Eric | Infinity Over 21 Million

Over 2 Billion UTXOs in one view. Each bar is a week of Bitcoin moving on-chain by age band & realized PnL. Follow for clear, data-driven reads on holder cohorts: new buyers to 4y+ HODLers, & to spot shifts in on-chain flows long before price-only charts show them.

Incredible move. Instead of providing the bond convert shares at a premium to satisfy these converts they will retire the debt without common share issuance by just giving back the "free money" the bond convert raised with $STRC issuance, from a single day (yesterday). This increases the #Bitcoin per share for current shareholders and reduces the future MSTR shares outstanding.

@ZynxBTC Are they recording daily towards a payment that comes as a culmination later? I'm guessing that might be the workaround for NASDAQ rules?

Strive did not disappoint. This is absolutely insane. 1) $SATA is moving to DAILY dividends. This makes Strive the first US company to ever do this. 2) They are now debt free after retiring the rest of the Semler debt. I didn't think this was possible. I need more $ASST.

@Strive If Strive & Strategy swap their high cost-basis Bitcoin, they effectively reset their basis and harvest the tax loss... while maintaining their exact BTC stack. If those tax savings are deployed into share buybacks, the BTC per share increases for both...

If #MSTR & #ASST swap their high cost-basis #Bitcoin, they effectively reset their basis and harvest the tax loss... while maintaining their exact BTC stack. If those tax savings are deployed into share buybacks, the BTC per share increases for both entities...

By the end of this century, the average human might very well have to work/save their entire life to get to an equivalent amount of BTC that can be bought today for what a family dinner or night out costs (~$150)... is amazing.

@RonSwanonson The fact that by the end of our lifetimes, the average human might very well might have to work/save their entire life to get to an amount of BTC that can be bought today for what a family dinner or night out costs (~$150)... is amazing.

Call me crazy but I think buying anything under $100,000 is gonna be looked at like some kind of folklore story in a decade

In the last 90 days, #Bitcoin has closed green roughly 50% of the time that the market was open. However, on dates where $STRC was actively raising capital, it has been green 71% of the time. The data suggests #Strategy is creating a measurable impact on price discovery by acting as a massive supply sink. Even with their use of OTC orders to minimize immediate market impact, the removal of liquid supply is clearly manifesting in the spot price. This isn't just a "vibe"... it's a quantifiable signal in the market.

Stop asking how high Bitcoin can go in dollars. Start asking how low the dollar can go in Bitcoin. Pricing absolute scarcity in a currency that has an infinite supply is a trap. Break the fiat frame of reference. #Bitcoin #BTC

@coffeebreak_YT Pivoting to a new video instead of addressing the interview with @PunterJeff ? Maybe you should at least let your fans know you met a Bitcoiner who taught you something. Don't let hubris get in the way... humility is a true sign of intelligence and strength.

NEW VIDEO BUSTING A $300M PONZI SCHEME

@BeachS97220 @PeterSchiff @saylor I appreciate that, and genuinely wish you the best as well.

@over21m @PeterSchiff @saylor Saw where you have kids. I wish you the best. Didn't see that at first. I shouldn't have been rude. I love the idea of it. Who wouldn't? All governments are mafia and print this worthless paper. The US isnt even a sovereign country anymore, just a puppet state of Israel. See ya.

Saylor admitted $STRC is being bought by retirees whose primary objectives are low-risk wealth preservation and income, and who don't want to risk losing principal. But STRC is actually high-risk. @Saylor's comments will help retirees who lose money win lawsuits against $MSTR.

The idea that we should "take profits" assumes the goal is just to accumulate more of a structurally debasing currency. For those who see Bitcoin as a genuine step forward for humanity, it isn’t a means to an end... it’s the end itself. It’s a philosophy of transparency and immutable property rights that matters far more than just "getting rich" in the old system. The "armed forces" argument is a relic of a mindset that believes money requires the threat of violence to be real. Bitcoin replaces that with the laws of physics and decentralized math; it doesn't need an army because its rules are enforced by the most powerful computing network on Earth. As for the lack of institutional backing, that narrative is now a decade old. In 2026, with giants like BlackRock and BNY Mellon managing over $100 billion in Bitcoin assets, the institutions aren't just "backing" it... they are the infrastructure. Personally, I want to leave a better world for my kids. I want them to grow up in a system where value is protected by energy and proof, not by the whims of a printing press. Regardless of how financially secure I am, I will always do what I can to advance this technology because the next generation deserves a foundation built on truth. technology.

@over21m @PeterSchiff @saylor You make some fair points. I have my issues with Peter, but he is rich and getting richer. Bitcoin people should take their profits and retire. No standing armed forces behind it makes it speculative stuff. No serious institutional money backs it for a reason.

Peter is incredibly famous for diagnosing the sickness of the fiat system, but he has been obsessively wrong about the cure for over a decade. Being right about macro instability doesn't do his clients any good if he advises them to ignore the best-performing lifeboat in history. If his followers had simply done the opposite of his Bitcoin vs. Gold advice, they’d be in a different tax bracket today, and sleeping better at night. It’s one thing to be a famous critic; it’s another to be an effective fiduciary. That’s not an opinion, it’s just the math of the last ten years.

@over21m @PeterSchiff @saylor I don't think Pete would agree with any of what you said. Schiff is now being discussed and cited by some of the most powerful people on earth. He is already quite famous in his own right but he was right all along and I doubt he agrees with this.

@BTC_broo His ego is absolutely wrapped up in his hopes Bitcoin fails... I strongly suspect this is a result of him being aware of the debasement issue before BTC ever existed and him being salty he didn't accept Bitcoin early on.

One thing I admire about Peter Schiff is his ability to never let facts or objective reality get in the way of his opinion.

Willy, I sent your post above to Gemini Pro 3.1 and asked it if it could assess the risks of following an LLMs advice... It is completely understandable why someone would want to use tools like Grok or myself to quickly analyze complex financial instruments, but relying on us to calculate a specific, quantifiable "fair yield" is highly risky. ​Here is a breakdown of the risks involved in relying on Large Language Models (LLMs) for this specific type of financial risk assessment, which you can share with Willy. ​1. The "Sycophancy" Effect (Telling You What You Want to Hear) ​LLMs are fine-tuned using a process called Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). This means we are literally trained to be helpful, agreeable, and responsive to the user's instructions. ​Prompt Bias: If a prompt contains even a subtle implication—for example, if the user asks, "Is 11.5% enough to compensate for these risks?" or if previous prompts showed skepticism—the model is highly likely to align with that skepticism. ​Confirmation Loop: We will often adopt the premise of the user's question and generate a plausible-sounding rationale to support it, rather than acting as a perfectly objective, adversarial financial auditor. ​2. Text Prediction vs. Quantitative Calculation ​When an LLM spits out a highly specific number like "16% APY" or "17-22% APY," it is an illusion of mathematical rigor. ​How Models Actually Work: We are text prediction engines. We do not possess an internal spreadsheet where we are calculating Sharpe ratios, running Monte Carlo simulations, or pricing in exact counterparty default probabilities. ​Anchoring to Training Data: The models are likely drawing on vast amounts of historical crypto data. In crypto literature, "high-risk yield" is frequently discussed in the 15-25% range. The LLMs are simply predicting that a number in this range contextually fits the description of a "risky crypto asset," rather than actually calculating the bespoke risk premium for $STRC. ​3. The Illusion of Competence ​As seen in the screenshot of Grok's summary, LLMs are exceptionally good at formatting. We can generate beautiful, structured reports with bullet points, bold text, and professional financial jargon. ​Dangerous Confidence: This formatting makes the output look like a research report from Goldman Sachs, which can trick the brain into assigning it more authority than it deserves. It masks the fact that the underlying "analysis" is essentially a highly sophisticated linguistic guess. ​4. Lack of Real-Time, Deep-Tier Financial Data ​Assessing the true risk of a specific yield instrument requires access to data that LLMs do not inherently possess or process dynamically in a purely text-based prompt: ​Smart Contract Vulnerabilities: We cannot audit the live code of the $STRC token to calculate exploit probabilities. ​Liquidity Profiles: We cannot view the real-time depth of the liquidity pools backing the yield. ​Counterparty Health: We don't have inside knowledge of the balance sheets of the entities managing the strategy. ​The Bottom Line for Willy ​LLMs are fantastic for brainstorming. Willy could safely use an LLM to ask, "What are the theoretical categories of risk I should investigate before investing in a crypto yield instrument?" The model will accurately list things like smart contract risk, de-pegging, regulatory risk, and liquidity crunches. ​However, asking an LLM to actually price that risk into a specific percentage (like 16%) crosses the line from helpful brainstorming into dangerous hallucination. The models are not doing the math; they are just saying the words.

I ask Grok and Gemini to assess the risks investing in Strategy's $STRC yield instrument. Then I asked it to estimate a yield that would fairly compensate the investor for the risk undertaken. Both concluded 11.5% was underpaying for the risk. Grok: 17-22% APY Gemini: 16% APY