This is pure nonsense, the market will easily absorb any BTC that Strategy sells.
At various points in time, tens of thousands of BTC have been dumped into the market at once, no issue.
At most we'll see a (short lived) market overreaction.
Details:
"Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Strategy Inc (NASDAQ: MSTR, STRF, STRC, STRK, STRD) resulting from allegations that Strategy may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public."
I think much of the discourse around STRC right now is a case of imprecise marketing and FUD spreading colliding with a mismatch in investor expectations.
That said, I'm not here to defend Strategy or manage anyone’s expectations. I’m here to push back on inaccurate claims with data
In my view Saylor used descriptive marketing language about MMFs and other types of investments when discussing STRC to highlight intended stability, the low(er) volatility, etc. But the marketing language used, however flawed, isn't a promise of performance.
Per the website (and several other filings and notices):
"...There is no guarantee for STRC of returns, liquidity, or future performance. STRC is neither a bank deposit, nor FDIC insured, nor regulated in the same way, and does not have the same regulatory and other protections as bank accounts, money market funds, treasuries, or similar instruments and as a result may not be a comparable investment..."
Language aside, none of this makes STRC a regulated money market fund or anything similar. Strategy’s own site explicitly says STRC isn’t comparable to those kinds of products.
The data shows it has had lower volatility than spot BTC with better relative performance in the drawdown. The data shows STRC (and other perpetual preferred offerings) are “derivative-like” BTC offerings and are very dependent on, if not tethered to, price movements in the "parent" asset. Something that I have discussed at length.
As an investor, it is my responsibility to understand what I own and as a holder of STRC since IPO, this is the understanding that I have. These are the realities that I’m using to inform my capital allocation.
There are a lot of misconceptions around the BTC-Derivative preferred offerings, especially around “volatility”.
When Saylor talks about “stripping out the volatility”, the focus should not be on the $100 par value as if it were a peg (it isn't). The focus should be on how these instruments perform over time relative to BTC, with a materially different volatility profile.
Since inception through Jun. 22, 2026 (assuming $10,000 initial investment):
STRC has had a +5.80% total return without reinvestment | +5.43% with DRIP
BTC is -44.45% over the same period.
The chart illustrates the point clearly: STRC has been a lower-volatility BTC-Derivative income instrument, and has outperformed BTC since its inception.
This product should be assessed over time, not over narrative-serving timeframes.
The persistent FUD about Strategy making the rounds right now is that the preferred dividends are “unsustainable”. But this often assumes an unrealistic benchmark where the structure must be absolutely bulletproof in perpetuity with zero adjustment or strain.
reality, the model is built for ongoing capital markets access, and most do not appreciate that MSTR is one of, if not the, primary vehicles the market uses to express its forward looking positioning on BTC. As such, MSTR as an equity is a BTC derivative product that Strategy sells into highly liquid markets.
The primary constraint and measure we should focus on isn’t indefinite sustainability; or mNAV, it’s whether volume and liquidity remains sufficient to raise capital to buy BTC and service the dividend obligations efficiently.
Some data points to consider:
MSTR had ~$11B in trading volume last week.
YTD Avg: ~$58B a Month | ~$14B a Week | ~$3B a Day
YTD Trading Volume: ~$350B
YTD BSE (BTC Standard Era) Trading Volume: $2.75T
This shows that even with the preferred dividend obligations, even amidst periods of distress, the capital markets will more than likely will remain open for Strategy.
Looking forward, something that also goes unappreciated, is that the dividend rates on the preferred offerings can and likely will adapt over time. When they do, this would reflect maturing market dynamics, broader adoption and shifting incentives rather than distress.
In my view, the current high dividend rate represents compensation for the associated initial risk with a BTC-centric capital structure via BTC derivatives, not “pure” preferred offerings. As BTC stabilizes and gains greater market share, this will disproportionately benefit the capital structure. In that future state, a reduction in the dividend rates will be a reaction to broader market share and a feature of growth in the market footprint of the offerings, not a symptom of failure.
I’m not arguing from a “BTC Per share” or “BTC Yield” valuation framework. Those represent fragile KPI’s that will ebb and flow with market conditions. They are not appropriate valuation benchmarks.
The “value” here lies in Strategy’s ability to operate as a sophisticated capital allocator in liquid markets, with backstops in the form of the USD reserves and BTC holdings if needed.
Critics often present risks as a scenario where capital markets close; which is a fair question. However, smart investors must effectively weigh what is probable, not what is merely "possible". Current and historical liquidity, demonstrated execution, and the self reinforcing nature of the product suite suggest the probable path is continued functionality, not a sudden failure.
On the Dilution counterargument: I have done rigorous variance analysis that shows ATM share issuance on the common explains essentially none of MSTR’s price action; it's less than a rounding error statistically. Price is driven far more by options positioning, flows, and BTC itself. Additional context here: (https://x.com/_Adrian/status/1989420220973551821?s=20)
The conversation around MSTR right now is rather alarmist, it would benefit from a more data driven, capital markets centric approach than simple hot takes on Reddit and X.
While I get the drive for novel valuation models for MSTR, we must recognize what our equity actually represents.
CEBE | BPS | BTC Yield are KPIs not valuation frameworks or benchmarks.
Whether using CEBE or standard BPS, a "per share" metric of BTC holdings is essentially a backward looking snapshot of asset accumulation.
Because a treasury company must constantly alter its share count (either issuing common equity to buy BTC or fund dividend obligations), BPS is a moving, oscillating target.
Market valuation is forward looking & dynamic. Equating a point in time measure of capital efficiency with "value" or performance misses the reality of what these equities are: Sentiment driven optionality engines.
Market participats treat these equities, especially MSTR, as powerful vehicles for BTC exposure, not as per share allocations of an asset they have no legal claim to.
This has been one of the most traded, liquid, high velocity equities on the planet. Even through the recent BTC selloff.
Any notions of “failure” are coming from misinformed fear mongers. I said what I said.
Strategy has acquired 1550 BTC
~48x the BTC they sold at the end of May
They also increased the USD Reserve by $100M to $1B
They now HODL 845,256 BTC.
Bears? Where you at...?
Looking at trading volume and open interest in the options market from last week leaves me with one key takeaway -
MSTR did not lose market attention during the Bitcoin selloff. Trading activity | options positioning both increased.
MSTR remains one of the market’s primary vehicles for Bitcoin exposure and hedging.
It's really not a big deal, and Strategy has sold Bitcoin before.
I share some of my thoughts in this quick clip from my sit-down with Tom Mitchelhill. Aka: @ideacasino on X | Twitter
The AI Trade Is Sucking The Air Out Of Everything - Including BTC and MSTR
I think we as investors in this space tend to assume BTC is more important than it actually is.
I mentioned elsewhere that the AI | AI Memory Trade (anything with GPU’s initially and now HBM | DRAM | NAND) is keeping NVDA and Mag7 in the trillions and has pushed MU into the trillion dollar club.
The SpaceX IPO might hit $2T, the Anthropic IPO is probably going to be just under $1T… All of these factors are liquidity vacuums.
Then there is the fact that Oil is staying relatively elevated because of the geopolitical situation in Iran, and might even trend higher in summer months (more travel, vacations, etc.) is creating a risk off environment, but only for things further out on the risk-curve.
BTC | MSTR just aren’t going to catch a steady bid in this kind of environment. Where is the narrative driver that is going to beat the secular multi-trillion dollar leviathan that is A.I.?
They also leveraged the MSTR ATM - Netting $128.3M, which will likely be used for the STRC dividend payout.
