Mike Treidl

Join us for a space on Thursday at 11am ET, with special guest @Mike99349548 from Blue Coin Capital We'll be covering the following: ▪︎ A preview of our Second Half Outlook ▪︎ Mike's take on Strategy's mNAV compression and the STRC stress test ▪︎ Where he sees opportunity across the market right now x.com/i/spaces/1kKzD…

Strategy (MSTR) is trading near the value of its own bitcoin. STRC — its "digital credit" preferred — just broke below par. The market is calling it a breakdown. We think it's an entry point. In our latest research note, Blue Coin Capital cuts through the noise on the most-debated name in crypto: how the flywheel actually works, what mNAV really tells you, why STRC sold off — and why we view this dislocation as an attractive entry for patient capital, not a systemic crack. Read it here 👇 bluecoincapital.substack.com/p/strategy-mst… For informational purposes only. Not investment advice. #Bitcoin #MSTR #DigitalAssets #Investing #STRC #Saylor #Strategy

@shanaka86 Strategy ($MSTR) has ~$1.4B in cash, enough to pay nearly a years worth of dividends, is the antidote to this downward reflexivity. Cooler heads will prevail and people who bought at distressed levels make $$$. I doubt it will ever trade this low again.

The viral posts screaming that Michael Saylor is about to be forced to dump Bitcoin have the mechanism exactly backward. There is no margin call coming. What is coming is something the panic itself is building, in real time, with everyone who posts about it. The fact that kills the domino story is verified and load-bearing. Strategy cannot be hit by a programmatic margin call at these prices. Its Bitcoin was bought almost entirely with convertible notes carrying fixed maturities across the decade, not collateralized margin loans, and its preferred shares, including the cratering STRC, are explicitly not backed by the Bitcoin. No automated trigger sells the stack because the stock fell. The single most repeated fear in this selloff, forced liquidation, has no mechanical path to happen. Anyone telling you the dominoes are about to fall has not read the capital structure. What is actually happening is more interesting than anything in the doom threads. Strategy is pressured by a loop, not a trigger. The market perceives Strategy as fragile. Traders short spot Bitcoin to hedge that fragility, pushing Bitcoin lower. A lower Bitcoin widens Strategy's unrealized loss, now well past 10 billion dollars, pressuring STRC further below its 100 dollar par. The falling preferred drives the next leg down in the stock. And the falling stock deepens the perception of fragility the loop started with. Round and round, each turn feeding the next. The unsettling part is that this loop runs entirely on perception, so it does not need Saylor to sell a single coin to do its damage. The fear of forced selling produces the exact price action that would, eventually, justify forced selling. The prediction manufactures its own evidence. This is why the viral posts are not describing the danger. They are the danger. A large account posting next domino to a panicked audience is not observing the loop from outside. He is a node inside it, converting his followers into the very shorting pressure that makes his prophecy look prescient. Almost no one connects the next part, and it is the whole revelation. This identical loop ran for years in reverse, and nobody called it fragile then. On the way up, the perception that Strategy was a winning Bitcoin proxy drew buyers, lifting the stock, letting it issue equity at a premium, buy more Bitcoin, and lift Bitcoin again. The premium was a self-fulfilling prophecy climbing. The machine now manufacturing fragility is the same one that manufactured invincibility, the same circuit with the sign flipped. It was never as strong as the loop made it look going up, nor as doomed as it looks now. In both directions, the loop, not the reality, set the price. So the deepest truth here is one neither the bulls nor the doom-callers will say out loud. Saylor did not build a Bitcoin company. He built a reflexivity machine, an engine that converts perception into price and price back into perception, wrapped around the most volatile major asset on earth. Reflexivity machines do not get margin calls. They have moods. For four years the mood was euphoria and the machine printed a legend. The mood just inverted, and the same wiring that wrote the legend now writes the panic. The real pressure was never a lender pulling collateral. It is two things the panic ignores: a clock, since Strategy now holds under ten months of cash to cover its preferred dividends, down from seven years, and a crowd changing its mind, discovering the crowd was the collateral all along. The question is not whether Saylor gets margin called. It is whether he built something that can survive the mood it was designed to exploit, now that the mood runs the other way.

@Croesus_BTC Great overview. Now is a great time to buy.

STRC down to $82.6 today. Here's my read: 1. Strategy is fine. If everything stays as is, they can pay STRC dividends for 32 years. If BTC appreciates at ~2% CAGR, they can pay dividends indefinitely. 2. Why the sell-off? This appears to be a liquidation cascade. Over the last 6 months, the narrative became that STRC volatility was reducing, and price began to spend all its time in $99-100 range. This invites leverage. If you expect the price to always be north of $95, you can take on 20x leverage with your portfolio to buy more STRC and dramatically increase the yield on your portfolio. This works great, until it doesn't. STRC is designed as a free-market asset. When attention shifted to SATA and STRC price flagged, it may have raised the attention of opportunistic short-selling hedge funds. By shorting aggressively, they could push the price down and start triggering margin calls and liquidations from folks who aggressively levered up their STRC positions. The price action today is a clear liquidation cascade, rapidly pushing prices lower, in turn triggering additional liquidations. 3. What happens now? The market will heal itself. Opportunistic hedge funds will recognize that this is a firesale and the fundamentals are unchanged for STRC and step in as buyers. Shorts will close, becoming buyers. Individuals are getting a tremendous entry price for long-term holding STRC shares. Buyers at this level will get ~13.7% effective yield. If STRC trades back to $100 and they sell, they get an easy +18% return. 4. What will Strategy do? Strategy will likely increase the dividend rate on June 30 - maybe to 11.75% but possibly to 12%. Buyers at the current price level then would get 14.2% effective yield from that point forward. Strategy may also step in to buy STRC shares back. They could do this by issuing new shares of MSTR (currently at 1.14 mNAV) or by taking on traditional debt and deploying those funds to buy discounted STRC shares on the market. If/when STRC trades back to $100, Strategy could then re-issue those STRC shares. The ~$15 delta per share could be used to buy BTC as pure accretion to MSTR holders, with no net change to amplification. No doubt that Saylor has already at least considered this, and it wouldn't surprise me if they're currently doing this. 5. In summary... The market is freaked out that this depeg is like Terra/Luna... but this is not an asset like that. Strategy's balance sheet determines whether STRC continues to receive dividend payments... and Strategy's balance sheet is completely unchanged. This is a leverage wipeout. From this, the market will learn that Digital Credit is mostly very low volatility. But because it is a free market asset, the longer that a Digital Credit instrument trades within a tight range to par... the more leverage will inevitably pile up as people get greedy. And that creates the conditions for a leverage wipeout depeg. Following that, the instrument will make its way back to par value as the market heals itself and recognizes that the dividend payments will continue uninterrupted because the issuer's balance sheet is unaffected.

@CryptoMichNL False advertising. You are ignoring senior claims of debt and preferreds. The “real” mNAV is close to 1.0x

$MSTR its current market capitalization is $29 billion. The $BTC they are holding: $51 billion. That's a discount of 43% of the stock compared to the underlying collateral. An absolute steal of a price. The sole reason that the markets are currently underpricing the underlying stock is due to the fact that Strategy has been diluting the stock. Now, the mNAV has also dropped <1 for the first time ever. When did we see that happen for the last time? Exactly, during the bottoming period in Q4 2022. I don't think Michael Saylor's Strategy will fall. Given that there's a snapshot date approaching on the 30th of June, I would assume we're close to the end. Other than that, markets move in extremes. The current discount of the stock itself is overstretched compared to the value and would mean that we're currently living in peak fear.

This very well could be a temporary dislocation due to leverage unwinds and not sophisticated Wall Street investors selling/shorting $STRC. Strategy ($MSTR) has 850K BTC which is about $50B. Annual payments on $STRC are on the order of $1.5B. Plenty of assets to cover obligations

Wall Street is really good at sniffing out distressed credit. They’re zero’ing STRC bc they know Saylor won’t get away with diluting common holders to zero. He’ll have to sell Bitcoin, there’s no other way. Unfortunately the market also knows his size and seems certain he could only get out of Bitcoin at a far lower price

@nic_carter Congrats!

Tonight I was received into the Catholic Church. I received the sacrament of Communion and Confirmation under the patronage of Saint Andrew at St. Patrick Catholic Church in Miami Beach, administered by Bishop Delgado.

@maplefinance Regarding the SSF, I heard you say something like 80% SYRUP and 20% other tokens. Could you please clarify that statement? Do those numbers apply to the buybacks, or the AUM within the SSF, or something else? Thanks!

Q1 2026 Tokenholder Update x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

@dampedspring @malekanoms Great point: stablecoins < commercial banks in credit creation. Also, stables don't pay interest, to avoid drawing deposits away from banks. In this zero-sum environment, I'm interested to see how much stables increase foreign demand for $ at the expense of other currencies.

A stable coin takes a deposit and lends that deposit to the government, in repo, and to banks as a deposit. 1 of deposits creates 1 of credit A commercial banks creates money and credit out of thin air A bank that meets regulatory requirements can literally create both deposits and assets out of thin air. If a person wants a loan they go into a bank and sign some papers and boom they have a deposit. Practically a commercial bank has some limits to how much credit they can create but it's close to 20:1 where a stable coin is just 1:1. Yes a stable coin creates credit but 1/20th of the credit a bank can. Unbelievably dopey response to the editorial.

I've written a response to an anti-stablecoin op-ed published in the WSJ by acclaimed Stanford Professor Amit Seru, Narrow Banks Create Credit One of my favorite things about crypto is the way its novelty challenges otherwise intelligent people. Some rise to the occasion, opening their minds, learning, and evolving their thinking. Others reveal previously unearthed gaps in their knowledge, at best, or just good old fashioned bias. I’m fortunate to know plenty of the former in academia. For a good example of the latter, see this anti-stablecoin op-ed in the Wall Street Journal from accomplished Stanford professor Amit Seru. In it, he argues that stablecoins are a sort of sheep in wolf’s clothing (my words), promising financial innovation and safer banking but delivering neither. He is not a fan of the Genius Act. For a good explanation of what Seru gets wrong about Genius, I recommend @intangiblecoins Thorn’s article on Twitter. My beef with Seru’s op-ed is what he gets wrong about banking and credit. Stablecoins, as Genius dictates, are just narrow banks whose liabilities exist in a more superior form factor, the cryptographic token. Seru doesn’t seem to take issue with the token, but he doesn’t like narrow banking: But clarity isn’t the same as safety. The act formalizes stablecoins as narrow banks—entities that collect deposits but don’t lend—in all but name. That means no maturity mismatch, yes, but also no credit intermediation. The economic engine of finance, transforming savings into investment, is bypassed. Run-proof money becomes idle money. This is a recycling of an old canard that levered (AKA fractionally reserved) banks create credit while narrow ones don’t. This is false, and I can prove it. Circle actually published an attestation of how much credit it has created every month. Per Deloitte, Circle’s reserves at the end of May consisted of Treasuries, repurchase agreements, and cash parked at banks. Treasuries are a transferable loan to the US government. Repos are secured loans to other financial institutions. A bank deposit is money lent to a bank. If these aren’t credit, then I don’t know what is. And I promise, all 3 types of counterparties put that money to work. The US government doesn’t just borrow money via the bond market and sit on it. Neither do firms paying over 4% interest for term loans, or banks that collect deposits. There’s no idle money here. People who argue that only levered banks create credit ignore the inconvenient fact that in America, banks account for just 20% of credit creation. There are five trillion dollars in money market funds alone. Is that also idle money? What about the agency market for mortgage-backed securities? Are the pension funds that buy MBS from Fannie and Freddie—as opposed to parking their money at a levered bank—doing the equivalent of putting their money in a shoe box? Of course not, they are participating in the credit creation that drives the housing market. Credit is something that gets created anytime an economic agent lends money to another. It doesn’t matter if you do it via a stablecoin, money market fund, vanilla savings account, or direct loan to your uncle. There are benefits to lending via an intermediary—I’d much rather invest in a bond fund that buys agency debt than lend the money directly to a stranger who wants to buy a house. But there are many kinds of intermediaries, and each has its own pluses and minuses. Levered banks like SVB practice maturity transformation, and that brings down the cost of long term debt, but they do so at the risk of catastrophic runs. Ironically, Seru himself explains this dynamic: This wishful thinking is fueled in part by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023. That was no tale of subprime mortgages or exotic derivatives, but a rerun of the oldest story in banking: maturity mismatch. Depositors, in particular those uninsured, can withdraw on demand. Banks invest long-term. When interest rates jump and confidence cracks, withdrawals follow, assets are fire-sold, and the government steps in. Again. But quixotically, he doesn’t use this flaw of traditional banking to defend narrow banking. He projects it unto stablecoins later in the op-ed: As ever in finance, as in fables, great power often hides even greater fragility. If stablecoins become embedded in everyday transactions, their failure won’t be contained in the crypto world. It will become a problem for households, firms and, through an inevitable bailout, taxpayers. That stablecoins will face the same kind of runs that levered banks do—and require the same kind of anti-run measures like deposit insurance and taxpayer bailouts—is a second fallacy pushed by confused skeptics. In reality, narrow banks are safer. That safety makes depositors less likely to run in the first place, thus requiring less deposit insurance or bailouts. In theory, a Genius-compliant stablecoin issuer can unwind its entire balance sheet with minimum impact. The liquidation of its reserves might cause temporary distortions in the bond and repo markets, but that’s just how markets work. We can’t regulate away selling. The distortion caused by a narrow bank unwind are always less than when a fractionally-reserved bank fails. Genius compliant stablecoins also enjoy bankruptcy remoteness, which is better than the bankruptcy supremacy FinTech depositors often get. I’ve read professor Seru’s op-ed at least five times, and still don’t really understand what his point is, except to argue against change. He’s an expert on bank runs, so you’d think he’d be pro a safer form of intermediation. Perhaps he’s just a fan of Bitcoin. How else are we to interpret this statement: For all the hype, stablecoins haven’t transcended banking. They have replicated its tensions in new form. The real promise of blockchain was to end trust dependencies. Instead, we are doubling down on them, now under federal supervision. Which brings me to one of my other favorite things about crypto: the more people argue against one aspect of it, the more they inadvertently end up defending another. Maybe that’s what happens when you oppose progress.

10 years ago today, Ethereum made history with its launch. Since then, it has: 💰 Grown to a $𝟱𝟬𝟬𝗕 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗽, rivaling giants like Visa and Mastercard 🌐 Onboarded 𝟭𝟯𝟬𝗠 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀—as many people as were online globally in 1998 🏦 Powered institutional innovation from JPMorgan, BlackRock, and Franklin Templeton 🎨 Become the birthplace of NFTs and the heart of Web3 culture 🚀 Enabled nearly $𝟯𝟬𝗕 𝗶𝗻 𝗜𝗖𝗢 fundraising—on par with a typical year of U.S. IPOs The next decade of finance will be built on Ethereum: stablecoins, tokenized assets, DeFi, and Layer 2s—all secured by a decentralized ledger. #Ethereum #Web3 #DeFi #Tokenization #Stablecoins #Blockchain #FutureOfFinance #Crypto #Layer2 #DigitalAssets #EthereumAnniversary

Crypto isn’t just speculation — it’s a strategic move. These 3 points could shift your entire perspective. #BlueCoinCapital #DigitalAssets #cryptocurrency #Bitcoin #Blockchain

🚨 Congress just took a big step into crypto. With the GENIUS Act & new stablecoin legislation, we're entering a new era of regulatory clarity in the U.S. What it means for investors, TradFi, and crypto-native firms: 👉 open.substack.com/pub/bluecoinca… #Crypto #Stablecoins #GENIUSAct #Regulation #Web3 #DigitalAssets

@Hotbit_news What is the name of the authorities that are investigating? Can you provide country and department?

@katherinewu More of this. Thank you!

Video 7 of 7 Concluding thoughts- some of his words were aggressive (and I am a dramatic storyteller) BUT this is the closest we have come in a long time to getting real crypto clarity. It's not going to happen overnight, but at least now we all know where priorities are.

Gensler really went live today to give us all a huge "fuck you" In all seriousness though- this is the most aggressive and hostile stance re US crypto regulation to date from the SEC- magnitudes more than anything before. Working through this speech rn to give a breakdown soon

@timevalueofbtc Congrats Nik!

Layered Money is now the #1 New Release in Money & Monetary Policy on Amazon! 🔥🚀

UNA-OC is holding a social media competition with the goal to develop a media campaign to educate and end social injustice! The prize money is $150! for more information visit: una-oc.org/competition #blacklivesmatter #BLM #UnitedNations #UNAUSA #BLMMOVEMENT

@UNA_OC This is a great idea!