New year, new dreams... but Den is back on the bitcoin treasury beat! Aah, alas this time it's sanity and careful analysis, not hype and delusion:

MSTR/BTC in 2025 was the worst it's ever been!

My thesis for Bitcoin Treasury companies has been that the gravity for mNAV premiums are towards 1.0. For Strategy, we have now arrived, and that has me interested in the stock once again.
Today, we’re closer to the opposite end of the spectrum, where a mNAV of ~1.0 means the investor is buying no premium, but all the exposure to the company.

This was the most obvious, most reasonable, most directly accurate analysis of the treasury phenomenon, yet ALL LAST YEAR people (read: crooks and podcaster-influencers on the payroll of various companies) yelled and pretended there were massive, "obvious" reasons for trading at prices differently than the one asset you hold:

also: oh bro, look at that pump-and-dump graph!

BASIC TAKE-AWAY:

Treasury companies trading with premium was a dumb idea. MSTR is now trading well below premium (depending how you're counting, though). The long tail of garbage could only survive with financially arbitraging/engineering selling stocks at mNAV>1; Strategy had some more choices, and it's impressive to see them stack THIS HARD when while everyone else is struggling.

From my own studies and experience, routine and regular DCA is an almost unbeatable strategy for most entities in Bitcoin. It is actually surprisingly difficult to beat without adding a bunch of complexity to the process.

...and Saylor is doing that too, corporate-style.

And here's the weird, odd, misaligned shareholder value:

in hindsight, those Nov’24 buys were not the best value for money, and at current Bitcoin prices, only half of all the coins Strategy has acquired over the years are in profit.
However, ironically, those November top blasts were the most accretive buys for shareholders, because they monetised a massive mNAV premium!
The company raises capital when they have the capacity to, which is a stark reminder that shareholders need to be extra discerning about when they buy in.

The central reason I want to be long MSTR for the next bull cycle is because I think the company has developed a product people actually want,

Actually, this is the real question. The "we're bringing locked capital and tradfi into Bitcoin via yield" story is so weird, as I explored e.g., here: (#1356919)

maybe there's a good reason for "trapped capital" and "yield-starved tradfi" to "arbitrage" their way into bitcoin via bitcoin treasury securities, but for them to do so they must to their own satisfaction answer the question "Where does the yield come from?"... at which point they need to grok bitcoin... at which point they might as well just sidestep the middleman and own bitcoin directly. (#1322685). I don't think much tradfi money is getting bitcoin, and of those that do, very few will stay with inferior stand-in products from e.g., Strategy. Thus, there's no real, long-term market for this.

Check provides an interesting twist to that where's-the-audience questionCheck provides an interesting twist to that where's-the-audience question

I have had countless conversations with Bitcoiners who are closer to retirement, or have a large enough stack that they eventually want/need to de-risk. For most of them, the hardest question was what to put that capital into.
Strategy’s preferred stocks have come up as a likely candidate in almost every one of those conversations.

WE understand where e.g. STRK's or STRC's yield comes from... but we don't need them, having effectively as long a horizon and Saylor. Some boomer Bitcoiners/close-to-retirement, on the other hand!

The preferred stocks are interesting because they offer competitive yields relative to what is on offer in the market. When a tenured Bitcoiner allocates to them, they are exchanging Bitcoin upside, for consistent yield, but are simultaneously financing Strategy’s purchase of more Bitcoin.>
To the average dude on Wall Street, this makes no sense.
Bitcoiners however, tend to get it, we don’t often think inside the box.

TL;DR (But really, you read all the way here...)

I remain fairly sour on the Treasury company complex, and honestly, it is primarily because Strategy exists. I can’t convince myself that the long-tail of TCos have the tools and scale necessary to restart their mNAV premium engines, and it will be considerably harder to develop trust with new investors.

I won't archive/make available this premium/paid newsletter. You get whatcha get!