I am not worried at all about $SATA. It's spent almost a month below par but it's comfortably holding above $95. Before anyone brings up my posts on $STRC, it's important to understand the nuance here. Strive hasn't spent a single cent on buybacks. It has just launched another preferred, $SATS, which inevitably pulled some capital out of $SATA. Bitcoin's price action has also contributed to the move away from par. I don't think they should consider buybacks at this stage. Instead, they could do nothing and wait for Bitcoin to stabilise or move higher. Failing that they could raise the yield. It's a variable rate after all. $SATA has $1.4B of notional outstanding, so each 0.25% increase in the rate only costs $3.5M a year. I'd happily see it go to 13.25% or 13.5% to stimulate demand. Even 13.5% would only cost $7M a year in extra dividends. People worry about how hard it would be to bring the rate back down but that fear is overblown. It's a variable rate and holders should expect it to move. If a cut ever comes, it will be because demand for the product is very strong. Anyone who wants a fixed rate can buy $SATS.

Anyone who thinks $MSTR or $ASST should buy back their own shares above 1x mNAV doesn't understand the model. Buying back equity at a premium reduces net Bitcoin per share. It's also a terrible use of capital. At 1.5x mNAV, $1 spent on Bitcoin gets you $1 of Bitcoin. $1 spent buying back stock retires only $0.67 of Bitcoin-backed value. Why would you ever choose the second? "But the company thinks it should trade at 3x mNAV, so buying at 1.5x is accretive". No, it isn't. You can't force the market to give you a premium. mNAV is set by sentiment, which is driven above all by the performance of the underlying, Bitcoin. You can't compare Strategy and Strive to other companies. They have no meaningful cash flow. Selling Bitcoin to buy back shares trading at a premium is a non-starter. Funding buybacks with preferreds adds leverage and permanent dividends, while still lowering net Bitcoin per share and weakening the credit. Only below 1x mNAV does a buyback make sense because it adds net Bitcoin per share. Notice how people asking Strategy and Strive to engineer share scarcity above 1x mNAV never have a credible answer for how to actually do it. There is no sustainable way to artificially keep the share price above 1.5x mNAV, or at any premium. That's up to the market.

What does a Democrat win mean for Bitcoin? This has been on my mind recently. I have not seen much discussion around this but I have concerns around reprisals against the industry and a potential operation chokepoint 3.0. Is it priced in? I damn sure hope so. https://t.co/gMLOnFDFTw

Why is $ASST trading down? Because Bitcoin is trading down. It's not that complicated. Amplified Bitcoin works both ways, on the way down as well as the way up. Volatility around the midterms is to be expected. It will mean nothing in the long run. Ignore the noise.

Looks like we might have $STRC back at par this week. The important thing is whether there is organic demand at $100. If there is, we are back in business. I'd expect $MSTR's price action to reflect it. https://t.co/iICcAvezAV

The benefit of SATS is that it lets $ASST take advantage of cheap Bitcoin prices. It's also another useful source of amplification. Now it's time to be patient and let Bitcoin take us to the promised land. Stay the course. It will all work out.

Strategy's preferreds are some of the most over-collateralised credit you will ever get. STRF, its most senior preferred, is covered more than 20x by Bitcoin, even after accounting for the debt sitting above it. Strategy will become a safer credit issuer than nation states.

Sometimes I wonder how Bitcoin has collected so many enemies over the years. Is it because it's gone from $0 to $77,000 in just 17 years? Are people upset they missed the boat? The rats are flooding my timeline again, gloating at its apparent demise. They never learn.

I'm not sure why people are acting like Strategy's stated goal of issuing $STRC as the primary way to accumulate more Bitcoin going forward is something new. They have said this before. If the market allows it, of course it's preferable to just ATM-ing the common stock. They have also continued to issue common equity regardless of what's been said and I expect that to continue. It's a fundamental part of the model. As long as it's accretive, done with caution and grows net Bitcoin per share, it should pay off in the long run. This is not new information.

Sentiment for Bitcoin is so bad that people can't comprehend it going from $77,000 to $100,000 in under 2 months. We have already seen such a move this year. Bitcoin went from $63,000 to $86,000 between mid August and the end of September. Things can change very quickly.