Author: Deep Tide TechFlow
In the history of Wall Street, there has never been a shortage of legendary stories, but the transformation journey of MicroStrategy (MicroStrategy) is destined to become a unique new legend.
An otherwise unremarkable enterprise software company made a stunning decision in August 2020 to invest all its idle $250 million into Bitcoin. This decision not only changed the destiny of the company but also pioneered an unprecedented business model.
In just four years, MicroStrategy has transformed from a software company with annual revenues of only $500 million into the world's largest publicly traded holder of Bitcoin, holding nearly 390,000 Bitcoin, accounting for 1.8% of global supply. Even more astonishing is that its stock price skyrocketed from $12 to a peak of $500, and its market capitalization surpassed $100 billion, with its daily trading volume once exceeding that of Nvidia.
This is not just a simple investment story, but a carefully designed art of capital operation. Through low-interest borrowing and stock issuance, MicroStrategy has woven a breathtaking 'spiral price-pumping' web.
How did it achieve this? Is it a commercial innovation or hidden crisis?
Guest: Todd (@0x_Todd), Partner at Nothing Research, Co-founder of Ebunker
The following content is the text整理稿 after our dialogue, and the podcast audio version is also online. Welcome to subscribe to 'Let's Flow' on Xiaoyuzhou.
Listen to the podcast by linking or scanning the QR code in the image below.
Background introduction
MicroStrategy was founded in 1989 and went public on NASDAQ in 1998, originally focusing on enterprise analytics software.
In August 2020, under the leadership of Chairman Michael Saylor, MSTR announced a $250 million investment to purchase approximately 21,400 BTC, becoming the world's first listed company to implement a Bitcoin funding strategy.
The uniqueness of MicroStrategy lies not only in its pioneering the inclusion of Bitcoin on its balance sheet but also in its continuous purchases and willingness to borrow money to buy. MicroStrategy borrows money at about 1% interest through issuing stocks and bonds to purchase Bitcoin.
In the past four years, MicroStrategy has issued around 41 announcements for Bitcoin purchases.
As of now, on November 26, MSTR has held over 386,700 Bitcoins, approximately 1.8% of the total global supply of Bitcoin, making it the largest publicly traded holder of Bitcoin in the world.
MSTR has cumulatively spent $21.983 billion purchasing Bitcoin, with an average cost of approximately $56,849. As of now, the paper profit exceeds $14 billion.
On November 21, MSTR's stock price once broke through $500, with a market value exceeding $100 billion. On that day, trading volume even surpassed that of U.S. stock leader Nvidia. Compared to the stock price of about $12 when it started hoarding Bitcoin in August 2020, it has increased by more than 40 times, and since the beginning of the year, it has risen 5 times, with an increase that is 4 times that of Bitcoin.
Currently, MicroStrategy still maintains its main business, but its financial reports have shown losses for the third consecutive quarter, performing poorly. However, this has not prevented it from becoming a super bull stock in the U.S. stock market this year; it has successfully transformed into a shadow stock of Bitcoin or a Bitcoin-leveraged stock in the U.S. stock market.
MicroStrategy pushes up Bitcoin prices by issuing stocks and bonds to purchase Bitcoin, while the rise in Bitcoin prices further boosts MSTR's stock price.
MicroStrategy's price-pumping magic
Deep Tide TechFlow: Why was a previously unremarkable company able to continuously attract so much funding in the capital market? What is its spiral price-pumping magic?
Todd:
I want to start from the beginning to introduce to everyone why MicroStrategy has been able to reach this level step by step.
In many people's impressions, MicroStrategy doesn't seem like a very impressive company. In 2020, MicroStrategy was a software development company that helped other companies develop software, such as the well-known software they developed for McDonald's. By 2020, it had about $250 million left on its books.
From a more secular perspective, a company that has been operating for many years and has a floating profit of $250 million is quite good. However, at that time, this funding had been idly sitting on the books without use.
Our protagonist today, Michael Saylor, felt it was time to make a bold decision. As the chairman of the board, he personally pushed for MicroStrategy to invest almost all of its cash profit of $250 million into Bitcoin. This is indeed a very bold move; it is difficult for an average person to make such a decision.
After investing this money, he felt the exposure was still not large enough, so he began to consider leveraging, which is also the beginning of the entire MicroStrategy magic.
He thought of borrowing some money off-market to continue increasing his Bitcoin holdings, so he adopted a very mature method in the capital market called convertible preferred bonds.
What he promised the creditors is: if you lend me money now, at maturity, the creditors have two choices: either take back the principal plus interest at some point, or choose to take equity.
He agreed on a conversion ratio, allowing all the borrowed money to be converted into equity, making creditors much more at ease. If there is money on the books, they will repay the principal and interest; if there is no money, creditors can take stocks to the secondary market to sell, which will at least allow them to get some back—this is a good protection for the creditors.
This is the play of convertible preferred debt; as a creditor, you can choose to take back the principal at maturity or convert the debt into stock, or choose partial conversion. You have to know that the bonds MicroStrategy initially issued all had 0% interest; what investors valued was another opportunity.
Because everyone knows Saylor is betting all his funds on Bitcoin. If Bitcoin rises, the company's stock price will naturally increase. What creditors are interested in is that the bond-to-stock conversion ratio is fixed; if Bitcoin rises in the future, MicroStrategy's stock will also rise, and at that time they can choose to convert everything into stock, completing an arbitrage. Even if the stock price soars, they can still convert at a very low price.
This forms a very attractive investment logic: at worst, they get back their principal or suffer a small loss, but if MicroStrategy surges, investing $1 million could ultimately yield $1.5 million or even $2 million in stocks.
It is precisely for this reason that MicroStrategy easily raised its first fund and subsequently issued multiple rounds of ultra-low interest loans, with interest rates between 0%-0.8%. Even during the Fed's interest rate hike cycle, when government bond yields reached 3.4%-5%, investors were still willing to lend them money at ultra-low rates.
Later, as Bitcoin and the company's stock price continued to rise, in this situation, although MicroStrategy can now borrow easily, to be honest, borrowing ultimately carries risks, after all, debts must be repaid. So now MicroStrategy has started to adopt a second strategy, directly issuing stocks for financing.
As a publicly traded company, Saylor utilized his position as chairman of the board to choose to issue additional stocks and sell them in the market. In recent days, MicroStrategy's trading volume even surpassed that of the bull market star stock Nvidia, raising nearly $4.6 billion through this method, and subsequently continuing to increase its Bitcoin holdings. This is also one of the important reasons for Bitcoin breaking through $95,000.
This is MicroStrategy's second strategy: after the company's stock price rises, to obtain funds through issuing additional stocks. The funds obtained through this method are completely not debt, with no repayment pressure.
MicroStrategy is not the next LUNA
Todd:
Many people will ask a question: with MicroStrategy borrowing so much money, will there be repayment pressure in the future?
Regarding MicroStrategy's debt issue, they have actually been very smart; for example, their earliest 0% interest debt does not mature until 2027, and now it is 2024, giving them ample time to operate. Moreover, the current yield on their books is close to 50%, with no immediate repayment pressure at all.
Even if they have to repay in the future, they have multiple choices: they can sell part of their Bitcoin or issue new debt because many people are willing to lend them money now. According to the current trend, their repayment pressure is not large.
Some people compare MicroStrategy to Luna, but I think this analogy is inappropriate. Upon closer thought, MicroStrategy is simply leveraging its position to make a long bet, and making money on a long position is a normal market behavior, not a Ponzi scheme.
They simply timed it well, using a good leverage to achieve a good return.
MicroStrategy has previously proposed a concept I strongly agree with; they understand this as 'sharing volatility.' What is volatility sharing? Those bond investors are usually quite conservative; they only like low-volatility investments. Well, let's give them the low-volatility portion while MicroStrategy takes the bottom line. The cost MicroStrategy pays is to provide investors with a low volatility return while obtaining a high volatility return from Bitcoin.
This is why Saylor likens MicroStrategy to a 'transformer': just like an electric power system, the same energy can be converted into low and high pressure. Low pressure is given to those stable investors, while high pressure is enjoyed by themselves.
This is actually a common practice in financial markets, which is to grade assets: sell the low-risk parts to others while enjoying the high-risk, high-reward parts oneself. This model has often been seen in past fund markets and securities markets.
So overall, MicroStrategy is definitely not like Luna, a Ponzi scheme; they are relying more on boldness to choose to go long at the right position and have bet in the right direction. Of course, they themselves have indeed become part of the market, but they are not the decisive force in the market. This is an interesting case where MicroStrategy, Bitcoin, and creditors can all benefit.
Deep Tide TechFlow: MicroStrategy's approach reminds me of earlier domestic real estate companies, which also used low-interest convertible bonds to stockpile land, achieving land reserve expansion, and then during the real estate upcycle, rising land prices drove up stock prices, and then obtained cash flow through issuing bonds or stocks to continue stockpiling land, and so on.
These two are indeed very similar, but the difference is that Bitcoin is an asset with global consensus, and its cross-cycle liquidity is better. My question is whether MicroStrategy's approach of off-market financing, leveraging, buying Bitcoin, and pushing up stock prices can continue indefinitely.
Todd:
That's a good question. Indeed, many real estate developers, including Evergrande, have similar operations. But I want to talk about the essential difference between real estate and Bitcoin: Bitcoin has very good liquidity, while real estate is subject to many factors. Building houses requires complex capital chain management, but trading Bitcoin is much simpler—just borrow money to buy coins.
An asset with global liquidity that can be traded in various currencies is not on the same level as a property in a city.
Regarding whether MicroStrategy's strategy can last forever, there are no eternal magics in the world. But many investors actually do not care about the situation 5 or 10 years down the line; they are more concerned about the present. From a realistic standpoint, at least before MicroStrategy needs to repay its first debt, we do not see them selling Bitcoin.
Here I want to share an important concept of MicroStrategy. Look at the history of the United States, starting with the initial 13 states, continuously expanding through wars and land purchases, buying land from France, Mexico, and Russia, laying the foundation for the country through the acquisition of land space. MicroStrategy believes that the era of land space has ended, and we have entered the era of cyberspace. In this cyberspace dominated by internet currency, controlling cyberspace is equivalent to controlling the new world, and Bitcoin is the most important currency in this space.
They predicted early on that countries would establish Bitcoin strategic reserves in the future, as this represents control over cyberspace, just as land once represented control over physical space. Now it seems, particularly against the backdrop of Trump and his team supporting Bitcoin, this prediction is becoming increasingly clear. In the past, countries needed to stockpile land to rise; now they need to stockpile Bitcoin to rise in cyberspace.
From this perspective, although Bitcoin's price is significantly higher than a few years ago, if it really turns out that, as mentioned in the U.S. Bitcoin reserve bill, the U.S. holds 1 million coins, accounting for 5% as a strategic reserve in cyberspace, then the current price may still be relatively low.
Of course, this is not investment advice. But if one believes that Bitcoin's current position is relatively low, MicroStrategy's strategy is essentially a long strategy, with the key being the entry position. If one predicts that Bitcoin is still at a relatively low level, then continuing to go long and leveraging is not incomprehensible. Of course, this is based on some prerequisites, such as Trump successfully taking office, and his team supporting Bitcoin being able to successfully assume important roles and advance previous commitments, etc.
So overall, although MicroStrategy's current strategy is bold, it is not completely absurd or crazy—that's my view.
The metaphysical failure of Citron Capital
Deep Tide TechFlow: I saw that some institutions, including Citron Capital, started shorting MicroStrategy, leading to a decline in its stock price. But I looked at their statements, and this should not be a simple shorting; it is a kind of hedging strategy.
They believe that MicroStrategy's stock value has detached from the fundamentals of Bitcoin, with about a 3-fold premium over the Bitcoin they hold. Although Citron still holds a positive outlook on Bitcoin, they think this premium is too outrageous, so they are betting that this premium will revert. Do you think Citron will bet correctly this time? Or do you think the current premium of MicroStrategy is reasonable?
Todd:
Regarding Citron, I want to discuss it from a rather interesting angle.
From a somewhat metaphysical perspective, Citron is a company with a long history; they have indeed had many spectacular shorting instances, but they also have a few significant failures, and these failures seem to be particularly out of touch with certain specific fields.
Let me give you a few examples. The most memorable might be Citron shorting GameStop (GME) last time, suffering significant losses. An even earlier example was in 2018 when Citron continuously shorted Tesla, believing Tesla's production capacity was poor and valuation too high. But we all saw how Tesla performed later, and in the end, Citron had to admit defeat and withdraw.
Interestingly, Tesla has a high correlation with Bitcoin, and everyone knows Musk's attitude toward cryptocurrencies. GME also has some intricate connections with cryptocurrencies; the spirit of the GME community is somewhat similar to that of cryptocurrencies, especially meme coins. Therefore, Citron's two major failures are somewhat related to Bitcoin.
From a metaphysical perspective, Citron seems to always have inaccuracies in judging such assets; several major failures have occurred in these related themes. This time it falls on MicroStrategy, which is similarly a strongly correlated asset with Bitcoin. From this perspective, they may not have a smooth journey this time either. If a situation like GME occurs again, MicroStrategy may experience unpredictable surges. Of course, this is just an interpretation from an entertainment perspective and does not constitute investment advice.
From a fundamental perspective, Citron's statement does make sense. The market is indeed very FOMO at the moment, and the greed index had already reached 94-95 a few days ago. Therefore, MicroStrategy may indeed be overheated in the short term; they might short this premium while also holding a long position in Bitcoin as a hedge, which is also quite reasonable. However, as mentioned earlier, from historical experience, Citron has always been unsuccessful in Bitcoin-related themes; this is just an interesting observation.
Potential flaws of MicroStrategy
Deep Tide TechFlow: Currently, it is indeed difficult to find flaws in MicroStrategy's strategy, but if one must find a flaw, what do you think is the biggest flaw?
Todd:
This question is very sharp; I believe the biggest flaw lies in the fact that if MicroStrategy continues to implement such a strategy, the greatest concern is that it may not synchronize with the rhythm of Bitcoin.
Let me give you an example to illustrate this question.
Let me explain with a specific example:
In the Bitcoin market, there are many 'ancient whales'; the actions of these early holders can have a huge impact on the market. For example, recently with Ethereum, an early investor from the ICO period (when ETH was only $6) has been continuously selling about 100,000 ETH since November 7. It should be noted that the total buying power brought by the approval of the Ethereum ETF is only in the hundreds of thousands (not to mention Grayscale's existing stock). The sale by this one whale offset a considerable portion of the growth momentum brought by the ETF.
For MicroStrategy, these ancient Bitcoin whales are the biggest potential competitors.
Assuming these whales identify $100,000 as the top, and densely place orders in the $95,000-$98,000 range, it would be difficult for MicroStrategy alone to break through this price level. Because MicroStrategy does not have absolute control over Bitcoin like the Luna Foundation did over Luna; it is just one of many market participants. Although borrowing several billion dollars to buy in can indeed push Bitcoin prices, if ancient whales do not agree with this strategic choice and continue to sell, the situation will be very different.
This could disrupt MicroStrategy's 'spiral ascent' model: borrow money to buy coins → drive up stock prices → borrow more money to buy more coins → stock prices continue to rise. Once this cycle is broken, MicroStrategy will face pressure. Although currently, their cost is at over $50,000, the pressure is not yet significant, but if this continues, the pressure will gradually increase.
However, we now have many monitoring tools to track the movements of these ancient whales' addresses and observe whether early Bitcoins suddenly flow into exchanges. This information can help predict subsequent trends. If these ancient whales cooperate, MicroStrategy's strategy should still be able to continue.
Deep Tide TechFlow: This round of MicroStrategy is somewhat like replicating the script of Grayscale from the previous cycle. When the market was bad, everyone looked to Grayscale as the savior to buy coins. Now, similarly, when the market is poor, everyone is waiting for MicroStrategy's announcement, hoping it will purchase Bitcoin to lift prices.
However, there is a clear difference between MicroStrategy and Grayscale; the clients of Grayscale also want to realize their investments and have to sell coins, while MicroStrategy seems to be able to make money without selling Bitcoin, directly monetizing through stock issuance.
But will there be a point in time when MicroStrategy sells its Bitcoin holdings? If such a situation occurs, it will be a huge blow to market confidence. Do you think MicroStrategy will sell coins? Under what circumstances will they sell coins?
When will MicroStrategy sell its coins?
Todd:
Indeed, once MicroStrategy begins to sell coins, it would be a massive blow to market confidence.
Just now, we just mentioned Grayscale; I want to talk about the three major contributors to this round of Bitcoin bull market.
Previously, when Bitcoin fell to $16,000, everyone knew the reason: on one hand, FTX went bankrupt, 3AC filed for bankruptcy, and on top of that, the U.S. kept raising interest rates, pushing Bitcoin down to $16,000.
From $16,000 to over $30,000, the biggest contributor during this time is actually Grayscale, because on one hand, the SEC does not allow redemptions, and many people simply cannot hold on and sold at a discount. On the other hand, they were constantly suing the SEC, and in the end, the much-disliked Gensler (SEC Chairman) reluctantly agreed to allow the ETF to be issued because they lost the lawsuit.
From over $30,000 to over $60,000, special thanks should go to ETFs, as companies like BlackRock and Fidelity have extensive sales networks spread across every corner of the globe. With their push, many people began buying Bitcoin through ETFs, bringing institutional market funds.
From over $60,000 to over $90,000, the most important contributor is actually MicroStrategy. When Bitcoin reached over $60,000, it needed a driving force, and that driving force was provided by MicroStrategy.
I call this the four-stage rocket theory, just like a rocket, the first stage falls off, and then the second stage continues the relay. This is the three major contributors to Bitcoin's rise from $16,000 to $96,000: Grayscale, ETFs, and MicroStrategy.
The first three levels have been completed, and there is still the fourth level to come, which is what we expect when Trump comes to power and truly pushes forward, such as the FIT21 plan, to actually establish Bitcoin as a strategic reserve for the United States. Not only the United States, but we can also see that Poland, Suriname, and the Middle East are all creating their own Bitcoin strategic reserve legislation, which will be the fourth-level rocket.
From this perspective, MicroStrategy is now in the middle position of the four-stage rocket, and its risk is relatively controllable.
Deep Tide TechFlow: So in your opinion, there is still a long way to go before he sells coins.
Todd:
By continually following Michael Saylor's interviews, I believe his faith in Bitcoin is around 90%. He has a mature theoretical system, and since 2021, many of his predictions have gradually come true, including national strategic reserves and the adoption by listed companies. In the future, we may even see tech giants like Microsoft establishing Bitcoin reserves.
In the short term, MicroStrategy has no motivation to sell coins. At least before 2027, they can cope with debt through stock issuance or borrowing. More likely, due to the initial low stock subscription price by creditors, they may prefer to hold stocks rather than demand repayment.
Why is it said that Saylor is 90% rather than 100% loyal? The key lies in a detail: when Bitcoin was around $16,000, MicroStrategy had previously sold 700-800 Bitcoins for tax planning reasons. Although they bought them back shortly after, this behavior of engaging in swing trading to avoid taxes exposed his lingering 10% speculative mindset.
As a true HODLER, one should not engage in any swing trading. Once someone has experience in swing trading, it shows that they inherently have speculative attributes. Therefore, do not expect MicroStrategy to hold Bitcoin for 25 or 50 years; as long as they have ever engaged in swing trading, they will certainly try again in the future—this is human nature. So, Saylor is 90% faith and 10% speculation, which is why, at some point in the future, he will still sell Bitcoin; it’s just that we probably won't see it in the next few years.
Deep Tide TechFlow: More and more listed companies are now trying to replicate MicroStrategy's strategy. For example, the Japanese listed real estate company Metaplant, and the Hong Kong stock listed company Boya Interactive, are all incorporating Bitcoin into their balance sheets. Do you think more listed companies will replicate MicroStrategy's approach in the future? And do these replicating companies still hold investment value?
Todd:
Let me clarify that this is not financial advice. Regarding this matter, I have also made some projections. Since MicroStrategy's recent gamble has achieved great success, many companies, including Marathon, want to imitate MicroStrategy's strategy, and I think that is OK.
Why? Because according to the four-stage rocket theory, the first three stages have been completed. Although MicroStrategy has been building positions since the first stage and now has gained the most, if later individuals truly foresee that countries will start vying for control of cyberspace, or more broadly, when AI rules the world, AI may prefer cryptocurrencies controlled by computational power over fiat currencies.
No matter which distant legend comes true in the end, those who entered as the third-stage rocket can still reap considerable returns.
Although it is very difficult for other companies to reach this scale, I believe this strategy is not problematic; essentially, it is a strategy of buying Bitcoin long through off-market leverage. As long as off-market creditors are willing to lend money, because they receive low volatility returns while these companies bear high volatility, this model is currently viable.
However, now these companies that imitate have entered at different times; if they enter later, timing becomes more important, as it directly determines the level of returns on the strategy. It is advised that these listed companies need to think carefully and complete their Bitcoin reserve layout at the right position.
Deep Tide TechFlow: Lastly, let’s talk about Michael Saylor. I recently watched some podcasts interviewing him. He mentioned that he spent 1,000 hours studying the theoretical knowledge of Bitcoin and successfully brainwashed himself into being a Bitcoin maximalist, or a fervent religious believer. How do you evaluate this person?
Todd:
Michael Saylor is a top graduate from MIT, having been successful from a young age. He has successfully sold companies in his previous ventures, and it is quite impressive that MicroStrategy has a floating profit of $250 million.
An interesting point in studying his life is that he wrote a book about the wave of mobile internet in 2012, and at that time smartphones had just started to become popular in 2012-2013; his ability to predict the rise of mobile internet in 2012 shows that his judgment is very accurate.
He studied two degrees at MIT: Aerospace Engineering and History of Science. This combination of majors is quite special and almost tailor-made for him. The History of Science major combines the arts and sciences, studying how science develops breakthrough advancements, which helps him judge future technological trends.
He often cites the views of scientists like Newton and Einstein in interviews. From both his professional background and the book he later wrote about the wave of mobile internet, it can be seen that he has a clear personal judgment about future technological trends, and these judgments have been validated. His speeches are logically clear, and his viewpoints are articulated clearly. Such a person, as an important figure in the Bitcoin community, greatly helps in the dissemination of Bitcoin.
His most famous video has 10 million views on YouTube, explaining for three to four hours why he chose Bitcoin. His core argument is that the current economic system is continuously printing money; the surface inflation is 2%, but in reality, it is at least over 7%, because economists have been adjusting the composition of the inflation basket, which is his fundamental creed for investing in Bitcoin.
This theory is hard to overturn because no matter where you are in the world, governments and central banks are indeed continuously printing money, and this anxiety is widespread. In countries like Argentina, currency devaluation can reach dozens of times. Bitcoin has a clear limit of 21 million, which will never change.
Two unchanging facts: governments will continue to print money, and Bitcoin's total supply is fixed. This makes Bitcoin a very robust asset against inflation. Michael Saylor holding such a belief will help him go further on the path of Bitcoin investment.
There will not be an Ethereum version of MicroStrategy
Deep Tide TechFlow: This year, Ethereum has shown some weakness, and people often mock Ethereum by comparing it to the strength of Bitcoin and Solana. Do you think a Michael Saylor or MicroStrategy version of Ethereum will emerge in the future?
Todd:
This is purely speculative, and I think it is quite difficult. The reason lies in the specific background of MicroStrategy and Saylor, which Ethereum does not possess.
The narrative of Bitcoin has been eternal since its inception; from the moment Satoshi Nakamoto wrote the news about the Treasury Secretary preparing to rescue banks into the genesis block, it established its positioning as a true store of value against fiat currency inflation.
In Saylor's words, fiat currency is merely currency, while Bitcoin is capital; these are completely different concepts.
In contrast, Ethereum's positioning is to continuously utilize the most advanced technology to provide blockchain services. From our experience operating Ethereum mining pools, Ethereum is constantly evolving: transitioning from PoW to PoS to address energy issues, and recently proposing the Beacon Chain strategy at Devcon in Bangkok, which plans to ZK-ify the entire chain. This shows that Ethereum is on a completely different development path compared to Bitcoin.
For large funds, they prefer predictable, stable investment targets rather than continuously changing projects.
Saylor once mentioned that Satoshi Nakamoto's anonymity is very attractive, which aligns with the typical N-type personality traits in MBTI. Vitalik's continuous activity in Ethereum, while proposing many good points, may make some investors hesitant. As stated in the movie (Let the Bullets Fly), 'You are not important to me'; large capital investments require certainty and do not want projects to suddenly change direction.
Therefore, an Ethereum version of MicroStrategy may be difficult to emerge, but the possibility of a small-scale version cannot be ruled out. Especially considering that Ethereum's current market value is relatively low, it does not require a massive capital investment like Bitcoin. There has always been an investment logic in the market that 'Bitcoin is too expensive; we need to find cheaper targets,' and Ethereum may become the first choice for these investors.
Deep Tide TechFlow: I completely agree with the discussion about the narrative of Bitcoin. The charm of Bitcoin lies in its simplicity; it requires no technical delivery and cannot be falsified. It is like a perfect closed loop, reinforcing rather than weakening its value proposition with every crisis. In the crypto world, we see too many grand visions and complex technical solutions, but what ultimately withstands the test of time is the simplest Bitcoin, which does not need marketing, roadmaps, or technical commitments. In a world full of uncertainty, the most precious thing is certainty, which is the greatest charm of Bitcoin.
Finally, thanks to Todd.
Todd:
Finally, I quote a saying from Saylor: Bitcoin will win, but not everyone will win with it.
