Alec retweeted
My comments around ATM issuance on last night's (awesome) @TNorth episode seem to have a few people in a tizzy.
The simple data and evidence backed point is this:
When it comes to $MSTR | $ASST, based on how shares have been issued, the ATM is noise within the tape and isn't a long or short term driver of price.
The simple data and evidence backed point is this:
When it comes to $MSTR | $ASST, based on how shares have been issued, the ATM is noise within the tape and isn't a long or short term driver of price.
@BritishHodlh@TheRealDHRhat my latest v20 models explain 72.8% to 85.2% of variance. Secondly, I find it interesting that (the A.I.) concedes the short term variance results (using outdated 63% R2 stats) and then pivots to an unproven "longer term structural effect” that depends on BPS or CEBE being the factors that set value or the multiple.
However, there are a lot of flaws there, specifically around the claim that dilution effects reducing BTC per share (or CEBE) lowers the mNAV or the price for any given total NAV, even if it doesn’t show up in the regression. Also, declines in BPS and mNAV “compression” are used as evidence of a structural effect that my variance work can't account for.
Ironically, BPS has been one of the most consistently modeled factors in my work and I think the A.I. is assuming that BPS | CEBE are valid metrics for what the market is pricing; or for the “residual claim” the market is valuing, but they aren't.
After today's latest run (with a fresh as of 10-30 date), when assessing BPS growth as a factor across all models from 2021 to 2026, its price variance contribution is just 0.04% to 0.33%.
Getting more specific, in my full Capital Structure model (which explains 85.2% of price variance), the variance contribution from BTC Per Share is 0.04% (+R2=0.000) and it is statistically insignificant (t=-0.948,p=0.3438 ), just as the ATM itself is statistically insignificant (t=0.961,p=0.3375 ) with a 0.67% attribution.
Even in the broader 2021–2026 models where BPS shows significance, the t-stat is negative (t=-5.73 to -7.01) which in plain terms means that generally, as BTC Per Share went up, share price went down. I think that is a rather concrete answer about whether or not the KPI shows up as some missing long-horizon driver of price.
@Strategy itself has defined BTC Yield as a narrow KPI for per share accretion on $BTC holdings and has repeatedly stated that it isn't a measure of valuation, financial performance, or returns.
Specifically, Strategy’s own Q3 2026 financial release (filed October 29, 2026) explicitly states in its KPI disclosures that BPS (in Sats) "does not represent (i) the Company's ability to satisfy its financial obligations, or (ii) the Company's book value per share" and that BTC Yield "is not a measure of the return on investment the Company's shareholders may have achieved historically or can achieve in the future by purchasing stock of the Company".
BTC Per Share is essentially an accounting reality that doesn’t represent a redeemable claim nor a redeemable residual after senior claims.
If we move onto CEBE; this is an attempt to net out senior claims, but it serves as just another formulation of the same accounting residual and is not what the market is forward pricing. Based on years of analysis what I see tells me that the market is pricing the BTC capital base, the optionality within the equity, the adversarial positioning around the equity and the sentiment | positioning around the resulting structure (mNAV). With mNAV acting as a multiple that is assigned independently of the current BPS | CEBE reality. I think this is somewhat evidenced by persistent rises in BTC Per Share (for many BTC-TC’s) while share price fell.
Now the question that I have is this: If the company that created the metric, defined the metric, and was the first to consistently report the metric, is saying that it's not a measure of valuation or related to stock price performance; perhaps there is a reason for that. No? At the same time @saylor himself has described mNAV expansion as driven by market sentiment | confidence, with BTC Yield and BPS rising as a result of that sentiment rather than being its cause. The data, the results of my modeling, and the official corporate framing are well aligned.
Coming back to the analysis that I have done in more detail, the modeling isn't a simple “correlation” analysis and it isn't missing a slow structural effect that is captured in BPS | CEBE or dilution effects .
Rather, using orthogonalized factors, Newey-West HAC standard errors, rolling 90D | 180D Shapley windows, and BVAR sign restrictions, its showing that the factors that actually move price variance are overwhelmingly $BTC direction (accounting for 41.2% – 51.2%), followed by options positioning (GEX, DEX, Max Pain Distance, PCR), shorting pressure and related positioning, volatility (VIX and MSTR IV), volume (Turnover vs. ADV), capital rotation ($BTC Miners, Spot ETFs, and Mag 7), and the preferred capital structure ($STRK, $STRF, $STRD, and $STRC).
The ATM is simply noise inside that process (0.24% to 0.67% of variance, even when tested across 5d, 10d, and 20d rolling sums) and that is consistent over days, weeks, months, and now years.
In the face of all of that, to treat a change in an internal KPI as the missing long horizon driver we would also have to use the same investment framing and metric that the company itself already excludes as valuation, and the market pricing process doesn’t reinforce.
By the way, I should note that the money printing comparison is a common one that doesn't really fit or apply here. Money printing expands the supply of the unit of account against a relatively fixed base. The ATM is issued against available liquidity that is then used to acquire more of an underlying asset; which isn’t really an expansion of the monetary base. Yes, the ownership percentage of an existing share falls, but the economics of that share depend on what the company receives and does with the proceeds. But I think this is making the same assumption that the share count is the scarce unit and that the market capitalizes a per share claim, but there is no evidence of that in the observed data or price trends.
Finally, yes, an artificial buyer or seller can move the price, that is obviously true for individual trades, and my work never denied that. What I tested was how much issuance (and also buybacks) explain price variance over various time frames once I account for $BTC and include other factors. What I found was that “other factors” overwhelmingly dominate. So claiming otherwise is arguing against a claim I didn't make.
6
1
27
2,046
Hello, is this the authorities?
@BritishHodlh@TheRealDHRhat my latest v20 models explain 72.8% to 85.2% of variance. Secondly, I find it interesting that (the A.I.) concedes the short term variance results (using outdated 63% R2 stats) and then pivots to an unproven "longer term structural effect” that depends on BPS or CEBE being the factors that set value or the multiple.
However, there are a lot of flaws there, specifically around the claim that dilution effects reducing BTC per share (or CEBE) lowers the mNAV or the price for any given total NAV, even if it doesn’t show up in the regression. Also, declines in BPS and mNAV “compression” are used as evidence of a structural effect that my variance work can't account for.
Ironically, BPS has been one of the most consistently modeled factors in my work and I think the A.I. is assuming that BPS | CEBE are valid metrics for what the market is pricing; or for the “residual claim” the market is valuing, but they aren't.
After today's latest run (with a fresh as of 10-30 date), when assessing BPS growth as a factor across all models from 2021 to 2026, its price variance contribution is just 0.04% to 0.33%.
Getting more specific, in my full Capital Structure model (which explains 85.2% of price variance), the variance contribution from BTC Per Share is 0.04% (+R2=0.000) and it is statistically insignificant (t=-0.948,p=0.3438 ), just as the ATM itself is statistically insignificant (t=0.961,p=0.3375 ) with a 0.67% attribution.
Even in the broader 2021–2026 models where BPS shows significance, the t-stat is negative (t=-5.73 to -7.01) which in plain terms means that generally, as BTC Per Share went up, share price went down. I think that is a rather concrete answer about whether or not the KPI shows up as some missing long-horizon driver of price.
@Strategy itself has defined BTC Yield as a narrow KPI for per share accretion on $BTC holdings and has repeatedly stated that it isn't a measure of valuation, financial performance, or returns.
Specifically, Strategy’s own Q3 2026 financial release (filed October 29, 2026) explicitly states in its KPI disclosures that BPS (in Sats) "does not represent (i) the Company's ability to satisfy its financial obligations, or (ii) the Company's book value per share" and that BTC Yield "is not a measure of the return on investment the Company's shareholders may have achieved historically or can achieve in the future by purchasing stock of the Company".
BTC Per Share is essentially an accounting reality that doesn’t represent a redeemable claim nor a redeemable residual after senior claims.
If we move onto CEBE; this is an attempt to net out senior claims, but it serves as just another formulation of the same accounting residual and is not what the market is forward pricing. Based on years of analysis what I see tells me that the market is pricing the BTC capital base, the optionality within the equity, the adversarial positioning around the equity and the sentiment | positioning around the resulting structure (mNAV). With mNAV acting as a multiple that is assigned independently of the current BPS | CEBE reality. I think this is somewhat evidenced by persistent rises in BTC Per Share (for many BTC-TC’s) while share price fell.
Now the question that I have is this: If the company that created the metric, defined the metric, and was the first to consistently report the metric, is saying that it's not a measure of valuation or related to stock price performance; perhaps there is a reason for that. No? At the same time @saylor himself has described mNAV expansion as driven by market sentiment | confidence, with BTC Yield and BPS rising as a result of that sentiment rather than being its cause. The data, the results of my modeling, and the official corporate framing are well aligned.
Coming back to the analysis that I have done in more detail, the modeling isn't a simple “correlation” analysis and it isn't missing a slow structural effect that is captured in BPS | CEBE or dilution effects .
Rather, using orthogonalized factors, Newey-West HAC standard errors, rolling 90D | 180D Shapley windows, and BVAR sign restrictions, its showing that the factors that actually move price variance are overwhelmingly $BTC direction (accounting for 41.2% – 51.2%), followed by options positioning (GEX, DEX, Max Pain Distance, PCR), shorting pressure and related positioning, volatility (VIX and MSTR IV), volume (Turnover vs. ADV), capital rotation ($BTC Miners, Spot ETFs, and Mag 7), and the preferred capital structure ($STRK, $STRF, $STRD, and $STRC).
The ATM is simply noise inside that process (0.24% to 0.67% of variance, even when tested across 5d, 10d, and 20d rolling sums) and that is consistent over days, weeks, months, and now years.
In the face of all of that, to treat a change in an internal KPI as the missing long horizon driver we would also have to use the same investment framing and metric that the company itself already excludes as valuation, and the market pricing process doesn’t reinforce.
By the way, I should note that the money printing comparison is a common one that doesn't really fit or apply here. Money printing expands the supply of the unit of account against a relatively fixed base. The ATM is issued against available liquidity that is then used to acquire more of an underlying asset; which isn’t really an expansion of the monetary base. Yes, the ownership percentage of an existing share falls, but the economics of that share depend on what the company receives and does with the proceeds. But I think this is making the same assumption that the share count is the scarce unit and that the market capitalizes a per share claim, but there is no evidence of that in the observed data or price trends.
Finally, yes, an artificial buyer or seller can move the price, that is obviously true for individual trades, and my work never denied that. What I tested was how much issuance (and also buybacks) explain price variance over various time frames once I account for $BTC and include other factors. What I found was that “other factors” overwhelmingly dominate. So claiming otherwise is arguing against a claim I didn't make.
1
0
2
168
I think - in the kindest way possible - @BritishHodl is utterly incompetent. He was wrong, is wrong, and will continue to be wrong in his lack of analysis.
His framework of ‘feelings and emotions’ is wrong and his desire to ignore the data clouds his judgement on how stocks are valued.
His perspective is utterly ridiculous, lacking any modicum of mathematical justifications and I think his inability to publish data to support his arguments is embarrassing.
*sigh* I wish British would join the real party by demonstrating intelligence and an ability to think critically.
And no - I have no desire to evaluate his emotions anymore than I already have, because I know I'm right due to a statistics framework using math, logic, and reason. I keep him muted, I don’t need his dog shit seeping into my feed.
But I'm happy he spews nonsense and vitriol, attacking our community members with Ad Homenim because his wittle feewings were hurt after we repeatedly demonstrated that he is objectively wrong.
I think it’s a major value add to our community to have such a pristine example of incompetence on full display, for all to see.
ATM Doomers are wrong.
The data is clear.
Still waiting for an ATM doomer to share ANY data backing their claims.
Isn’t that weird?
His framework of ‘feelings and emotions’ is wrong and his desire to ignore the data clouds his judgement on how stocks are valued.
His perspective is utterly ridiculous, lacking any modicum of mathematical justifications and I think his inability to publish data to support his arguments is embarrassing.
*sigh* I wish British would join the real party by demonstrating intelligence and an ability to think critically.
And no - I have no desire to evaluate his emotions anymore than I already have, because I know I'm right due to a statistics framework using math, logic, and reason. I keep him muted, I don’t need his dog shit seeping into my feed.
But I'm happy he spews nonsense and vitriol, attacking our community members with Ad Homenim because his wittle feewings were hurt after we repeatedly demonstrated that he is objectively wrong.
I think it’s a major value add to our community to have such a pristine example of incompetence on full display, for all to see.
ATM Doomers are wrong.
The data is clear.
Still waiting for an ATM doomer to share ANY data backing their claims.
Isn’t that weird?
4
2
10
598
One time I was paying for gas and the green haired clerk asked how much I wanted, so I confidently stated “14 gallons please”
She responded “but how many dollars, and what pump are you on?”
I was one of two people there so I pointed at my car and said “It’s that one, and whatever 14x the price per gallon is.”
She goes “oh idk what the number is on that pump and I can’t just do 14 gallons, you have to tell me how many dollars you want”
At this point my internal dialogue fires up and I’m like …wait am I the one at work right now or is this employee the one getting paid for this conversation?
“I don’t work here, so I don’t really know what the numbers are for each pump” and I pointed again at my car, “it’s the silver one, right there”
I’m not kidding, I had to walk out of the store to look at the number on the pump because the gas station employee didn’t know it
I get back inside, justifiably disturbed by the interaction: “It’s pump six. 14 gallons.”
Green haired clerk, “But how much do you want?”
Me, now somewhat pissed, speaking slow and loud: “FOURTEEN GALLONS”
Her: “I’m not sure how much gas is per gallon and I don’t have a calculator”
At this point the one other guy in the store, who has been patiently been waiting for this interaction to end so he could gtfo of there, bursts out laughing.
I turn around and we share a moment of pure rage induced hilarity, and then turn back around to the clerk:
“Looks like it’s $1.08 per gallon, let me do the math quick” (guy behind me snickering)
“14 gallons should be $15.12, $14 plus $0.08 x14 is $1.12 so a total of $15.12”
Guy behind me keeps chuckling and we share a look as we both think: ‘if this works this will be the only gas station I ever go to for the res of my life’
She looks at me like I’m some sort of math wizard then starts punching it in and says “oh gas can’t be $1.08”
“Then why did you ask me? Do you even work here? This is your job and you’re getting paid for this, right?”
Anyways she walked outside to check the sign with the prices as my new BFF and I are cracking up over how stupid the situation is.
She comes back in, and I do the math for her AGAIN to come to the real total, which I paid.
I share one last look with my new BFF. As it dawns on him that it’s now his turn at the circus, his expression sombers. I tell him “I’m sorry” and GTFO.
This chick is running a gas station but doesn’t know the pump numbers, the price of gas, how to use the POS, a calculator, or even basic multiplication. Presumably the only reason she didn’t sell me gas at $1.08/gallon is because the POS literally would not let her.
Absolutely zero accountability, motivation, critical thinking, or knowledge about her job. Just collecting a paycheck on autopilot.
Now, whenever/wherever I see someone with green hair, I GTFO.
Not today, satan. Not today.
She responded “but how many dollars, and what pump are you on?”
I was one of two people there so I pointed at my car and said “It’s that one, and whatever 14x the price per gallon is.”
She goes “oh idk what the number is on that pump and I can’t just do 14 gallons, you have to tell me how many dollars you want”
At this point my internal dialogue fires up and I’m like …wait am I the one at work right now or is this employee the one getting paid for this conversation?
“I don’t work here, so I don’t really know what the numbers are for each pump” and I pointed again at my car, “it’s the silver one, right there”
I’m not kidding, I had to walk out of the store to look at the number on the pump because the gas station employee didn’t know it
I get back inside, justifiably disturbed by the interaction: “It’s pump six. 14 gallons.”
Green haired clerk, “But how much do you want?”
Me, now somewhat pissed, speaking slow and loud: “FOURTEEN GALLONS”
Her: “I’m not sure how much gas is per gallon and I don’t have a calculator”
At this point the one other guy in the store, who has been patiently been waiting for this interaction to end so he could gtfo of there, bursts out laughing.
I turn around and we share a moment of pure rage induced hilarity, and then turn back around to the clerk:
“Looks like it’s $1.08 per gallon, let me do the math quick” (guy behind me snickering)
“14 gallons should be $15.12, $14 plus $0.08 x14 is $1.12 so a total of $15.12”
Guy behind me keeps chuckling and we share a look as we both think: ‘if this works this will be the only gas station I ever go to for the res of my life’
She looks at me like I’m some sort of math wizard then starts punching it in and says “oh gas can’t be $1.08”
“Then why did you ask me? Do you even work here? This is your job and you’re getting paid for this, right?”
Anyways she walked outside to check the sign with the prices as my new BFF and I are cracking up over how stupid the situation is.
She comes back in, and I do the math for her AGAIN to come to the real total, which I paid.
I share one last look with my new BFF. As it dawns on him that it’s now his turn at the circus, his expression sombers. I tell him “I’m sorry” and GTFO.
This chick is running a gas station but doesn’t know the pump numbers, the price of gas, how to use the POS, a calculator, or even basic multiplication. Presumably the only reason she didn’t sell me gas at $1.08/gallon is because the POS literally would not let her.
Absolutely zero accountability, motivation, critical thinking, or knowledge about her job. Just collecting a paycheck on autopilot.
Now, whenever/wherever I see someone with green hair, I GTFO.
Not today, satan. Not today.
1
0
0
59
Alec 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
536
ATM Doomers do not subscribe to the efficient market hypothesis.
@TNorthe@PunterJeff @AdamBLivT@_Adrians@nithusezni the capital markets for? They are for raising money (shocking, I know). Now stop and think about that for a few minutes, seriously: concentrate on
“The purpose of capital markets”,
and unless this is something your fairly familiar with already-give yourself a minute and come back
after a while, for real
Ok we are back:
if you can raise a war chest to rival nation, the capital markets really like what you’ve got. They like your protocol. They want to help it SCALE.
But they want their cut too. And they understand that other want in on this action, too.
Achieving Scale is the purpose of capital markets. They help companies scale to server a broader market. And then, they hold their valuations (ratios) which are based on the performance of their assets.
Welcome to the ‘efficient market hypothesis’ school of thought. Do you have any questions?
0
0
0
27
I saw the dip, grabbed my bag of chips and got to work. I can hear the whir of the money printer warming up, though it’s hard to hear through all the hilarious political memes.
All dips are a blessing. Managed to snag 7 more shares this week.
Shoutout @saylor, @phongle, and my Mom and Dad. Absolute legends, the lot of you. Next stop: transferring a full block to my permanent HODL account. ALLLLLL ABOARD
0
0
2
141
Alec retweeted
THEY SAID MICHAEL SAYLOR'S $STRC WOULD NEVER HIT ITS $100 PAR AGAIN
THAT AGED LIKE MILK
THE HATERS NEVER LEARN 😂
THAT AGED LIKE MILK
THE HATERS NEVER LEARN 😂
30
48
334
17,548
Alec retweeted
On June 18 @CryptoKaleo told me that STRC would never make it back to $100
Fast forward to today...
$STRC is back at $100
Fast forward to today...
$STRC is back at $100
29
8
110
8,546
Alec retweeted
@TNorthe@PunterJeff @AdamBLivT@_Adrians@nithusezni the capital markets for? They are for raising money (shocking, I know). Now stop and think about that for a few minutes, seriously: concentrate on
“The purpose of capital markets”,
and unless this is something your fairly familiar with already-give yourself a minute and come back
after a while, for real
Ok we are back:
if you can raise a war chest to rival nation, the capital markets really like what you’ve got. They like your protocol. They want to help it SCALE.
But they want their cut too. And they understand that other want in on this action, too.
Achieving Scale is the purpose of capital markets. They help companies scale to server a broader market. And then, they hold their valuations (ratios) which are based on the performance of their assets.
Welcome to the ‘efficient market hypothesis’ school of thought. Do you have any questions?
“The purpose of capital markets”,
and unless this is something your fairly familiar with already-give yourself a minute and come back
after a while, for real
Ok we are back:
if you can raise a war chest to rival nation, the capital markets really like what you’ve got. They like your protocol. They want to help it SCALE.
But they want their cut too. And they understand that other want in on this action, too.
Achieving Scale is the purpose of capital markets. They help companies scale to server a broader market. And then, they hold their valuations (ratios) which are based on the performance of their assets.
Welcome to the ‘efficient market hypothesis’ school of thought. Do you have any questions?
0
1
1
157
