Strategy Simulator @MSTR_simulator

@PermaBullz @clinkie44 Your criticism is accurate when applied to the other prefs. But STRC is unique because it is aiming for minimal short term stock volatility. That's a unique value proposition that is clearly well desired.

Okay, I'll bite. I don't agree with this take. I think $STRC buybacks are working just fine, and I can clearly see why Strategy management has favored them over continued dividend hikes to restore par. I write this as someone who used to share your position on this matter, but now sees things differently. "5 months since we last closed at par" ~ that's an uncharitable way of putting it. Those 5 months have included *steady* recovery for STRC from $71 all the way to $99.50 today, with daily divs just around the corner. We're literally about to hit par again! "Strategy has spent ~$1.45B on buybacks" ~ also uncharitable. This is money explicitly and entirely spent on restoring par. Moreover, once par is restored, those same shares will be *sold back to the market* at a slightly higher price, so the money is entirely recovered. You argue that stimulating demand is key. But it's incorrect to assume raising the dividend will meaningfully stimulate more demand at this point. I used to think it would! And I looked to SATA's success in recent months against STRC as proof of that. But look what just happened. SATA is now trading well off par just like STRC, even though it pays 1% more. The reality is remarkably simple - almost stupid, in fact: _ All investors want is certainty that digital credit will trade with *stability* at $99 to $100, followed by *enough yield* to make it attractive. _ Seeing is believing. When investors see such stability in action, that itself is what stimulates demand. It creates a positive feedback loop. That's what happened to STRC earlier this year, and what happened to SATA starting in August. But the moment there's a shakeup in the market (eg. a BTC price correction, bad news, etc), that positive loop can quickly unwind: the instrument loses par, and faith rapidly deteriorates *because* it has lost par. How do we prevent those unwinds from happening? In the short term, the most blunt and clear tool available is buybacks. They're functionally equivalent to redemptions on a stablecoin. Everyone is going to see it soon. STRC volume and demand will surge will precisely when it hits *highest* price of $100. Buybacks are a key tool for making STRC work as intended.

Zynx @ZynxBTC

4 days ago

This post will upset some people but I will continue to share my thoughts. We got the move to daily dividends for $STRC. Now the yield needs to increase as the risk-free rate keeps rising. It's approaching 5 months since we last closed at par. Strategy has spent ~$1.45B on

63 16 340 29K 17

This confirms something I suspected about STRC, and which is quite counterintuitive. Demand runs hottest when it is CLOSEST to par. Demand runs weakest when it's at the BIGGEST discount. Why are more investors buying in at a lower effective yield than a higher one? Because the marginal yield difference is irrelevant. What matters to buyers is the guarantee of price stability. And that guarantee seems more powerful when the instrument is actively trading closer to $100. When we're fully back to par, you'll see this phenomenon play out to the extreme. Everyone will pile in at the highest possible price.

Chris Millas @ChrisMMillas

2 days ago

New research from Keyrock provides an important datapoint related to $STRC. Strategy’s own repurchases represented roughly 20–25% of weekly $STRC trading volume through much of September and liquidity deteriorated sharply as the security moved further below par. According to

4 1 39 9K 3

@zaidlikesmstr On point 🫡

$MSTR Zynx has some fair points here, particularly around the fact that $STRC has been below par for an extended period and that the buybacks are not free. However, I disagree with his conclusions. The $1B versus $50M comparison makes the decision look much simpler than it actually is. The $1B buyback is a one time use of capital that retires face value at a discount. The 50bps increase is an additional recurring cost on the existing ~$10B stack and potentially on billions of new $STRC issued over time at the higher rate. Those are two very different uses of capital. The most important thing is where $STRC is today. We’re not looking at the instrument stuck at $80 after 4 months of management doing nothing. We watched it fall to roughly $72, then come all the way back to ~$99 after @Strategy raised the rate to 12%, built the USD Reserve, and aggressively repurchased the instrument. If 12% plus the other tools had failed to move the instrument, I would have had a much harder time making this argument. But we’re now roughly 98% of the way back to the stated $100 target, and it’s only been 6-7 trading days since management’s informal target to get the instrument to $100. So when you ask, “If the yield shouldn’t increase now, when should it?” My answer is: when the other tools fail and the instrument remains meaningfully below par. 4 months is not a contractual trigger either. The prospectus never established a timetable where being below $100 for X amount of time requires another hike. And I also disagree with the idea that buybacks don’t stimulate demand. If you remove supply from the market and retire $100 of future dividend obligations for less than $100 of cash, you’re doing something economically meaningful. The fact that the instrument went from ~$72 to ~$99 without another rate increase is pretty strong evidence that the coupon is not the only variable affecting the price. Could 12% ultimately prove insufficient? Absolutely. Could management eventually decide another rate hike is the right tool? Absolutely. But I don’t think we should pretend that the only way to get the final $2 back to par is to permanently increase the cost of the entire preferred stack. The goal for Strategy isn’t simply to print $100. It’s to build $STRC into a scalable digital credit instrument that can issue billions of dollars of capital at the lowest sustainable cost. $BTC $MSTR $STRC

Zynx @ZynxBTC

3 weeks ago

As a $MSTR shareholder it is important to remain objective. The reason why STRC's yield should go up is because we haven't been at par for over 4 months, not because SATA is paying 13%. This feels like déjà vu. We did this dance months ago when I accurately predicted what would

49 10 187 24K 14

@ZynxBTC Because buybacks are working without the dividend hike, and it's not clear the dividend - which is already quite high - is the issue. We can't just ignore the progress of this line. Let it play out.

I think it's uncharitable to not recognize the massive progress and near completion of STRCs return to par. STRC would be much lower without the buybacks, and the promise of those buybacks. That's my point - they're working. Arguments about SATA's higher yield could have been made months ago when SATA was under par and STRC was just 11.5%. But STRC was the one printing. The reality of which instrument is performing better at a given time is less logical, more chaotic, and less yield driven than I think we all once thought. That is my argument.

@BTCoptioneer Not guaranteed, but I suspect $99 to $100 stability to be much stronger for STRC going forward, with daily divs, buybacks, and USD Cash all unlocked.

@OdysseusBTC_ One trade to retire the bloodline

Me and bro selling our MSTR in 2028

After today’s selloff: $STRC closed at $99.45 $SATA closed at $98.82 If daily dividends and a 1% higher dividend rate was the pricing difference between the products… Can someone please explain the discrepancy today? Or could it be that the markets are very complex with many many factors driving price action on any given day, week, or time period having very little to do with those two variables?

What made Strategy decide to simply maintain the 12% STRC dividend rate for months, rather than raise it higher, while STRC was below par? What made management conclude that buybacks - and solely buybacks - are the best option for restoring par? What has management learned about the STRC investor profile that made them conclude further dividend hikes were not the right option?

@NJgr8ful Par is a lock once daily divs go live.

I cannot say I'm surprised. $STRC has flipped $SATA. Reason is about to return to the market. I predict Strategy beats Strive in returning to par. After daily dividends, the big boy will once again dominate the digital credit contest in November.

@FabienThbault4 I predict they will hold. Demand will flood in precisely when the market sees the instrument stuck at $100. It's counterintuitive, but this is how these instruments appear to work.

@FabienThbault4 Exactly. This is why buybacks are good.

@StrategyMaxi Management has made clear that they're fully focused on STRC now as their credit instrument. They're done with convertibles.

We're at $150 MSTR. What would it take to 3X from here? 1) $140,000 BTC 2) $20B+ new STRC issued 3) mNAV expansion to 1.77x Result: $450 MSTR.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Try the simulator yourself below: strategysim.netlify.app

@NYC_MSTR_BTC Not a bad theory! Though it could also be a daily sentiment / narrative trade type of thing.

Bitcoin's drop is hammering not only $STRC, but $SATA too. Both are still above $99, but well under $100. Are we about to witness a race back to par?

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next