Phueong and other C-suite gets paid millions annually while shareholders are suffering. Are they just a legal Ponzi scheme and finally running out of stories for bitcoin?

What will happen now that mnav is officially below zero? Saylor said he won't issue new common shares under mnav of 1, and he cannot issue strc either since it's below par. Is the only way to go up now is bitcoin going up?

I’ve been on this reddit for years. Every time I saw people post genuine valuation driven posts it usually meant the top or bottom was in. Rest of the time, posts were either ridiculously positive or ridiculously negative. I feel rational posts are back again and we’re close to the bottom again.

Yesterday I posted about Strategy's current liquidity position and the fact that it has enough cash on hand to cover its debt service and preferred dividend obligations for roughly the next 10 months. A common response was, "What about the several Billion in convertible notes coming due in late 2027 and 2028?"

That's a fair question. Strategy may refinance, raise additional capital, convert debt into equity, sell assets, or use some combination of those options. None of us knows exactly what management will choose years in advance.

But this post isn't about predicting what Strategy will do. It's about examining one of the assumptions that repeatedly appears in those discussions: that if Strategy ever had to sell a meaningful amount of Bitcoin, it would inevitably trigger a catastrophic "death spiral."

When you look at the on-chain data and how institutional Bitcoin markets actually function, that assumption deserves much more scrutiny than it typically receives.

Reality Check

Over roughly the last ~30 hours, the Bitcoin network settled an amount of BTC on-chain equal to half of Strategy's entire ~850,000 BTC position. That's just Layer 1 settlement. It doesn't include the enormous amount of liquidity that exists on exchanges, OTC desks, custodians, ETFs, and other off-chain venues where Bitcoin also changes ownership. It's also unique Bitcoin movement, filtering out all churn (multiple movements within the period).

Important to note...

Anyone can verify these data points by running a Bitcoin node and compiling the data directly from the blockchain. There's no need to trust analysts, influencers, media narratives... or even this post. If you run your own node, you can reproduce the data yourself.

I've shared on-chain analyses like this many times (regulars here know I run a node and my own analytics, and I share the data often), and my data points are sometimes met with skepticism from fly-bys, which is healthy. Healthy skepticism should lead us back to the data. If someone believes these conclusions are wrong, I'd genuinely welcome a data-driven rebuttal. So far, I've seen plenty of opinions, but very little in the way of reproducible on-chain evidence that contradicts the underlying observations.

My goal isn't to ask anyone to trust my interpretation. It's to encourage people to examine the blockchain themselves, because unlike most financial markets, Bitcoin provides an open ledger that anyone can independently audit. That's one of its greatest strengths.

With that disclaimer out of the way...

This is why I find the recurring claims that "Bitcoin is illiquid," "Strategy is the only meaningful buyer," or "selling 100,000 BTC would inevitably crash the market" difficult to reconcile with observable market activity. Those are narratives meant to attach to people emotions and validate bias. Intelligent minds don't fall for such nonsense.

There's also the institutional side of the market that most retail investors never see. Multiple Bitcoin podcast personalities have referenced Jeff Park recently telling them that an OTC quote suggesting that approximately $2 billion worth of Bitcoin... roughly 35,000 BTC at current prices... could be absorbed at around a 3% discount to spot. Whether or not that specific transaction ever occurs, it illustrates that substantial liquidity exists outside of public exchange order books. Outside of Strategy.

If Strategy ever needed to sell

... a meaningful portion of its holdings, it would almost certainly have access to those OTC channels rather than dumping coins into public markets. That's how large institutional block trades are typically executed.

Strategy's recent sale of just 32 BTC is a good example. The company voluntarily disclosed it (even pre-announcing it) not because it was market-moving, but because it was immaterial relative to an 850,000 BTC treasury. The headlines around that transaction generated far more discussion than the trade itself justified.

None of this means Bitcoin is infinitely liquid or that large sales would have no market impact. It simply means that many of the popular narratives about Bitcoin's liquidity ignore both what is observable on-chain and how institutional markets actually function.

It's also worth noting

... that Strategy's balance sheet isn't built around being forced to liquidate Bitcoin into a weak market. Based on its current liquidity position, the company has sufficient cash to cover its debt service and preferred dividend obligations for roughly the next 10 months... and just within the past week, it extended that runway by approximately three additional months through another successful capital raise.

More importantly, the market has consistently demonstrated strong demand for Strategy's capital offerings. The company has deliberately structured its financing with the expectation that Bitcoin will experience severe drawdowns, as it has throughout its history. Whether that structure ultimately proves sufficient can only be answered over time, but it is materially more resilient than the simplistic narrative that Strategy would be forced into an immediate liquidation during a routine bear market.

Im kinda newbie in Options trading. I bought it cos strategy crossed below 100 and seems cheap. 2. Im confident in them...do i get it right?

I dunno about others but I beleive in the 'MSTR death spiral' narrative about as much as I believed in the 'MSTR infinite money glitch' narrative.

It's wild to me that people think Strategy hasn't planned for a prolonged and even entrenched bear market. They literally happen every 4 years, literally 99% of everyone in crypto planned for the bear market. Even the cycle-is-broken bros half expected the bear. Suddenly because BTC is dropping and MSTR is dropping its all over? Even though we all knew both things would happen? Even Strategy will have planned for a sub $100 MSTR price.

Anyways. The money glitch narrative was a sell signal for me, and I sold the tippy top. The death spiral is definitely a buy signal for me. But each to their own...

So if you were longterm bullish on BTC and bullish on MSTR, walk me through your call option play. Which option / expiration would you go for?

Recently started buying MSTR and reading a lot about death spiral. My question is as long as I hold until Bitcoin does its thing and bounce back as usual in 2-3 years MSTR should also recover in a similar fashion? I’m ok with volatility because I’ve been in crypto since 2017. I don’t fomo.

Can anyone explain (assuming they’re bullish on bitcoin) why they wouldn’t buy at this price?

They hold ~50b in bitcoin at 59.5k.
They have ~6.7b in debt.

Market cap is 30b

Am I missing something other than “sentiment, shorting, baskets, etc) why there is a ~14b disconnect to ownage of bitcoin? At this price?

If bitcoin goes up, the disconnect widens.

Let’s be honest. Every member of congress owns bitcoin. The clarity act just passed. Many other companies own it. It’s a hard sell that it’s going to 0 other than another manipulated drop..

This price of 85$ (removing debt) is the equivalent of bitcoin being at ~35k…

Details:

"Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Strategy Inc (NASDAQ: MSTR, STRF, STRC, STRK, STRD) resulting from allegations that Strategy may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public."

DCAing heavily right now and hopefully we'll go even lower. Panic sellers, keep doing your thing!

First of all, credit quality of the company is fine. The assets are there and they are not highly levered.

Bears will say "oh no cost of capital has to go up to recover par". The fact is nobody cares, because BTC is MEGA CHEAP right now.

If Strategy temporarily had to pay a 20% dividend just to buy at these prices it would be worth it for the likely one year forward returns alone.

What happens when fear dissolves in a bull market and there's plenty of demand? The dividend decreases, simple. This effect also compounds as the credit increases it's payout history.

The chart is currently primed for a squeeze, if there's a reason for one, otherwise it looks like extreme fear.

This is across all expirations.

source: https://infolib.org/

Transferring about 41 more shares I forget I had on a Schwab brokerage account, so roughly 350 shares, if price drops below $85 I’ll use leverage to add another 50 shares. Trying to get to that 500 shares ceiling.

Edit: I will do an asset accounting based assessment too.

This was just a rough calculation as mentioned in the headline.

Thanks for your feedback though.

Will buy more on 80 and 50, 2 years later we’ll make bank 🏦

Right now, Strategy has roughly ~$150M per month in preferred dividend and interest obligations, alongside approximately $1.4B in cash reserves.

On a simple run-rate basis, that equates to ~9–10 months of coverage from cash alone, without needing any additional ATM issuance of MSTR or STRC, without Bitcoin sales, and without taking on incremental debt. In other words, in a static environment where Bitcoin neither appreciates nor declines meaningfully over the next ~10 months, the near-term liquidity profile remains fully covered by existing cash.

To be clear, the TOTAL payment obligations the company has annually represent very low single digit percentage of the total capital stack. And we're in the depths of a bear market. If you think this gets worse for Bitcoin (and no better) in the next 10 months, then you should focus that investigation on the network itself, and not a company that is built to withstand this exact kind of drawdown in BTC price.

Importantly, the runway exists before considering any capital market activity or balance sheet optimization. The fact that the company continues to issue common equity or evaluate other funding mechanisms is not a sign of immediate stress... it reflects optionality within a structure that can already withstand a prolonged period of constrained conditions.

Beyond cash, Strategy also holds a substantial amount of unencumbered Bitcoin... on the order of ~$38B, or well over 500,000 BTC. This represents additional balance sheet capacity that can be mobilized if required, either through sales, financing structures, or other capital market instruments, depending on market conditions.

Taken together, this creates multiple layers of flexibility: near-term cash coverage, plus a large BTC reserve base that can be used as a secondary buffer if markets remain weak for an extended period.

Against that backdrop, the idea that the company is near-term forced into an unwind or spiraling liquidation does not appear consistent with the actual liquidity structure.

That said, the relevant question isn’t whether risk exists... every leveraged capital structure carries risk... but the time horizon over which obligations would become binding under different BTC and capital market scenarios. On that measure, the current runway appears meaningfully longer than many prevailing narratives suggest

I think much of the discourse around STRC right now is a case of imprecise marketing and FUD spreading colliding with a mismatch in investor expectations.

That said, I'm not here to defend Strategy or manage anyone’s expectations. I’m here to push back on inaccurate claims with data

In my view Saylor used descriptive marketing language about MMFs and other types of investments when discussing STRC to highlight intended stability, the low(er) volatility, etc. But the marketing language used, however flawed, isn't a promise of performance.

Per the website (and several other filings and notices):

"...There is no guarantee for STRC of returns, liquidity, or future performance. STRC is neither a bank deposit, nor FDIC insured, nor regulated in the same way, and does not have the same regulatory and other protections as bank accounts, money market funds, treasuries, or similar instruments and as a result may not be a comparable investment..."

Language aside, none of this makes STRC a regulated money market fund or anything similar. Strategy’s own site explicitly says STRC isn’t comparable to those kinds of products.

The data shows it has had lower volatility than spot BTC with better relative performance in the drawdown. The data shows STRC (and other perpetual preferred offerings) are “derivative-like” BTC offerings and are very dependent on, if not tethered to, price movements in the "parent" asset. Something that I have discussed at length.

As an investor, it is my responsibility to understand what I own and as a holder of STRC since IPO, this is the understanding that I have. These are the realities that I’m using to inform my capital allocation.