futpib

@hillery_dan Doesn't it make STRK most desirable? Less ATM, get both dividends and MSTR upside. It's like a premium version of STRF (unless Strategy is near bankruptcy which is not happening).

IMO, STRD should reprice up significantly considering Strategy reduced ATM capacity of STRK down to 2.1B from 21B. The moving liquidation preference on STRK was a real problem for all junior securities. Glad it is getting rolled back, not to mention the problems that arise with convertible arbitraging.

@mrwebber4 > CNN has reported, quoting an unnamed Iranian official

The new system publicly announced

@FinFreedom414 @dgt10011 If you can't see it, you'll have no problem unseeing it

@dgt10011 Jeff Park: “I could just summarize my point in a sentence or two, but instead read this size 2 font below and see if you can decipher what point I’m trying to make”

Everyone is asking: "Is Jane Street why Bitcoin isn't at $150k?" As expected, the answer is trickier than the question. But it's also more structurally unsettling than the conspiracy theory itself—and once you understand the actual mechanics, you won't be able to unsee them👇

@RichardByworth @willywoo You don't have to believe in quantum to believe market is pricing in quantum risk

Hey Willy - good to see you posting! Given the instability of running a quantum computer, who do you think will viably be able to run it in a stable state long enough to extract the bitcoin from the Satoshi wallets and lost bitcoin? And your post assumes that they will immediately sell it, given they have the resources to run a quantum computer, would you not assume that they probably understand the value proposition of bitcoin?

12 YR TREND BROKEN. BTC should be a valued a LOT HIGHER relative to gold. Should be. IT'S NOT. The valuation trend broke down once QUANTUM came into awareness. Don't read this post if you want to stay high on hopium instead of seeing things as they are.

@KrTirtho @OpenAI Try claude code

Can we please make LLMs smart enough to handle stupid DevOps?!!! Put your stupid effort in a good/useful cause @OpenAI

@WAGMIcapital @_Checkmatey_ Not legal advice

Sold silver at the dealer this morning for a 3x over ~18 months. Sell thesis was simple, silver chart is now parabolic, I received three messages in two weeks asking how to buy it, and gold/silver ratio has hit lows where it historically peaks out. Every twitter sub-community is now a silver community. Topping stuff. Some notes on the experience: - I couldn't sell it yesterday because of public holiday in Australia, and I lost a few % points waiting for the dealer to open 9am this morning. I also had to bus to the city, pain in the ass. - Lines out the door, all retail, all very excited to buy. - Chit chat in the line was mostly retail folks bragging about how much $ they have made since last weeks buy, and why silver is now better than gold as an investment. - In shop, many of the buyers had no idea how to think about weights, coins vs bars, different mints. Total newbs, or people who wanted the shiniest coins at whatever price. - I was one of two sellers, other guy was selling a fat stack of silver, and clearly had been buying for a long time. Serious looking dude too. - Sold 2% below spot price, so spread wasn't terrible. The whole experience was 100x more time consuming, less convenient, and with lower control than a Bitcoin transaction. I couldn't sell when and at the price I wanted to. The spreads buying silver are heinous, and glad the spread on the way out wasn't too bad. Bitcoin fixes literally all of the monetary properties here. Silver should be used in industry, leave the monetary use-case to gold and corn. Staying humble and stacking sats with the proceeds.

@KrTirtho @gnome It literally has options for this

you know what after trying kdenlive in a KDE plasma environment and not being able to change it's own individual theme to Breeze dark while whole desktop is in a different Global Theme, maybe the people at @gnome are right. Let an app have it's own custom theme instead of global

@mrwebber4 That's why we need 24/7 trading hours

Weekends are for wars and bombing runs.

@AnonLaserEyes @DylanLeClair Thanks, didn't know that. Digged a bit, the closest date they can convert one seems to be December 4, 2026 for the "Convert 2029" issuance strategy.com/press/microstr…. Strangely "Convert 2028" (due earlier) becomes redeemable later on December 20, 2027 strategy.com/press/microstr…

@futpib @DylanLeClair There are force conversion clauses. Strategy chose not to trigger some of them when they had the chance.

Strategy bought an eye-watering $3.38B of BTC over the past two weeks ($1.25B + $2.13B). Plenty of takes on these moves, but I want to provide some color on what they're doing to the capital structure, which I find to be especially notable. Firstly, STRC is obviously having its moment in the sun. $119M two weeks ago, $294M this past week—all while STRC stays pinned within 1% of face value. This $STRC issuance has been in tandem with a large amount of $MSTR ATM . What does this mean, and is this accretive for shareholders? Most MSTR was sold between 1.0x-1.10x mNAV. This is accretive in net asset terms, however with market cap below the value of BTC holdings, in isolation, it would be negative to BTC/share. However, Saylor is intelligently pairing the MSTR ATM with the STRC ATM. STRC was ~14% the size of MSTR issuance over this period. In BTC per fully-diluted share terms, despite selling of common with BTC below market cap value (while indeed above 1.0x in enterprise value terms), BTC per fully diluted common shares increased over the past two weeks —up 0.4% on the year. So, indeed accretive, but in my view, the bigger story is the focus on deleveraging the convertible bonds to focus on attaining "amplification" through prefs instead. If we assume constant 92K BTC for consistency, from the start of the year to today: Converts (less USD) as % of BTC: 9.67% → 9.18% Prefs (less USD) as % of BTC: 9.19% → 9.36% Strategy has flipped its outstanding convertible debt with notional prefs, which of course never come due in principal. In just one year. Why is this being done? Strategy's team has made clear they see the perpetual pref (dubbed "digital credit") as the big idea. The fact that prefs can IPO, with ATMs attached, with no maturity cliff speaks for itself. But I believe there's an additional motivation potentially: minimizing the gamma effect convertible debt has on the credit spreads of the prefs. If you correctly view the convertible bonds as debt + an equity call option, at $400 MSTR the weighted delta on the converts was approximately 73%. The market effectively viewed Strategy as having ~$2.18B of effective debt with ~$6.06B that would become equity. This is rough back-of-napkin math, but you can use Black-Scholes to input the convertible bond strikes and first put dates, you can approximate a delta for each bond. In aggregate, you get a weighted average delta. So yes, while technically $8.2B of debt has been outstanding for almost a year, the market doesn't treat this as 100% debt—it probabilistically moves with MSTR stock price. When BTC fell sharply in November and MSTR (as well as all other BTC proxies) followed, the stock price falling essentially partially 'de-equitized' the converts. A move from $400 to $150 is sort of like ~$2.5B more debt becoming senior to the prefs. The delta of the converts—their sensitivity to MSTR price—changed. This change in delta is called gamma. The point here is that it wasn't necessarily just BTC NAV itself contracting that changed the profile of the prefs in the eyes of some credit investors. It was BTC price moving MSTR price, which impacted the likelihood of conversion of the converts, which impacted the assumed senior liabilities above the prefs. With the massive purchases in recent weeks, it's clear that Strategy is diligently deleveraging the converts off the balance sheet (relatively), which means the convert gamma will have minimal—and eventually no impact on pref credit spreads. Having no convertible bonds senior to the prefs should not only improve absolute credit spreads but should diminish credit spread volatility, as the volatility of the size of the assumed senior liabilities above the prefs goes away entirely. This should make prefs like STRC even less volatile, reinforcing the strength and efficiency of the system further. So to answer the question: yes, this mix of STRC and MSTR issuance is accretive in BTC Yield terms, but I think the bigger story here is the deleveraging of the balance sheet (relatively) of convertible bonds, and it's shifting the focus to pref-style "amplification"—exactly as the MSTR team has stated. The USD reserve is another recent shift worth noting. It looks to have further dampened credit spread volatility in the prefs by quieting market concerns around dividend coverage and immediate capital raising needs. Congrats to the Strategy team on having notional prefs surpass converts in just one year. Wildly impressive.

@AnonLaserEyes @DylanLeClair It's bond holders who choose to convert or not, not Strategy

@DylanLeClair If this was true, wouldn’t they push to convert the converts early? They’ve stubbornly left the convertible bonds as is without converting when they had the chance.

@sunny051488 @AdamSimecka @pastorcoin Luke is a better trader and earlier than 90% bitcoiners probably, he will be fine and he is definitely allowed to trade. The last smart bear Twitter faded was Chanos and he nailed it.

@AdamSimecka @pastorcoin I think it’s very important to call things out. Otherwise you end up with Peter Schiffs and Jim Cramers who become the public face of retail investors.

Thesis playing out.

@metahacker_ @BitQua Just used Claude code with Air Force MCP to remove Maduro

@BitQua I just asked Claude Code to erase the national debt and its been thinking for 38 minutes straight

When Elon Musk said this, the probability of it happening was below 10%. After the events at the beginning of January, the probability of it happening within 3 years rose dramatically.

@RichLassiterMD That's mind blowing actually. The market priced in the merger and thus made the merger detrimental to shareholders. I wonder if this is the fate of all Bitcoin Treasury acquisitions in the future.

When the Semler and Strive merger was announced back in September, I thought it was going to be beneficial for the Semler shareholders. I no longer believe that it is. The market has traded both equity prices down, and they are currently even with each other in terms of future company valuation (1 SMLR=21.04 ASST). However, the bitcoin per share math is detrimental to the SMLR shareholder. You can see that in this screenshot, using a representative example of someone holding 1,000 shares of Semler, they would have 0.29 ₿ represented by their shares, and will have 0.20 ₿ represented by the new Strive shares. There was a fiat benefit when this trade was announced, but the benefit evaporated. I am voting against this merger with my shares. $SMLR $ASST @SemlerSci @SemlerEric

@BitQua Why is it important? Who cares how you slice the chart into cycles

When Bitcoin prints a new all-time high, they’ll tell you that a new cycle has started. It’s important to remember that it isn’t a new cycle - it’s still the one that began at $16K.

@crisreed OGs selling plus quantum something something

“Store of value”

@BTCoptioneer @LynAldenContact @TXMCtrades Sentiment goes below negative infinity

@LynAldenContact @TXMCtrades What happens if we drop below $50K?

@LukeGromen @peruvian_bull Is it the number of shells or the inverse of the number of shells?

The higher the stock-to-flow ratio, the longer physical reality can be separated from prices via paper games; S/F ratio can be thought of as the # of "shells" in a shell game It's why large dumps of paper contracts don't often occur in oil, etc.: It risks creating supply issues.

@Malone_Wealth I'd love to see it adjusted for condensed tomato soup price

Here you go, Andrew.

There is no logical or statistical reason to ever show this chart of silver vs USD since the US ended the gold standard and started printing "infinity".

@AlfCharts Today I learned AMZN, META, GOOGL, TSLA, NFLX, V are not technology companies (are included in SPXT)

If you remove all tech stocks from the S&P 500, it still closed the week at record highs.

@david_eng_mba @nbaplayoffs2025 @saylor @cz_binance @dgt10011 @LynAldenContact @GrantCardone @MicroStrategy They will roll until they win, that's institutional capital for you

@nbaplayoffs2025 @saylor @cz_binance @dgt10011 @LynAldenContact @GrantCardone @MicroStrategy It can but the market cannot perpetually roll this position. Maintaining a price pin against fundamental inflows requires capital and willing counterparties. Eventually this will break.

TACTICAL DELAY: Why The "Failed" Breakout is Actually a More Compressed and Bullish Spring and the Path to a Year-End ~$219K On December 26th, the market expected a massive volatility release as ~60% ($327M) of gamma expired. Instead, price remained flat. This was not a "failure" of the bull market; it was a mechanical re-pressurization event. Here is the mathematical reason of why the market didn't break, why it is currently coiling, and why it leads to Year-End ~$219K. 1. Why the "Release Valve" Jammed (The Great December Roll) The volatility explosion failed to materialize for one specific reason: Traders didn't leave the table; they just bought more time. Instead of letting positions expire (which unpins the price), the market executed a massive, coordinated Roll: The Action: Institutional players sold the expiring December contracts and aggressively bought January contracts. The Result: The Dealer "Short Gamma" exposure didn't vanish; it was simply transferred 35 days into the future. THE NUMBERS: Old Trap (Dec 27): Gamma has withered to $17M (only 6.8% of total). The pin is gone here. New Trap (Jan 30): Gamma has swelled to $93M (37.3% concentration). The Diagnosis: The "can" was kicked down the road. The suppression wall that held Bitcoin at $87k in December has been rebuilt at the exact same level for January. 2. Why This is Bullish (Paying Rent to Wait) If the market were bearish or exhausted, traders would have taken the liquidity event on Dec 25th to cash out. They didn't. Paying the Premium: The Term Structure is in Contango (Dec IV 28.3% < Jan IV 39.3%). Rolling these positions is expensive. The Signal: Smart money is effectively paying "rent" to keep their bullish exposure alive. You do not pay a premium to roll a position unless you mathematically expect the eventual breakout to exceed the cost of the roll. Conclusion: This wasn't a "failed breakout." It was a kinetic loading phase. The market is compressing the spring tighter rather than letting it release prematurely. 3. Why This Cannot Happen Forever (The Physics of the Pin) You asked: "What will keep this from happening every month?" The market cannot perpetually roll this position. Maintaining a price pin against fundamental inflows requires energy (capital) and willing counterparties. The physics of the options market guarantees this suppression mechanism will eventually break. A. The Cost of Carry (The "Charm" Bleed) Data: The dashboard shows Charm Exposure at $-18M. Meaning: This is the daily cost of time decay. The holders of these calls are bleeding millions in value every day the price stays flat. Eventually, they are mathematically forced to either exercise (buy spot) or capitulate (close). Both actions shatter the pin. B. Gamma Steepening (The Wall Gets Harder to Hold) The Physics: As we get closer to the Jan 30 expiration, the "Gamma Curve" becomes vertical. The Consequence: Today, a $500 move requires moderate Dealer hedging. By mid-January, that same $500 move will force Dealers to buy/sell massive amounts of Bitcoin to stay neutral. The "Pin" becomes unstable and eventually unmanageable. 4. The Path to $226K (The Beach Ball Effect) The market feels dead because Implied Volatility (28%) is crushed while Open Interest ($276B) is at record highs. This is the definition of a Mechanical Coil. Think of Bitcoin right now as a beach ball being held underwater by a mechanical arm (the Dealer Pin). The Submersion (Current State): Force Down: The Call Wall at $90,000 caps the upside. Force Up: ETF Inflows (IBIT/FBTC) are buying the underlying asset. Result: Potential energy accumulates. The longer price stays flat while inflows continue, the more violent the eventual snap-back. The Failure Point (Jan 30 or Sooner): When the "Charm" bleed forces the Longs to act, or the "Gamma Steepening" makes the pin impossible to hold, the mechanical arm breaks. The Release ($90k → $226K): Stage 1 (The Squeeze): Breaking $90k forces Dealers (who are short calls) to panic-buy Bitcoin to hedge. This drives price to $100k-$110k in days. Stage 2 (The Vacuum): Above $110k, there is almost no sell-side liquidity (the "Air Pocket"). Stage 3 (Price Discovery): With the suppression removed, Bitcoin reprices to match the accumulated ETF inflows. The target of $219K aligns with the Power Law projections for late 2026, accelerated by the "catch-up" from this suppression period. Final Verdict: The December Roll bought the bears 35 days of survival, but it guaranteed that the eventual move will be vertical. The spring is now more compressed.