Interesting comments from @btc_overflow here on BTCTC prefs. I think there's another important way to look at this: scale relative to the capital market you’re operating in. First, huge credit should go to @Strive. It's a fantastic company and there is a lot to learn from the way it has structured and developed $SATA. The same is true of @Strategy, which continues to pioneer this entire sector and create a playbook that others can learn from. Everyone building in this space benefits from what these companies have done. But comparing absolute US and UK trading volumes only tells part of the story. Smarter Web now holds 2,747 Bitcoin. If MORE launches with an initial £10-25m raise, that might look small through a US-market lens. But SATA's initial IPO raised $160m. Adjust for the enormous difference in size and liquidity between the US and UK equity markets, and £10-25m starts to look very different. If, purely for illustration, you assume the relevant UK capital market is around 20x smaller, SATA's $160m launch translates to only around $8m on a relative market-size basis (I am using estimates here). That's why I think the more interesting question isn't: "Can MORE match SATA's absolute dollar issuance or trading liquidity?" Of course it can’t - nor should that be the benchmark. The better questions are: how large can MORE become relative to its starting point, how much capital can it attract relative to its addressable market, and what level of secondary-market liquidity can it develop relative to normal UK trading volumes? There's another potentially important difference here too. The UK has a long-established culture of income investing and, as a market, has historically placed considerably more emphasis on yield than the growth-dominated US equity market. That could make the UK a particularly interesting market in which to launch a yield-focused instrument. And if the initial company research is anything to go by, MORE could do something else that is perhaps underappreciated: help make the investment case for SWC's ordinary equity clearer. The two securities don't have to compete for the same investor. They can serve different pools of capital and different objectives - MORE for investors attracted to yield and SWC for investors seeking the upside and growth characteristics of the ordinary equity. Two securities working with each other, not against each other. Different capital markets require different benchmarks. The US is unquestionably in a class of its own when it comes to capital-market depth and liquidity. But that doesn't mean this model only works in the US. If anything, successfully adapting the model pioneered by Strategy and developed further by companies such as Strive to markets with very different investor bases and capital-market structures would demonstrate something much more important: ...that in my opinion the model travels.