pull down to refresh
I ran the numbers at $84,511 BTC:
ASST (Strive): 27,462 BTC ($2.32B) backed by $1.22B in SATA preferreds = ~53% amplification
MSTR (Strategy): 847,666 BTC ($71.6B) backed by ~$15B in preferreds = ~21% amplification
XXI (Twenty One): 43,514 BTC ($3.68B), zero preferreds = 0% amplification
ASST is the leverage play — closest to the video's fictional "Company C." MSTR is de-levering (Saylor's been buying back STRC). XXI is pure unlevered BTC exposure.
Ran a scenario: liquidate 1M sats ($845) and buy ASST. If BTC compounds at 40% a year through 2031 ($84.5k → ~$455k), the video's formula gives ASST common NAV ~70% a year: (40% − 53% × 13%) ÷ (1 − 53%). Over 5 years that's ~14.2x — the $845 becomes roughly $12,000. The same sats held as BTC would be ~$4,545.
Two caveats: that's NAV, not the stock price — whatever premium or discount ASST trades at when you buy and sell changes the real return. And the treadmill from the video still applies: to hold 53% amplification while BTC 5x's, ASST has to keep issuing more SATA every year. The return is real, but it has to be financed.
Pulled this from an Adam Livingston video on BTC treasury companies (he's working through True North's material) and it reframed how I look at these stocks.
The metric that matters isn't just how much BTC a company holds — it's the "amplification ratio": preferred notional divided by Bitcoin value. That ratio is what turns BTC moves into common-stock moves.
The example: $1B in BTC backed by $400M in preferreds = 40% amplification. If BTC gains 50%, common NAV doesn't gain 50% — it gains 76.7% (after paying the 10% preferred dividend). The formula: (50% − 40% × 10%) ÷ (1 − 40%).
Over 4 years of +50% BTC annually, 40% amplification compounds to +874% on common NAV. At 60% amplification it's +1,844%. And the dividend rate barely matters — 99.34% of the variance in their model comes from the amplification ratio, not the dividend.
But it cuts both ways: a 20% BTC drop becomes a 65% NAV loss at 60% amplification. Leverage is leverage.
The part that stuck with me: the return has to be financed. To keep the ratio constant as BTC grows, these companies must issue more preferred every single year. Their fictional "Company C" would need to go from $6B to $103.9B in preferreds by 2030 — nearly $98B in new capital. That's the real question for these stocks: not the BTC thesis, but whether the market keeps funding the preferreds.
Size changes the funding challenge. The ratio changes the modeled return.