CJ made it clear that SATA growing to 80%, 90% or even 100% of STRC daily volume is not a concern for Strategy. Even if SATA grew to $10 billion, equalling STRC in market cap, as well as volume, it would be viewed as a positive. To management’s credit, they have acknowledged that some investors may rotate out of one Digital Credit product to another, but this is viewed as de minimis, or trivial, relative to the larger addressable market outside of the current Bitcoin adjacent ecosystem. Having listened to this, it is difficult to conclude that STRC hitting par in the near term is being prioritised by Strategy ahead of its promotion of Strive. Given Strategy understands that there is a substitution effect between Digital Credit products, why would we be promoting Strive while STRC trades below par, if STRC trading at par is indeed our highest priority? Based on the interview, the order of priorities appears to be as follows: 1) Promotion of Strive 2) Restoration of STRC to par In that order. There is nothing wrong with this if Strategy views this as optimal for its shareholders over the long term - if total returns are maximised by this value hierarchy then it is appropriate. What is peculiar, however, is that this trade off is not explicitly addressed. E.g they could clearly state they are prioritising promotion of Strive ahead of restoration of STRC to par. They have acknowledged this implicitly already given: 1) they understand investors may choose one or the other, and 2) they have continued to promote them regardless of this understanding, and 3) STRC is still not at par, against their expectations, despite running through almost $2 billion in buybacks.