BitBrew

New Substack: The Reverse Imperial Circle @bitbrew1/note/p-197543265?r=3sfg1k&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">substack.com/@bitbrew1/note…

@farzyness Get this gay bedazzled BS off my phone

Whoever designed this needs to be fired immediately:

BREAKING: SpaceX is planning to debut its record-setting IPO as soon as June 12th and has packed the Nasdaq as its listing venue, per Reuters. SpaceX has accelerated its IPO timeline and ⁠is now aiming to flip its prospectus ​public as early as next Wednesday.

@STRC_live is guessing around 15k BTC and @BTCtreasuries is guessing around 24k. Considering they used 1.5B to pay off some of the convert, we shouldn’t see the full amount. Let’s see who is the closest.

@hillery_dan Most people don’t know jack shit about anything so polls really don’t matter on stuff like this.

lololoolo. Do people just want Bitcoin not to go up?

Strive is a structured finance company and institutional asset manager focused on disciplined capital allocation and long-term value creation. Proud to celebrate $ASST! #NasdaqListed

Say it with me. DE VAL U ATION

$SATA is printing and $ASST is down. Let’s do a thought experiment. $SATA keeps printing but the common doesn’t. Obviously this could lead to higher amplification and even too high to the point where it hurts the credit and $SATA stops trading at par. Strive has a couple options to delever. 1. Sell equity if it’s at a premium 2. Sell Bitcoin if equity is at 1 mnav and buy back common 3. Sell equity even when equity is at 1mnav if they don’t want to sell Bitcoin The first 2 seem obvious. Let’s break down number 3. Selling Bitcoin actually leverages up the balance sheet and the delevering part would be purchasing common. The issue is that it may not work to solve the issue at play here which is that amplification is too high. In this scenario, I would be all for them selling common to acquire more Bitcoin to expand the balance sheet at 1 mnav or even slightly below EVEN IF ITS BTC YIELD NEGATIVE. Why? Because of the credit quality. Saylor said that they have to balance the needs for positive BTC yield and the credit quality. Expanding the balance sheet at less than 1 mnav is BTC yield negative BUT… If it allows $SATA to keep printing and reinforcing the flywheel, it’s actually BTC yield POSITIVE on the back end. Essentially the dilution of the common would be made up by $SATA continuing to trade at par and provide BTC yield. The flywheel is unstoppable as long as the common has ample liquidity and the common will have ample liquidity as long as the credit quality is good because it reinforces the strength of the underlying business.

The idea of $STRC will be more important than the IPhone. Spoiler alert. There were already phones before IPhones. $STRC never existed before.

JUST IN: Elon Musk says "Instagram is for girls."

DEI stands for Datacenter, Electricity and Infrastructure now

@BitStrategy21 Friends? No. Mutual beneficial entities? Yes. Just look at the AI space. They’re all feeding off each other.

It is not possible for companies to be ‘friends’ with other companies. A company is a legal entity, not a natural person. Legal entities cannot make friends. Management can be friends with the management of other companies, to the extent it doesn’t interfere with their fiduciary duty to their shareholders. I know this is a little depressing, but please remember this is business and not the playground.

I spent the past few days in Washington with @hyperliquidpc meeting with policymakers during the historic advancement of the Clarity Act. We discussed Hyperliquid, the benefits that it offers to American consumers, and the regulatory path to bring onchain derivatives markets into the United States. Some conversations were technical with an impressive baseline understanding of Hyperliquid. Discussions included how onchain trading is a financial innovation that has clear global user demand. Other conversations focused more on a first principles introduction to defi and the promise of onchain markets. It was encouraging to see bipartisan support for thoughtful regulation of crypto. I look forward to continuing discussions in DC and working hard to make American access to Hyperliquid a reality.

We turn Bitcoin into Money. $STRC

@hillery_dan Daily dividend of Ass-T

Bidding ASS-T

@cantonmeow Horny issues?

How is this news?

Yes and no. Land value would still go up in a deflationary system given its scarcity. This is assuming we only live on earth but I’m talking about the past. Yes, it’s also because of inflation but scarcity that’s valuable goes up over time no matter whether we have inflation or not.

@BitBrew1 @dotkrueger It’s the money, not the land or the house

"House Prices go up. The house does not get better. It get's worse" -- Scott Melker.

@BoringBiz_ We hit peak human capability. What else did you expect?

The future looks like a world where all human cognition is offloaded to machines

⚡️The answer is that markets never truly believed the Fed’s 2% target was dead because the entire post-2008 system trained them to believe every inflation flare would eventually be absorbed by policy credibility, global supply, technology, and demand destruction. That belief held because long-term inflation expectations are not just a pure inflation forecast. They are a trust instrument. They reflect faith that the Fed will eventually react, that recessions will clear excess demand, that Treasuries remain the world’s reserve collateral, that global capital still needs duration, and that policymakers can keep the system from fully unanchoring. So the anomaly came from a credibility subsidy. Inflation kept exceeding target, but the market kept treating it as a sequence of shocks rather than a regime: COVID supply shock, fiscal shock, energy shock, labor shock, tariff shock, war shock. Each time, the market assumed the shock would fade and the Fed’s reaction function would eventually re-anchor the system. That assumption is now being tested. The problem is that inflation is no longer only a demand problem. It is becoming a regime-cost problem: deficits, interest expense, energy risk, tariffs, supply-chain friction, AI infrastructure demand, grid stress, housing scarcity, insurance, healthcare, and geopolitical volatility. Those are not cleanly solved by hiking rates. Higher rates can weaken demand, but they also raise fiscal interest costs, pressure housing supply, and stress credit. That is why the long end matters. The bond market is starting to ask whether 2% inflation is still the actual regime target or just the official language of a system that has quietly migrated to 3–4% inflation because the debt structure cannot tolerate the old discipline. The most probable path is a messy credibility repricing, not instant unanchoring. Inflation expectations drift higher at the margin, the term premium rises, the long end stays volatile, and policymakers keep insisting the target is intact while tolerating inflation above target longer than they admit. That is the base case. The second path is the AI productivity rescue. If AI meaningfully raises productivity fast enough, it offsets wage pressure, services inflation, and corporate cost pressure. That would allow inflation to cool without a brutal recession and validate the market’s patience. This path is real, but timing is the issue. The infrastructure spend is inflationary now. The productivity dividend arrives later and unevenly. The third path is a harder stagflation scare. Inflation stays sticky, real wages remain pressured, labor weakens, and long yields keep rising. That forces a policy collision: the Fed wants credibility, Treasury wants fundability, the White House wants lower pressure, and markets want liquidity. That path ends with some form of intervention, repression, or easing once enough pain appears. The real answer: long-term inflation expectations stayed stable because markets believed in the old regime’s ability to re-anchor reality. Now reality is interrogating that belief. The question is no longer whether inflation can print above target for a few years. It already did. The question is whether the system can still afford to force inflation back to 2% without breaking housing, labor, deficits, equities, private credit, and the political order. That is the anomaly. The target survived because credibility survived. The next phase tests whether credibility is still earned or just inherited.

Bonds are literally dying and all the market can manage is a 2% dip that’ll be bought up before the day is over… A dip for ants.