It's all so very tiring. #1528815, #1530104

You print 1.6% new shares to stack low-yielding (well below cost of capital) USD and then repurchase a small amount of your main (expensive!) outstanding liability, which falls(!) on the announcement. (Marginally; STRC is still below par.)

I dunno man, this is not serious, accretive, beneficial stewardship of funds.I dunno man, this is not serious, accretive, beneficial stewardship of funds.

Dude should just close up shop and return remaining value to shareholders...

A few weeks back when I made a deep dive into Strategy's finances I had the most horrific timing. I laid out, plainly and convincingly, how their metrics are skewed and BTC/share, when fully accounting for the prefs, had actually been negative for the year.

tl;dr = bitcoin-per-share matters squat when you’re racking up preferred shares in the tens of billion, and you're willing to dilute commons to service the interest rate on the prefs.

NO LOL, THAT'S CRIMINAL, OMG YOU DON'T GET IT bruh. GET ON THE SAYLORBOI HYPETRAIN.

Yes, literal reactions from some Saylorbois. Then a few hours after I posted that, STRATEGY THEMSELVES made a presentation and launched "net metrics" to account for exactly my problem. (I take no credit for this, lol)

“We’ve introduced ‘Net’ metrics, so we have net reserve and net BTC, denoted in dollar and bitcoin terms. And this represents the bitcoin that is attributable to common equity shareholders after the deduction of senior claims.” – Chaitanya Jain
https://x.com/Strategy/status/2080383027499221068

My (unpublished) note from the day after had the title "Aaah, Den Loves the Smell of Strategy Napalm in the Morning."

Basically: I was right. Did the Saylorbois, like BIPtards, come back and apologize? No, they just 1984-style pretended this was the policy all along.

ANyway, today Saylor is back with another bout of emergency financing in this wonderful financial engineering experiment that is Strategy: dilute shareholders 1.6% to stack sats fiat

Melting ice cube no more; USD is great. Peter Schiff's question to Saylor post is correct:

"Why should any Bitcoiner own MSTR common?""Why should any Bitcoiner own MSTR common?"

Indeed.
The answer is no Bitcoiner should own MSTR common. Problem being: there's nobody else who wants to own MSTR common but bagholding Saylorbois.

You are last in line to that humongous pile of bitcoin, and the sliver you own is infinitely printable (dare I say _inflationary?!_)

For to even understand the promise of a potential value increase accruing to commons (ie the bottom of the barrel in Saylor's vast, Ponzi-like capital structure) you must believe that BTC is valuable, and increasingly valuable over time.

Very few people do, and they're all in on self-custody coins already. (Or at least they were, pre-Coldcard... hashtag OOPS!)

Here's an interesting question from another reply-guy:

"Why are you stacking dollars at the bottom? You have this backwards""Why are you stacking dollars at the bottom? You have this backwards"

The point illustrates expertly why Saylor's returns have never been particularly good. His cost basis is roughly the short-term holder's... and he overbuys when the mania lets him print shares for free or have STRC inflows, sells BTC to finance the liabilities when he doesn't (e.g., now -- at the bottom).

Indeed, the Strategy strategy is biased to work only in bull segments of the cycle, meaning Strategy structurally overpays for its bitcoin.

Put in terms even the 80-IQ Saylorbois understand: his acquisitions are structurally non-accretive.

Or in more plain English: Strategy receives worse performance than a regular DCA-across-cycle would achieve.

This is the next hero to slayThis is the next hero to slay

I can't wait.