Trump is domineering, hope you can follow through! Just don't be TACO!

Iran announces another blockade of the Strait of Hormuz Iran is really treating the Strait of Hormuz as a cash cow. The Iranians insist that the US must abide by the signed Memorandum of Understanding, especially the first article, where both Iran and the US agreed to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, including Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Therefore, Iran believes that unless Lebanon completely ceases fire, peace talks will not proceed. This includes Israel having to withdraw its troops from Iranian territory. But currently, Israel is still attacking Lebanon. As a result, Iran's central military command stated that due to Israel's attacks on southern Lebanon violating the agreement between Iran and the US, they have implemented the plan to close the Strait of Hormuz. However, based on the current shipping situation in the Strait of Hormuz, there are still many vessels with AIS signals near the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, and offshore UAE waters. Ships are still moving along the shipping lanes; there has been no complete clearing of the main channel, no mass turnarounds, and no gathering of all ships at anchor waiting. Therefore, the US also stated that on that day, 55 commercial vessels still passed through, transporting over 17 million barrels of oil, indicating the Strait of Hormuz is not closed. PS: The normal pre-war level is about 130 ships passing daily. #Bitget VIP access is here! Crypto, US stocks, CFDs, global opportunities all in one place

Strategy being sued in a class action means selling Bitcoin to pay damages? Bro, don’t joke!! Although a bit tired, I really enjoy constructive discussions, thanks to the judge’s seriousness. I’ll continue to popularize some knowledge. Also, the original settlement wasn’t $600 million, but that’s not important. The key point should be why MSTR was sued in a class action back then, and whether a similar situation might happen now? MSTR indeed faced a major securities lawsuit in 2000. The core issue wasn’t that the stock price dropped and investors were unhappy, but that there were problems with the financial reports. That’s the core issue!! Financial reports!! Financial reports!! Financial reports!! At that time, MicroStrategy announced a restatement of its 1998 and 1999 financial data. The problem mainly focused on software contract revenue recognition. The company prematurely recognized some revenues that shouldn’t have been recognized early, causing previously disclosed revenues and profits to be overstated. Once the financial reports were restated, the market reacted immediately, and the stock price plummeted over 60% in one day, causing huge losses to investors and naturally triggering a class action. The logic is simple: the company previously told the market it earned so much money, with such high revenue and growth, and the market valued it based on that story. Later, it was found that the financial reports needed restating, and the revenue and profits weren’t as good as originally reported, with some profits even turning into losses. Investors naturally believed they bought based on incorrect financial reports, and their losses came from the company’s misdisclosure. By the way, I previously reported on a company shorting Nvidia with a similar claim, saying Nvidia actually has business in China but through intermediaries, so reopening business with China wouldn’t help Nvidia’s financial reports. Back to the main topic, the 2000 MSTR lawsuit involved official disclosure documents, revenue recognition was an accounting issue, the restatement was the company admitting its previous reports needed correction, and the stock price crash was closely timed with the restatement. The narrative is very clear: the company’s disclosure was problematic, the market repriced, and investors lost money. But this is not the same as the current controversies faced by STRC or Strategy. If someone wants to sue Strategy or STRC now, the core issue is unlikely to be financial fraud, but rather misleading marketing and risk disclosure. For example, whether Saylor or Strategy portrayed STRC too much like a stable income product, whether they made investors believe it’s a low-risk tool suitable for retirement accounts to earn high interest, or whether they downplayed the relationship between STRC and Bitcoin, MSTR financing windows, and the uncertainty of preferred stock dividends. There is room for litigation in this direction, but it’s much harder than in 2000. Because STRC’s official documents already disclose many risks, dividends need to be declared by the board to be paid, cash dividends are not guaranteed, and Strategy only intends to adjust the dividend rate to keep STRC trading near $100. This goal might fail, and the company can change this intention. As long as these points are clearly written in the documents, Strategy’s defense is much stronger than the income restatement case back then. So, will there be a class action now? I think it’s possible. The US market is like this: as long as the product scale is large enough, investor losses are obvious, and the company’s rhetoric is aggressive enough, plaintiff law firms will find an angle. MSTR already has class actions around Bitcoin treasury strategies, volatility risks, non-GAAP metrics, and related accounting impacts. It wouldn’t be surprising if another round comes around STRC in the future. But will it replicate the 2000 situation? Not necessarily!! If STRC just falls below 100, or investors feel they lost money after buying high-yield preferred stock, that’s not enough. Preferred stocks trading at a discount is normal, and price drops in high-dividend products are also normal. Plaintiffs need to prove Strategy made specific material misrepresentations, such as explicitly saying it’s principal-protected, low-risk, suitable for stable income in retirement accounts, or that the price will definitely stay near 100, or internally knowing the target customers and risks don’t match but externally presenting a safer story. If plaintiffs can get such evidence, then it’s possible, but as mentioned earlier, Strategy has clearly written all risk points in black and white, even admitting dividends might not be paid!!! So just relying on “STRC dropped,” “Saylor was optimistic,” or “investors lost money” makes proving fraud very difficult. US securities litigation isn’t won just because investors lost money, especially for products like STRC that disclose many risks. Plaintiffs face a high bar. So my judgment is that the probability of Strategy and STRC facing class actions exists, but this matter is different from 2000. The 2000 case was due to real errors in financial statements and revenue recognition, while now it’s more likely a dispute between marketing narratives and risk disclosures. In other words, the 2000 settlement was because real errors occurred, but currently there’s no sign of that, so class actions don’t necessarily mean paying damages, that’s completely wrong!!!

Strategy and STRC have absolutely no similarity to LUNA and UST, not even a penny's worth! UST's problem back then was due to an automatic forced mechanism behind it. When UST fell below $1, the system would create more LUNA to restore UST's peg. When the market was good, LUNA's price rose, and the market was willing to take it on. UST could attract funds with a 20% high interest rate, so this model seemed viable. When the market turned bad and UST depegged, the more the system tried to fix UST's price, the more LUNA it had to create. The more LUNA was created and sold, the more its price dropped, and eventually, LUNA and UST both collapsed. But STRC is completely different from this mechanism. STRC dropping to $80 is essentially a preferred stock trading at a discount. $100 is near the par value and the price range Strategy hopes to maintain, but this is not a stablecoin peg price. STRC falling below $100 does not trigger Strategy to forcibly sell BTC, nor is there any mechanism requiring Strategy to sell bitcoin:native to pull STRC back to $100. What Strategy can do is increase STRC's dividend yield, making the market feel the returns are high enough to buy back in. But the problem is here: the higher the dividend yield, the more money must be paid annually in the future. So STRC's real pressure is rising financing costs, not the algorithmic death spiral like UST. In fact, the real risk should be Bitcoin continuing to plunge deeply, MSTR's premium being compressed, common stock ATM becoming difficult, preferred stock ATM becoming expensive, STRC's discount widening, and the market starting to worry whether Strategy can continue financing, paying interest, and refinancing in the future. So what I've always wanted to emphasize is that Strategy's biggest risk is not STRC but Bitcoin. But to say that if STRC falls below 100, Strategy must sell BTC, and after BTC is crushed STRC continues to collapse, misses the most critical link in between, which is the forced mechanism. LUNA and UST are flaws inherent to algorithmic stablecoins, which is why there are almost no algorithmic stablecoins now—everyone knows the pitfall is too big. But Strategy and STRC are issues of corporate financing structure, not a forced mechanism. So although Strategy is not without risk, the main risk is after Bitcoin plunges deeply, if MSTR common stock ATM can't sell, preferred stock ATM can't sell, and convertible bonds can't refinance, that is Strategy's risk. But it should be noted that preferred stocks including STRC do not promise interest payments, which is very important. I found many friends don't read carefully; it's clearly written in black and white— Strategy has no debt obligation to pay preferred stock dividends on schedule!! Strategy has no debt obligation to pay preferred stock dividends on schedule!! Strategy has no debt obligation to pay preferred stock dividends on schedule!! Of course, not paying will have some consequences: Strategy will be restricted from paying dividends to common stock and lower-tier securities, and STRC's credit and financing ability will be hurt. That's all. So, there's really no need to spread panic that STRC can't pay dividends, so Strategy must sell Bitcoin, causing a chain reaction crash in Bitcoin's price. This is completely wrong. It should first be that Bitcoin's price drops, then STRC falls, then Strategy raises dividend yield, then financing ability is affected. The key is always that Bitcoin's price leads, not Strategy's preferred stock! Not to mention comparing it to LUNA and UST, which is a completely wrong comparison.

The U.S. Navy, under Trump's orders, has lifted the blockade on all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports and coastal areas. The U.S. military will no longer obstruct ships traveling to and from Iranian ports. All U.S. military blockade enforcement operations have ceased. Currently, naval vessels will remain in the area to ensure all aspects of the agreement are complied with and fully implemented. This means the U.S. has abandoned the blockade of Iranian ports, and Iran has reopened the Strait of Hormuz. Ships are now able to pass through, but since mines and other hazards still need to be cleared, it cannot yet return to peak conditions. At this point, shorting WTI is nearing its end. It is currently around $75, with roughly $10 of room left, but this space may take some time. This time, the U.S. and Iran have both been unexpectedly unpredictable, not acting within their publicly stated timelines, so I didn't have time to add to my position. For now, that's how it is. I plan to hold until it drops below $70. Of course, if the funding rate isn't high, I might consider exiting if it falls below $70. By this stage, there shouldn't be any surprises 😂 If WTI rises above $80, I will continue shorting.

No, the agreements have all been signed, and the signed agreements are all public. It clearly states a $300 billion reconstruction fund, so how can it be fake news? But just as I expected, Trump will definitely insist that "America won big" 🤣

bitcoin:native has temporarily fallen below $63,000, mainly because $STRC hit a historic low, triggering panic among many investors, especially as the market spread a lot of "anxiety" information, believing that Strategy might go bankrupt or be forced to sell Bitcoin to pay interest due to debt issues. But in reality, this is not the case. Even if STRC continues to decline, it will not cause the preferred shares within the MSTR system to go bankrupt in the short term, nor will it force MSTR to sell Bitcoin to save itself. After all, MSTR's mNAV value is still greater than 1, currently at 1.14. And 1.14 means ATM financing is still possible. As long as MSTR's market value has a premium relative to the net asset value of the Bitcoin it holds, financing through common stock ATM is logically still more reasonable than selling Bitcoin. Because selling Bitcoin directly reduces the underlying assets, which weakens MSTR's core narrative and asset base. Although ATM financing dilutes common shareholders, it can continue to maintain dollar reserves, pay preferred stock dividends and debt interest, and even buy more Bitcoin when conditions allow. Of course, this does not mean MSTR is completely without risk. STRC falling below $85 indicates that the market's required yield for this type of preferred stock is rising, and also shows that investor confidence in MSTR's capital structure is declining. The lower the preferred stock price, the harder it will be to issue more preferred stock in the future, and the higher the financing costs will be. If BTC continues to fall, MSTR common stock continues to decline, and mNAV keeps decreasing, then the efficiency of ATM will also worsen. But at this stage, saying MSTR will go bankrupt because of STRC's decline or will immediately sell Bitcoin to pay interest is still an overreaction. At least from a practical perspective, MSTR's financing ability is still intact.

I tested it with AI, and people under about 18 years old can understand roughly seventy to eighty percent, although they don't know the reasons, they can roughly get the gist. Adults over 20 years old are more suitable to read it. It shows that this reader's mental age is relatively low, so I apologize. This article is written for adults. I didn't know X had such young kids; maybe the wording was too difficult. My fault. Sorry.

The United States and Iran actually completed the signing of the "Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding" while I was sleeping, although it was an electronic signature. As the first step after signing, Iran will immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and the United States will immediately lift the blockade of Iranian ports. The content of the memorandum is almost exactly the same as what Iran previously announced. I really can't imagine Trump agreeing to these terms—wasn't he supposed to have won big? In the end, not only do they have to pay compensation, but the enriched uranium will still be kept by Iran itself. 1. The US, Iran, and their allies will immediately and permanently cease all military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. 2. Both sides respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and will not interfere in each other's internal affairs. This is a political principle clause. 3. Both sides will negotiate a final agreement within a maximum of 60 days, with the possibility of extension by mutual consent. 4. The US will immediately begin lifting the maritime blockade on Iran, fully lifting it within 30 days. 5. Iran is responsible for restoring commercial navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. PS: Iran promises to make its best efforts to allow commercial ships to travel freely and safely between the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman within 60 days. Commercial navigation will start immediately, and mine clearance and removal of technical and military obstacles will be completed within 30 days. Afterwards, Iran will also discuss the future management mechanism of the Strait of Hormuz with Oman and the countries along the Persian Gulf. 6. The US and regional partners commit at least $300 billion for Iran's reconstruction and economic development!! 7. The US promises to terminate various sanctions on Iran according to the timeline of the final agreement. 8. Iran reiterates it will not acquire or develop nuclear weapons. PS2: Both sides agree to handle Iran's stockpiled enriched materials through subsequent negotiation mechanisms, with the minimum approach being on-site dilution under IAEA supervision. Issues related to uranium enrichment and Iran's nuclear needs will be included in the final agreement for further discussion. In other words, the enriched uranium will not leave Iran at all. Isn't this the main reason Trump went to war? It was all for nothing; not only do they have to pay, but they also have to deal with the enriched uranium themselves. Previously, the US custody of enriched uranium was said to be a bottom line!! 9. Both sides will maintain the status quo before the final agreement. 10. The US Treasury will immediately provide exemptions for Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products, and related services. 11. The US promises to restore access to Iran's frozen or restricted funds and assets. 12. An implementation mechanism will be established to supervise the execution of the memorandum and the final agreement. 13. There are preconditions for negotiating the final agreement. Only after Clause 1 (ceasefire), Clause 4 (lifting maritime blockade), Clause 5 (Hormuz navigation), Clause 10 (oil export exemptions), and Clause 11 (funds unfreezing) have started and are continuously implemented will both sides begin negotiations on the remaining clauses of the final agreement. 14. The final agreement must be confirmed by a binding United Nations Security Council resolution. Nonsense, but it doesn't concern us much; as long as the Strait of Hormuz is open, that's fine.

After seeing $STRC drop below $90, many friends are discussing the potential bankruptcy of $MSTR. We really need to be rational—don't scare yourself, and don't scare others. Don't just look at the $1.1 billion on MSTR's books; also consider MSTR's ATM credit line. The interest on the five funds mainly comes from ATM payments. Currently, MSTR's ATM credit line is still $51 billion. Even if it's halved, that's enough to support two years. This means that even if all five funds are halved again, the money from the ATM can ensure MSTR won't go bankrupt within two years. Moreover, the main reason for the continued decline of MSTR's preferred shares is the ongoing drop in bitcoin:native. So, it should be Bitcoin's decline driving the drop in MSTR's five preferred shares, not the other way around. In fact, MSTR is not easy to kill off, especially since mNAV is still greater than 1.