Deal With The Next Bear Market..?
- How Much Pref's Can MSTR Sell Right Now..?
Let's discuss:
36
30
245
70,146
This week Strive continues to show how they are steering this ship.
Last week I noted that they were sitting on extra cash on top of their usual 18 Months.
The warrants were effectively a large atm to the common but using those funds to bring the SATS IPO to life put 3.8x the e balance sheet and re amplified the common.
Mnavs really compressed over the last month, Many Call options closed out but I'm not seeing large put increases or shorts flooding in.
I continue to be happy with what I'm seeing from the team. They've showed a restrained ambition.
Bitcoin's regime isn't helping spot but is providing opportunity and from the data 52 fwd returns signal much higher prices.
$BTC $ASST $SATA $MSTR $STRC
cc. @GrainofSaltSF @BritishHodl @Jamieminer
Last week I noted that they were sitting on extra cash on top of their usual 18 Months.
The warrants were effectively a large atm to the common but using those funds to bring the SATS IPO to life put 3.8x the e balance sheet and re amplified the common.
Mnavs really compressed over the last month, Many Call options closed out but I'm not seeing large put increases or shorts flooding in.
I continue to be happy with what I'm seeing from the team. They've showed a restrained ambition.
Bitcoin's regime isn't helping spot but is providing opportunity and from the data 52 fwd returns signal much higher prices.
$BTC $ASST $SATA $MSTR $STRC
cc. @GrainofSaltSF @BritishHodl @Jamieminer
3
4
92
2,979
AngryBuhda retweeted
There are times to be aggressive, and times to show restraint.
But we will always Strive to keep moving forward.
This is a marathon, and we will continue to do what we believe is best for delivering long-term, sustainable value for our shareholders.
But we will always Strive to keep moving forward.
This is a marathon, and we will continue to do what we believe is best for delivering long-term, sustainable value for our shareholders.
Strive acquired 124 $BTC for $10M at an average cost of $80,526 per bitcoin, bringing total holdings to ₿43,124. - Existing cash funded most purchases - SATS ATM used for first time, representing 100% of weekly ATM proceeds - Amplification Ratio: 62.7% $ASST $SATA $SATS
18
36
436
23,472
Thanks for taking the time to look further into Strategy's strategy with this move. 👍🏻
In their open positions I see many sales and engineering hires that seem to align with this path.
$BTC $MSTR $ASST $STRC $SATA
In their open positions I see many sales and engineering hires that seem to align with this path.
$BTC $MSTR $ASST $STRC $SATA
🚨 $MSTR leadership change is more interesting than the headline
Andrew Kang helped take the company from ~130k BTC to over 850k
Now the co-principal structure may signal a shift from pure accumulation to optimizing the whole enterprise
Here’s why the Formal 8K Announcement matters 🧵
2
1
28
2,603
AngryBuhda retweeted
LIVE: BFM296 w/ @Strive CRO @PunterJeff⚡️
"Bitcoin will eat the world's financial risk"
We discuss:
🔸Bitcoin vs AI for credit capital
🔸Who can't own BTC and why?
🔸Bitcoin's risk weighting vs 24/7/365 liquidity
🔸Bitcoin as a global shock absorber
🔸Who buys $SATA & $SATS?
"Bitcoin will eat the world's financial risk"
We discuss:
🔸Bitcoin vs AI for credit capital
🔸Who can't own BTC and why?
🔸Bitcoin's risk weighting vs 24/7/365 liquidity
🔸Bitcoin as a global shock absorber
🔸Who buys $SATA & $SATS?
6
17
86
28,694
AngryBuhda retweeted
@williamwallets8k@ColeMacroc@PunterJeffa@Werkmano@AdamBLivr@IIICapitaln@saylor. Amplification definition
2. How it creates value
3. 2nd order effect on valuation
4. BPS
5. mNAV states; ATM and Spot
6. @Strategy early ₿ and Q4 ‘24
1. Digital Credit amplifies the common stock, not@Strategy after subtracting out the preferred claims. Preferred notional/BTStrive formula.
2. Amplification increases the amount of Bitcoin a company holds by arbitraging the long term CAGR of Bitcoin vs. Digital Credit dividend payment. That difference in CAGR amplifies the common stock after subtracting the preferred claims first.
3. With HIGH Amplification, a lower residual value flows back to the common shareholder and also requires a HIGHER Net mNAV for a given stock price. Net mNAV (Strategy uses Net BPS which is functionally the same but just writes mNAV in their preso. This metric was introduced on July 23rd, 2026) subtracts out the preferred claims first. So for 50% amplification, the common stock has a RESIDUAL claim on 50% of the Bitcoin. This is counterintuitive to many people on X.
4. BPS is an “ownership” metric for the common stock holder. A better term is “claim” because there are no redemption rights for any of the equities.
5. Net mNAV functions in two different “states”.
A. ATM mNAV - how accretive is that tranche, a snapshot of the acquisition of Bitcoin, that is then a weighted average into existing BPS. This metric is inferred from the 8K and does not change. BPS never floats with spot price. Big bubbles (proportional to the size of the ATM) in the below Strategy chart vs. the line that they are on (Spot mNAV). These are also color coded to the ATM mNAV for acquisition of BTC. Dark green is high mNAV (higher accretion), red is low mNAV (smaller accretion). Counterintuitively it’s better to buy ₿ as it is running high and fast since MSTR was at high mNAV. Many people assume buying ₿ during bear markets, the ₿ price is low would be better, but not if funded with common stock at low mNAV. Now with cash balances this is possible in the future.
B. Spot Net mNAVs float with stock market cap and Bitcoin FMV.
C. Hence $1B Prefs/$2B Bitcoin FMV= 50% Amplification.
With 60% amplification, common gets 40% of the residual Bitcoin.
6. There are two really interesting time periods for Strategy
A. The initial acquisition of Bitcoin for Strategy was highly accretive because it was purchased with existing cash, there were no senior claims and the market cap was very low. Also the term mNAV hadn’t been discovered.
B. Q4 2024 the price of Bitcoin moved very fast in time frame and magnitude. On Oct 30, 2024 Strategy launched the $21B Plan. Strategy had three realizations; they could increase their Bitcoin holdings by 50%, they knew the era of converts were over and they were going launch Preferreds.
Last convert Feb 21, 2025
First pref STRK on Feb 5, 2025.
Strategy has a 6 year history of Bitcoin accumulation through different types of capital structures and its effect on the common stock. That’s for article.
2. How it creates value
3. 2nd order effect on valuation
4. BPS
5. mNAV states; ATM and Spot
6. @Strategy early ₿ and Q4 ‘24
1. Digital Credit amplifies the common stock, not@Strategy after subtracting out the preferred claims. Preferred notional/BTStrive formula.
2. Amplification increases the amount of Bitcoin a company holds by arbitraging the long term CAGR of Bitcoin vs. Digital Credit dividend payment. That difference in CAGR amplifies the common stock after subtracting the preferred claims first.
3. With HIGH Amplification, a lower residual value flows back to the common shareholder and also requires a HIGHER Net mNAV for a given stock price. Net mNAV (Strategy uses Net BPS which is functionally the same but just writes mNAV in their preso. This metric was introduced on July 23rd, 2026) subtracts out the preferred claims first. So for 50% amplification, the common stock has a RESIDUAL claim on 50% of the Bitcoin. This is counterintuitive to many people on X.
4. BPS is an “ownership” metric for the common stock holder. A better term is “claim” because there are no redemption rights for any of the equities.
5. Net mNAV functions in two different “states”.
A. ATM mNAV - how accretive is that tranche, a snapshot of the acquisition of Bitcoin, that is then a weighted average into existing BPS. This metric is inferred from the 8K and does not change. BPS never floats with spot price. Big bubbles (proportional to the size of the ATM) in the below Strategy chart vs. the line that they are on (Spot mNAV). These are also color coded to the ATM mNAV for acquisition of BTC. Dark green is high mNAV (higher accretion), red is low mNAV (smaller accretion). Counterintuitively it’s better to buy ₿ as it is running high and fast since MSTR was at high mNAV. Many people assume buying ₿ during bear markets, the ₿ price is low would be better, but not if funded with common stock at low mNAV. Now with cash balances this is possible in the future.
B. Spot Net mNAVs float with stock market cap and Bitcoin FMV.
C. Hence $1B Prefs/$2B Bitcoin FMV= 50% Amplification.
With 60% amplification, common gets 40% of the residual Bitcoin.
6. There are two really interesting time periods for Strategy
A. The initial acquisition of Bitcoin for Strategy was highly accretive because it was purchased with existing cash, there were no senior claims and the market cap was very low. Also the term mNAV hadn’t been discovered.
B. Q4 2024 the price of Bitcoin moved very fast in time frame and magnitude. On Oct 30, 2024 Strategy launched the $21B Plan. Strategy had three realizations; they could increase their Bitcoin holdings by 50%, they knew the era of converts were over and they were going launch Preferreds.
Last convert Feb 21, 2025
First pref STRK on Feb 5, 2025.
Strategy has a 6 year history of Bitcoin accumulation through different types of capital structures and its effect on the common stock. That’s for article.
7
10
45
8,759
AngryBuhda retweeted
My “grievance” with Bitcoiners from pre 2017 era is they speak to new Bitcoiners as if they’ll experience the same thing they did. They won’t (I’d love to be wrong).
When you get into Bitcoin matters.
We often get told by people that have 50x’d their networth that if we don’t spend our sats we’re not contributing to the network. Or if we partake in non bitcoin assets we’re “short Bitcoin”.
I’ve been in bitcoin since November 2021. After 5 years I’m literally sideways even. I’ve smashed bought two tops after getting caught up in the fomo from listening to my favourite Bitcoin educators.
What is my incentive to spend Bitcoin that I haven’t gained any appreciation on?
This is why “Bitcoin only” for someone’s portfolio doesn’t make financial sense. (I’m speaking from experience dude, if you know what I mean, lol)
This is why our class of bitcoiners are attracted to bitcoin treasury companies.
This is by our class and the future class will be interested in digital credit.
I encourage all early Bitcoiners to have caution as to how they speak about portfolio construction to friends and on podcasts. What you say has enormous influence. I know from experience as I relied heavily on their advice.
I would have been much better off if I had spread my bets instead of going all in on bitcoin.
If I just had played fiat games I would have had Bitcoin gains.
When you get into Bitcoin matters.
We often get told by people that have 50x’d their networth that if we don’t spend our sats we’re not contributing to the network. Or if we partake in non bitcoin assets we’re “short Bitcoin”.
I’ve been in bitcoin since November 2021. After 5 years I’m literally sideways even. I’ve smashed bought two tops after getting caught up in the fomo from listening to my favourite Bitcoin educators.
What is my incentive to spend Bitcoin that I haven’t gained any appreciation on?
This is why “Bitcoin only” for someone’s portfolio doesn’t make financial sense. (I’m speaking from experience dude, if you know what I mean, lol)
This is why our class of bitcoiners are attracted to bitcoin treasury companies.
This is by our class and the future class will be interested in digital credit.
I encourage all early Bitcoiners to have caution as to how they speak about portfolio construction to friends and on podcasts. What you say has enormous influence. I know from experience as I relied heavily on their advice.
I would have been much better off if I had spread my bets instead of going all in on bitcoin.
If I just had played fiat games I would have had Bitcoin gains.
@GrainofSaltSFl@Strivet@Strategy @saylorB@phonglen@ColeMacrol@Werkman,@PunterJeff it up as a scam. So I eventually got here in 2023 when my kid was born.
But heres thr deal.. and I think there are many others like me...I full ported into Bitcoin. And I won't sell. But that gives me a problem. I need to live. So I came to the treasuries. But my allocation to the treasuries is not the same as my allocation to Bitcoin. Its not a hold forever play. I want gains. I want optionality. I dont want to be in an infinite loop of 'hold another 4yrs and it will be even better'.
If I wanted more Bitcoin Id buy more Bitcoin. As a shareholder I want gains. I dont want to be told to wait indefinitely.
7
3
23
1,732
AngryBuhda retweeted
Seeing a bit of confusion out there around BTC Yield (growing BTC per share) being classified as a short-term KPI.
The reason we classify it as a short-term KPI is because it is a metric we can influence through the course of our normal operations over relatively short timeframes. What we are effectively saying is that BTC Yield is the metric front and center as we run the business and capital markets each day.
Management teams need to focus on the metrics directly within their control to guide daily decision-making. For us, that means driving towards positive BTC Yield.
We believe the combination of growing BTC per share and maintaining high amplification while Bitcoin is near historically inexpensive levels creates the ideal setup to drive long-term outperformance of our common stock relative to Bitcoin.
Amplification acts as a rate-limiting function on common equity issuance. If you issue too much common equity, amplification can decline quickly. As Bitcoin moves higher and amplification naturally declines, maintaining our target means leaning more heavily on products and capital formation strategies that increase amplification (preferred) rather than decreasing it (common).
Amplification targets can and should adjust throughout market cycles, but issuing too much common equity during an early bull market move could erode amplification too quickly and take away some of the gain potentials as it is harder to move it back up to range as Bitcoin continues moving higher. Every action must be taken in balance, keeping you in position, with a focus on capturing and continuously growing value for shareholders over the long run.
Our incentives are built around driving that outperformance. Management’s long-term incentives come in the form of common equity, so we are focused on taking the actions today that we believe will create the greatest long-term outcome. This is why alignment of incentives to common equity holders is so critical.
“Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.” - Charlie Munger
Every day brings new decisions. Define your strategy, set your targets, and execute relentlessly toward extraordinary outcomes.
The reason we classify it as a short-term KPI is because it is a metric we can influence through the course of our normal operations over relatively short timeframes. What we are effectively saying is that BTC Yield is the metric front and center as we run the business and capital markets each day.
Management teams need to focus on the metrics directly within their control to guide daily decision-making. For us, that means driving towards positive BTC Yield.
We believe the combination of growing BTC per share and maintaining high amplification while Bitcoin is near historically inexpensive levels creates the ideal setup to drive long-term outperformance of our common stock relative to Bitcoin.
Amplification acts as a rate-limiting function on common equity issuance. If you issue too much common equity, amplification can decline quickly. As Bitcoin moves higher and amplification naturally declines, maintaining our target means leaning more heavily on products and capital formation strategies that increase amplification (preferred) rather than decreasing it (common).
Amplification targets can and should adjust throughout market cycles, but issuing too much common equity during an early bull market move could erode amplification too quickly and take away some of the gain potentials as it is harder to move it back up to range as Bitcoin continues moving higher. Every action must be taken in balance, keeping you in position, with a focus on capturing and continuously growing value for shareholders over the long run.
Our incentives are built around driving that outperformance. Management’s long-term incentives come in the form of common equity, so we are focused on taking the actions today that we believe will create the greatest long-term outcome. This is why alignment of incentives to common equity holders is so critical.
“Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.” - Charlie Munger
Every day brings new decisions. Define your strategy, set your targets, and execute relentlessly toward extraordinary outcomes.
30
32
240
20,579