AA ⚡️

One of my biggest Bitcoin regrets wasn’t buying at the top. It was not buying enough at $16,000. I remember opening X every day and seeing endless calls for $10k, $8k, even lower. The timeline was drowning in fear, uncertainty, and doom. I listened more than I should have. And I didn’t deploy as aggressively as I could have. Am I saying this is the bottom? No. Bitcoin could go lower tomorrow, next week, or next month. What I am saying is this: The exact same emotions, the exact same FUD, and the exact same hesitation I felt at $16k are the same emotions many people are feeling today. In a year or two, most won’t remember today’s fear. They’ll only remember the opportunity they didn’t take. Just like I remember $16k. Markets reward conviction and punish hesitation. Time has a way of making today’s scary prices look ridiculously cheap. I learned that lesson once. I’m not interested in learning it again. ₿

@HermesLux 😂

Them: "I don't need to learn to sell covered calls because I own MSTY [or other "income" ETF]. It's the same thing on autopilot." Me:

@Jethroe111 🤯

GM. Do not outsource your values, ethics, knowledge, or dreams. Build these anchors inside of you based not on who you are; but who you want to be. Strengthen this core. And do this while not solidifying into a rigid, unchanging soul. People will see you as someone they admire. Respect. Befriend. Even love. In this journey the most difficult hurdle will be admitting you were wrong. This is the path to sovereignty. The moment you realize who is ultimately responsible for the outcome of your life and answer: "I am."

@KeepBuyingBTC Keep winning

A lot can change in a year keep elevating..

@BTC_broo Herd mindset

Retail is piling into $SPCX at valuations that they can’t justify and bitcoin:native is down 25% YTD.

@BitLeadsNet Beast

Takes about 40 minutes to get your mind right $BTC ⚡️split in half some $BTC and $MSTR

Are you all in?

@GalaxyMind 😂 legend

@AAStack Both inches buddy! I’m all the way in

@loveleesfinance Keep building bro

@AAStack Thanks brother. I see you showing up everyday 👏

I reached 3,400 Followers today 🥳 I don’t really keep track anymore but I’m thankful for each and every one of you. I love you 𝕏 fam ❤️

@paraglider_17 @RonSwanonson 🫡👊

@AAStack @RonSwanonson Well said.

School taught me how to pass tests. It never taught me: How inflation works. How debt works. How investing works. How money is created. Ironically, those four things affect my life more than almost everything else I learned. Financial education isn’t optional. You’re paying for the lack of it every day. Escape ⚡️

@parkeralewis @ColeMacro I didn’t read all this but I read Matts reply. Extremely informative. Thanks Matt. 🫡

Too long didn't read all that. The stock should trade a discount to NAV given the incremental risk and because each investor can buy the identical underlying asset with incremental risk. We can come back to this and see who was right. But again my point was about whether the shareholder base that plowed into Strategy common equity has a good understanding of bitcoin and if they are good at pricing risk. The existence of the scale suggests otherwise. And I'm just recommending people do exactly what you are doing. Sell the premium in the stock, buy bitcoin.

Parker, this response actually proves the point I was making. The entire purpose of correcting your framework was to help you explain exactly this issue correctly. You are taking a Bitcoin treasury company whose common equity is structurally designed to have positive beta to Bitcoin, isolating a period that begins near Bitcoin’s late-2024 peak, and then highlighting that the common equity underperformed Bitcoin during a period where Bitcoin moved from that peak into a bear market. Of course it did. That is not a refutation of the thesis. That is how positive beta works. If you isolate a period where Bitcoin peaks and then enters a drawdown, you should expect a company designed to amplify Bitcoin exposure to underperform Bitcoin during that specific period. That is not some surprising discovery. It is the expected behavior of the structure. The entire thesis of Strategy, and the broader thesis behind what Strive is pursuing, is not that common equity will outperform Bitcoin over every arbitrary short-term interval. That has never been the claim. The thesis is that over a long enough time horizon, if Bitcoin continues to go up and to the right, a company using the right structure can amplify Bitcoin exposure and outperform Bitcoin through that structure. That structure matters. The ability to issue long-duration, structurally attractive liabilities against Bitcoin exposure matters. That is the point. As Bitcoiners, we are supposed to understand low time preference. We are supposed to zoom out. We are supposed to understand that cherry-picking a window from a local peak into a drawdown does not tell you whether the strategy works over the relevant time horizon. Since Strategy began its Bitcoin strategy in 2020, the total return of the common equity has outperformed Bitcoin. That is the cleanest long-term test of whether the structure has worked. Even in your original 2024 framing, the proper analysis on a total return basis for a single share showed outperformance. Then, when you shifted to a weighted average issuance argument, the issue became whether you were doing that analysis consistently. You were not. If you want to analyze common equity issued over time, you cannot simply take the weighted average price at which equity was issued and then compare it to Bitcoin over a return period that begins before much of that equity existed. That was the original flaw. You need to make the entire analysis internally consistent. If you use a weighted average equity issuance price, then you also need a weighted average issuance date. You then need to compare that to Bitcoin over the comparable cash-flow-weighted time period. In other words, you need to match the dollars raised, the dates those dollars were raised, the price at which equity was issued, and the Bitcoin price over the same comparable timing. You cannot weight one side of the analysis and then use an unweighted or mismatched start date on the other side. That is not attribution. That is a framework error. Your revised point appears to be moving closer to the right framework, but the conclusion you are drawing is still not the devastating critique you think it is. The TLDR of your argument is now effectively this: If you buy amplified Bitcoin exposure near a Bitcoin cycle peak, and then Bitcoin enters a bear market, that amplified Bitcoin exposure may underperform Bitcoin over that selected period. Correct. That is what should happen. Again, that is not a refutation of the strategy. That is the expected outcome of positive beta in a Bitcoin drawdown. The real question is not whether common equity can underperform Bitcoin over a cherry-picked period from a local peak into a bear market. The real question is whether the structure is attractive over the long run for investors who are bullish on Bitcoin and willing to maintain a low time preference. My view is yes. If you are bullish on Bitcoin over the long run, then a company that uses long-duration liabilities, digital credit, and a capital structure designed to accumulate and amplify Bitcoin exposure can be attractive. If you are not bullish on Bitcoin, or if you are evaluating it over short windows from local peaks into drawdowns, then of course you may not like it. That is fine. But those are different debates. What is not fine is presenting a flawed attribution framework as if it proves the strategy has failed. Parker quote-tweeted my earlier response, and there have now been several replies across this discussion. I would strongly encourage people to read the full exchange carefully, and responses between Parker and @CJ_Bitcoin. I think these back and forths are illuminating because it shows the core deficiencies in Parker’s analysis: inconsistent time periods, mismatched frameworks, selective windows, and conclusions that do not actually follow from the math being presented. I do not think that is malicious. I do think it is analytically wrong. And when the analysis is wrong, the conclusion becomes misleading, even if that was not the intent. To be very clear, I am obviously a fan of people buying Bitcoin directly and putting it in cold storage. That is the purest expression of the asset. But that does not mean every other structure is invalid. A Bitcoin treasury company is a different instrument. It has different risks, different return drivers, different capital structure dynamics, and different upside and downside behavior. If you want pure Bitcoin, buy Bitcoin. If you want a structure designed to amplify Bitcoin exposure over time, then you evaluate that structure on its own terms. But you do not evaluate amplified Bitcoin exposure by selecting a period from a Bitcoin peak into a drawdown and then acting surprised when positive beta works in both directions. That is the entire point. The structure is attractive if you are bullish on Bitcoin, understand the capital structure, and have a low time preference. If you are not bullish on Bitcoin, or if your framework is short-term price comparison from a local high, then you probably will not find it attractive. But that is a difference in thesis, not proof that the strategy has failed. Investors deserve a higher-quality conversation than this. Back to work.

Smash or Pass?

@fitcoiner 😂

If he does this a few more times he can offset the 32 BTC sale

@ForgeWithJeremy Beautiful RoM

@AAStack Thank you, AA! These felt really good.

I love me some weighted dips. Staple in during my last couple bulk seasons. Coach Francis is right, the crossover stimulus on this one is crazy.

Self Haircut Day. Wifey says I look good regardless. I chose to believe her and stack sats instead.

@GrantDade God bless you brother

@AAStack Towards the end of my chemo that was the only vein that would work.

Love putting these, hate getting them. Few

Your job is giving you a daily reminder of why you need to build something of your own. Escape ⚡️

@alecsime I can proudly say ive never sold 1 single sat either. Every sat that I purchased has a lock up period.

I've never sold a single sat. Not at $126K. Not at $60K last week. Not ever. That's not bravado. That's just what conviction actually looks like when it gets tested.

Few ⚡️

Good morning ☀️ everyone except those who say “do your own research” and get angry when you reach a different conclusion.