Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🚨BITCOIN UNDER ATTACK! - RUN BITCOIN KNOTS! A handful of devs decided the best way to “innovate” was by turning Bitcoin’s pristine monetary base layer into a graffiti wall for JPEG degenerates, bored spammers, and maybe the occasional international criminal. Every byte of trash they allow in is a...

AdamBLiv's profile picture

Adam Livingston

84,877 subscribers

191,028 views • 11 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & TechnologyFinance
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

GM! Bitcoin is money. 80% of the current UTXO set is dust. Never to be spent. Garbage. I run a node. It is connected to a desktop Sparrow wallet. I run Knots to strengthen decentralization. I signal for BIP110 This video came out a little while ago. Still valid.
4:18

GM! Bitcoin is money. 80% of the current UTXO set is dust. Never to be spent. Garbage. I run a node. It is connected to a desktop Sparrow wallet. I run Knots to strengthen decentralization. I signal for BIP110 This video came out a little while ago. Still valid.

George Bodine

16,073 views • 1 month ago

Time to turn off your bitcoin node? We spent years pretending running a node meant you were "sovereign." You run a node because you believe in Bitcoin. Because you don't trust. Because you verify. But here's the uncomfortable question nobody wants to ask: verify what, exactly? Truth is, you're just following the herd, enforcing rules written by a handful of corporate devs while pretending you're in charge. Maybe it's time to stop running your node blindly and start asking who it's really protecting. Mr21 / AVB called this out a year ago. Should've listened.
21:48

Time to turn off your bitcoin node? We spent years pretending running a node meant you were "sovereign." You run a node because you believe in Bitcoin. Because you don't trust. Because you verify. But here's the uncomfortable question nobody wants to ask: verify what, exactly? Truth is, you're just following the herd, enforcing rules written by a handful of corporate devs while pretending you're in charge. Maybe it's time to stop running your node blindly and start asking who it's really protecting. Mr21 / AVB called this out a year ago. Should've listened.

Tsartoshi ⚡₿ 🏂

36,018 views • 9 days ago

🚨 BITCOIN IS MORE OVERSOLD THAN IT WAS DURING THE COVID-19 CRASH Every single time the weekly RSI dipped below 30 → Bitcoin had a bull run. Right now, the RSI is lower than it was during the peak of the Covid crash. Last time this happened, it was a once-in-a-lifetime buying opportunity. Many people missed it. They were too focused on noise. Now Bitcoin has given you another chance. Don't waste it.
0:40

🚨 BITCOIN IS MORE OVERSOLD THAN IT WAS DURING THE COVID-19 CRASH Every single time the weekly RSI dipped below 30 → Bitcoin had a bull run. Right now, the RSI is lower than it was during the peak of the Covid crash. Last time this happened, it was a once-in-a-lifetime buying opportunity. Many people missed it. They were too focused on noise. Now Bitcoin has given you another chance. Don't waste it.

Coinvo Trading

12,385 views • 6 months ago

GEORGE BODINE: “The biggest thing you can do to protect yourself and the network is to run a node, use something that allow allows you to be sovereign and take self custody of your Bitcoin.” “Get it off of exchanges.” “The only thing you should strive for is self custody. And if you do that, that is the best defense that we have against the securitization of Bitcoin.”
0:41

GEORGE BODINE: “The biggest thing you can do to protect yourself and the network is to run a node, use something that allow allows you to be sovereign and take self custody of your Bitcoin.” “Get it off of exchanges.” “The only thing you should strive for is self custody. And if you do that, that is the best defense that we have against the securitization of Bitcoin.”

Simply Bitcoin

12,906 views • 3 months ago

"Where are the servers of Bitcoin located?” - Prof Jiang That single question from Jiang shows the misunderstanding immediately. Bitcoin does not run on one company’s servers, Bitcoin runs on a distributed network of nodes spread across the world, which is exactly why it is hard to censor, shut down, or control, plus the mining system on top of it to protect it with energy. When someone frames Bitcoin like a centralized system, they are not critiquing Bitcoin as it is. They are critiquing a version of Bitcoin that exists only in their own confusion.
0:33

"Where are the servers of Bitcoin located?” - Prof Jiang That single question from Jiang shows the misunderstanding immediately. Bitcoin does not run on one company’s servers, Bitcoin runs on a distributed network of nodes spread across the world, which is exactly why it is hard to censor, shut down, or control, plus the mining system on top of it to protect it with energy. When someone frames Bitcoin like a centralized system, they are not critiquing Bitcoin as it is. They are critiquing a version of Bitcoin that exists only in their own confusion.

MDB

579,524 views • 4 months ago

Reaction to Mr.Hodldamus and Wicked on Danny Knowles Most notably absent from the podcast is any consideration about what happens if/when BIP110 succeeds. - Core isn't a full node any more - what do they do? - Miners running Core will mine invalid blocks. Do they all run Knots? Does something else manifest? - What happens to the scam companies like Citrea "building" on Bitcoin? Further - is it failed, what would the consequences be for the Bitcoin chain? What can we expect to end up in these permanently normalized large OP_RETURNs? Are you going to run a node if the worst happens in that regard? If the UTXO set continues to blow up with witness abuse and we lose more low end hardware is that a sustainable path?
3:10:19

Reaction to Mr.Hodldamus and Wicked on Danny Knowles Most notably absent from the podcast is any consideration about what happens if/when BIP110 succeeds. - Core isn't a full node any more - what do they do? - Miners running Core will mine invalid blocks. Do they all run Knots? Does something else manifest? - What happens to the scam companies like Citrea "building" on Bitcoin? Further - is it failed, what would the consequences be for the Bitcoin chain? What can we expect to end up in these permanently normalized large OP_RETURNs? Are you going to run a node if the worst happens in that regard? If the UTXO set continues to blow up with witness abuse and we lose more low end hardware is that a sustainable path?

Softfork Mechanic #BIP-110

34,615 views • 2 months ago

going all-in on bitcoin is just like a cold-plunge every cell screaming at you to run. your brain manufacturing a thousand reasons why this is a terrible idea. but you don’t run. you step in anyway. that’s what going all-in on bitcoin feels like. it ended up being the hardest, and best decision I’ve ever made.
8:30

going all-in on bitcoin is just like a cold-plunge every cell screaming at you to run. your brain manufacturing a thousand reasons why this is a terrible idea. but you don’t run. you step in anyway. that’s what going all-in on bitcoin feels like. it ended up being the hardest, and best decision I’ve ever made.

isa⚡️

20,243 views • 8 months ago

Threadguy predicts this will be the first bull run in crypto history where Bitcoin doesn't participate "This is going to be the first bull run in the history of crypto where Bitcoin flat out does not participate. No role, no say, it will be minimal at best. It will be Bitcoin to $75k, Bitcoin to $80k, Bitcoin to $85k, and there will be mania on-chain." "My entire thesis is that the next cycle comes from new blood getting access to on chain through these apps. This new crowd doesn't even know what Bitcoin is. Anyone that joined because they saw Kimchi or Cented or Rasmr, they don't know what Bitcoin is. If there's a pocket of excitement and new blood in crypto, it will have nothing to do with Bitcoin, the same way Bitcoin had nothing to do with the disaster that on-chain became in 2025. You cannot have it both ways. The two have been separated for years."
3:01

Threadguy predicts this will be the first bull run in crypto history where Bitcoin doesn't participate "This is going to be the first bull run in the history of crypto where Bitcoin flat out does not participate. No role, no say, it will be minimal at best. It will be Bitcoin to $75k, Bitcoin to $80k, Bitcoin to $85k, and there will be mania on-chain." "My entire thesis is that the next cycle comes from new blood getting access to on chain through these apps. This new crowd doesn't even know what Bitcoin is. Anyone that joined because they saw Kimchi or Cented or Rasmr, they don't know what Bitcoin is. If there's a pocket of excitement and new blood in crypto, it will have nothing to do with Bitcoin, the same way Bitcoin had nothing to do with the disaster that on-chain became in 2025. You cannot have it both ways. The two have been separated for years."

Kai

45,766 views • 8 days ago

₿𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚: Mississippi Senate passes historic bill protecting #bitcoin mining 🇺🇸 “It shall be legal in the State of Mississippi to run a node for the purpose of home digital asset mining” and “operate a digital asset mining business”
2:18

₿𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚: Mississippi Senate passes historic bill protecting #bitcoin mining 🇺🇸 “It shall be legal in the State of Mississippi to run a node for the purpose of home digital asset mining” and “operate a digital asset mining business”

Documenting ₿itcoin 📄

323,177 views • 3 years ago

Nothing in Bitcoin works without decentralization. If Bitcoin continues to grow towards centralization, its value as a MoV/SoV decreases. Nodes are the last firewall left. The Implimantation is perdominatly centralizied. The Mining has continued to grow more centralized. The biggest attack are the nodes. This is why I am so passionate about calling out Spammers. They destroy decentralization. There is still a window that Bitcoin can be saved But it requires action. Run Knotes. Set up a home miner. Use DATUM. And you God sake, sell your shitty $MARA stock.
7:37

Nothing in Bitcoin works without decentralization. If Bitcoin continues to grow towards centralization, its value as a MoV/SoV decreases. Nodes are the last firewall left. The Implimantation is perdominatly centralizied. The Mining has continued to grow more centralized. The biggest attack are the nodes. This is why I am so passionate about calling out Spammers. They destroy decentralization. There is still a window that Bitcoin can be saved But it requires action. Run Knotes. Set up a home miner. Use DATUM. And you God sake, sell your shitty $MARA stock.

Lysander

34,896 views • 1 year ago

Bitcoin Core OP RETURN and spam explained by a Core Dev with Antoine Poinsot | SLP661 Seeing as people want to discuss Bitcoin spam, Antoine Poinsot and I discuss Bitcoin's OP_RETURN in depth - covering spam filtering, consensus rules, miner centralization, the future of spam concerns & more. (00:00) - Intro (01:42) - Understanding Consensus & Relay policies in Bitcoin (05:21) - Historical context of standardness Rules in Bitcoin Core (11:05) - Are Bitcoin Core proponents being paid to ‘break’ Bitcoin? (13:42) - Differentiating b/w OP_RETURN PR & the general spam filtering debate (22:46) - Is Bitcoin Money or a Data Storage protocol? How do most Core devs view it? (25:36) - Why not raise the OP_RETURN limit to ~150 bytes? (29:02) - How urgent is it to fix the issue? (31:56) - Why not let the node runners choose what they want to relay? (39:03) - Do filters work or do they not? (43:27) - Are concerns about UTXO bloat, miner centralisation, block propagation etc. being overplayed by Core devs? (50:30) - Will miners who mine spam be penalised if node runners run knots? (1:00:28) - Is Bitcoin Core serious about stopping UTXO bloat? (1:07:00) - Why did Core not try to stop bare multisig spam? (1:08:58) - Should Bitcoin devs be playing a whackamole game with spammers? (1:18:24) - Summary & Future of OP_RETURN and spam concerns Includes Paid Partnerships
1:26:13

Bitcoin Core OP RETURN and spam explained by a Core Dev with Antoine Poinsot | SLP661 Seeing as people want to discuss Bitcoin spam, Antoine Poinsot and I discuss Bitcoin's OP_RETURN in depth - covering spam filtering, consensus rules, miner centralization, the future of spam concerns & more. (00:00) - Intro (01:42) - Understanding Consensus & Relay policies in Bitcoin (05:21) - Historical context of standardness Rules in Bitcoin Core (11:05) - Are Bitcoin Core proponents being paid to ‘break’ Bitcoin? (13:42) - Differentiating b/w OP_RETURN PR & the general spam filtering debate (22:46) - Is Bitcoin Money or a Data Storage protocol? How do most Core devs view it? (25:36) - Why not raise the OP_RETURN limit to ~150 bytes? (29:02) - How urgent is it to fix the issue? (31:56) - Why not let the node runners choose what they want to relay? (39:03) - Do filters work or do they not? (43:27) - Are concerns about UTXO bloat, miner centralisation, block propagation etc. being overplayed by Core devs? (50:30) - Will miners who mine spam be penalised if node runners run knots? (1:00:28) - Is Bitcoin Core serious about stopping UTXO bloat? (1:07:00) - Why did Core not try to stop bare multisig spam? (1:08:58) - Should Bitcoin devs be playing a whackamole game with spammers? (1:18:24) - Summary & Future of OP_RETURN and spam concerns Includes Paid Partnerships

Stephan Livera

28,305 views • 1 year ago

Threadguy explains why the market won't let Bitcoin recover while Saylor's still in "If you put a gun to your head and asked what makes a real emphatic bottom for Bitcoin, it's Strategy deleveraging, forced selling of the Bitcoin, and Michael Saylor on trial for financial crimes. That's a bottom right there." "Strategy has $1.7 billion promised annually to the end of time. Out of 5,000 public companies in America, maybe 100 make $1.7 billion in profit a year, and Strategy owes that forever. They're only worth their balance sheet in Bitcoin and they can't sell the Bitcoin. The whole bit is earnings per share, but the only way they earn is by selling more Strategy, and that only works if Bitcoin goes up, which it can't while Saylor's still in. So the market is just saying say uncle."
2:17

Threadguy explains why the market won't let Bitcoin recover while Saylor's still in "If you put a gun to your head and asked what makes a real emphatic bottom for Bitcoin, it's Strategy deleveraging, forced selling of the Bitcoin, and Michael Saylor on trial for financial crimes. That's a bottom right there." "Strategy has $1.7 billion promised annually to the end of time. Out of 5,000 public companies in America, maybe 100 make $1.7 billion in profit a year, and Strategy owes that forever. They're only worth their balance sheet in Bitcoin and they can't sell the Bitcoin. The whole bit is earnings per share, but the only way they earn is by selling more Strategy, and that only works if Bitcoin goes up, which it can't while Saylor's still in. So the market is just saying say uncle."

Kai

52,699 views • 1 month ago

Breaking the bonds of Bitcoin. The adults are trying to tell you what's coming. I told you long ago. It was never Bitcoin. It was a prototype to herd everyone in for the eventual real world use cases. Tokenization, Privacy, interoperability, smart contracts, Defi...The Bitcoin prototype, by itself has none of these things Wall Street wants....and they all know it. Soon investors will know it.
1:27

Breaking the bonds of Bitcoin. The adults are trying to tell you what's coming. I told you long ago. It was never Bitcoin. It was a prototype to herd everyone in for the eventual real world use cases. Tokenization, Privacy, interoperability, smart contracts, Defi...The Bitcoin prototype, by itself has none of these things Wall Street wants....and they all know it. Soon investors will know it.

Digital Asset Investor

77,643 views • 8 months ago

The Epstein files reveal that Israel hijacked control of the Bitcoin network over a decade ago. Israel was paying the salaries of 60% of Bitcoin’s core developers and offered highly elusive gifts behind the scenes. This is very suspicious. Epstein and Israel were also major investors in Blockstream, a company that works with Tether and exerts significant influence over Bitcoin. They can manipulate the price by issuing unbacked Tether, control the network’s code because they hired most of the developers, and own a majority of the nodes. This suggests Israel likely has direct access to and influence over Bitcoin. The idea of “decentralization” is clearly illusory, and it is deeply concerning that the network could be manipulated by a single state operating behind the scenes. "If you knew who was really behind bitcoin you would run as fast as you fucking could to sell it!" - Dan Pena
0:56

The Epstein files reveal that Israel hijacked control of the Bitcoin network over a decade ago. Israel was paying the salaries of 60% of Bitcoin’s core developers and offered highly elusive gifts behind the scenes. This is very suspicious. Epstein and Israel were also major investors in Blockstream, a company that works with Tether and exerts significant influence over Bitcoin. They can manipulate the price by issuing unbacked Tether, control the network’s code because they hired most of the developers, and own a majority of the nodes. This suggests Israel likely has direct access to and influence over Bitcoin. The idea of “decentralization” is clearly illusory, and it is deeply concerning that the network could be manipulated by a single state operating behind the scenes. "If you knew who was really behind bitcoin you would run as fast as you fucking could to sell it!" - Dan Pena

matrixbot

512,709 views • 6 months ago

The Death Of Bitcoin "The Minute That Some Other Asset Comes Along That Flips It On CoinMarketCap Bitcoin Dies" XRP. Tried To Tell You. There's a reason Ripple and XRP have been under relentless attack since 2018 when it passed Ethereum. Bitcoin was next and they knew it.
2:54

The Death Of Bitcoin "The Minute That Some Other Asset Comes Along That Flips It On CoinMarketCap Bitcoin Dies" XRP. Tried To Tell You. There's a reason Ripple and XRP have been under relentless attack since 2018 when it passed Ethereum. Bitcoin was next and they knew it.

Digital Asset Investor

162,136 views • 4 months ago

"Gold shows where Bitcoin is headed" Store of Bitcoin Podcast (SoB#040) with Roberto Rios (Peruvian Bull) Roberto Rios In this episode, Roberto Rios, known as the Peruvian Bull, and a prominent voice in macroeconomics and Bitcoin discussions, talks about the intricate relationship between Bitcoin, gold, and global economic policies. He delves into the recent market reactions to economic events, particularly focusing on Japan's monetary policy and its implications for global liquidity. Rios emphasizes the importance of understanding Bitcoin's utility value as a monetary medium and its potential to outperform gold in the long run. The conversation also touches on the skepticism surrounding Bitcoin and the challenges it faces in gaining wider acceptance as a legitimate asset class. Dr. Francesco Madonna (bitvault.sv) Johan Bergman Store of Bitcoin - Bitcoin as Store of Value
1:08:53

"Gold shows where Bitcoin is headed" Store of Bitcoin Podcast (SoB#040) with Roberto Rios (Peruvian Bull) Roberto Rios In this episode, Roberto Rios, known as the Peruvian Bull, and a prominent voice in macroeconomics and Bitcoin discussions, talks about the intricate relationship between Bitcoin, gold, and global economic policies. He delves into the recent market reactions to economic events, particularly focusing on Japan's monetary policy and its implications for global liquidity. Rios emphasizes the importance of understanding Bitcoin's utility value as a monetary medium and its potential to outperform gold in the long run. The conversation also touches on the skepticism surrounding Bitcoin and the challenges it faces in gaining wider acceptance as a legitimate asset class. Dr. Francesco Madonna (bitvault.sv) Johan Bergman Store of Bitcoin - Bitcoin as Store of Value

Alessandro Ottaviani

16,495 views • 10 months ago

Coinbase is now accepting hashrate as collateral. This is a massive signal for the mining industry. They call it "Flexible Collateral Packages." Up to 50% hashrate / 50% Bitcoin If you run a tight ship, your machines are finally being recognized as the financial instruments they are.
0:36

Coinbase is now accepting hashrate as collateral. This is a massive signal for the mining industry. They call it "Flexible Collateral Packages." Up to 50% hashrate / 50% Bitcoin If you run a tight ship, your machines are finally being recognized as the financial instruments they are.

Simple Mining

113,392 views • 7 months ago

Making Sense Of Strategy What is happening with $MSTR? If you’ve been following me on X for any meaningful length of time, you will know that I have been attempting to calibrate people’s expectations of the stock's performance for the best part of 2025. Here I have synthesised all of my thoughts and distilled them into a single video. If you prefer YouTube, you can watch it here: If you prefer written format, continue reading. The first thing we need to understand is what Strategy is and why people invest in it. Strategy At the highest level, Strategy is leveraged Bitcoin. That’s it. Strategy leverages debt to acquire more Bitcoin. Therefore, the main reason you invest in Strategy is because you want to outperform Bitcoin. The only thing better than Bitcoin is more Bitcoin. The second thing we need to understand is mNAV. mNAV Generally speaking for a pure-play Bitcoin Treasury Company like Strategy, mNAV is a reflection of the market's expectation of future Bitcoin Yield. Bitcoin Yield comes with diminishing returns because each additional Bitcoin purchase contributes less to Bitcoin Per Share. Thus, the larger your Bitcoin stack, the harder it becomes to generate Bitcoin Yield and by extension the harder it becomes to outperform Bitcoin. This is why on a Bitcoin Standard, over a long enough time horizon, mNAV trends towards 1 since the maximum amount of Bitcoin you can own is 21M. With all this in mind, why is Strategy trading where it is and why is it trading at such a low mNAV? There are a few reasons. 1. Strategy Is A Different Company In 2025 Firstly, Strategy is a totally different company in 2025 to the one it was in 2020. For context, believe it or not, the company only introduced Bitcoin Yield and Bitcoin Per Share in the July 2024 Q2 Earnings Call and so it was only after that that they began optimising for those metrics. In my view, that is also when Michael Saylor truly started to understand the opportunity that was in front of him, which is why in October 2024 we saw Strategy announce the 21/21 plan which became the catalyst for the parabolic run we saw in November 2024 where $MSTR went on to briefly hit an all-time-high of around $550. Since people are comparing $MSTR this cycle to the $MSTR of last cycle when it briefly traded at an mNAV of over 8x, it is distorting their expectations. Again, Strategy is a totally different company today with a totally different set of dynamics. 2. New Industry Secondly, we need to recognise that the Bitcoin Treasury Company industry is entirely new which means that the market has been forced to learn and adapt in real-time. With Strategy being the first and by far the largest Bitcoin Treasury Company, it has gained a disproportionate amount of attention and as a result it has attracted a disproportionate amount of speculative capital along the way while everyone has been trying to figure out how to value it. Consequently, in my view, the move we saw in November 2024 was an over-correction to the upside — which by the way coincided with Bitcoin’s parabolic run following Donald Trump’s election win — and what we’re now seeing is an over-correction to the downside. 3. Bitcoin Yield Thirdly, as I mentioned at the beginning, Bitcoin Treasury Companies are currently valued based on how much Bitcoin Yield they are expected to generate in the future. At the time of recording, Strategy currently holds precisely 637,460 Bitcoin — that’s over 3% of the total Bitcoin supply — which means that it is much, much harder to generate meaningful Bitcoin Yield, which again is why we’re seeing the mNAV compress. However, there is a caveat here. There is another metric that Strategy have introduced which is Bitcoin $ Gain. Bitcoin $ Gain is defined as the $ value of newly acquired Bitcoin within any period. Strategy — and I don’t blame them — have been attempting to encourage the market to interpret Bitcoin $ Gain as “earnings” and to value the company based on how much earnings it is expected to generate in the future. For full disclosure, I personally dislike Bitcoin $ Gain as a valuation metric. I think framing it as “earnings” is misleading and disingenuous. I understand why it has been introduced because it speaks the language of Wall Street. However, traditional earnings are final. Bitcoin $ Gain is not because it is forever subject to the price of Bitcoin. Therefore, for Bitcoin $ Gain to be embraced by Wall Street, the market must collectively agree that Bitcoin is going up forever. I remain very sceptical of that happening — especially in the short-to-medium term. However, I am also not attached to my beliefs and so if Wall Street does decide to embrace Bitcoin $ Gain as its primary valuation metric, then $MSTR is likely undervalued by a factor of 5-10x. If not, then $MSTR is likely undervalued by a factor of 1-2x. If you’re not content with the latter being the worst case scenario, then the stock probably isn’t for you. 4. Preferred Products Fourthly, the Strategy thesis right now revolves entirely around the success of its preferred products. Remember, Michael Saylor wants Strategy to become the Amazon of the fixed income market. Thus, we’re not talking about a small innovation here — we are talking about completely transforming global finance. This means that the process of generating awareness and educating the market that will ultimately drive demand for these products is going to take years — not months — which is why you need to have a long time-horizon. Presently, the market is completely discounting the success of Strategy’s preferred products. What it’s not factoring in however is that the capital markets are desperate for yield right now. Thus, when — not if — but when, they eventually wake up to Bitcoin, how do you think they’re going to get that yield? Who is going to be the entity that is offering Bitcoin-backed credit instruments at scale? The answer is obviously Strategy, but again, this is a 5-to-10 year and beyond story. So with all that said, if you’re reading this right now, what should you do? Valuing Strategy There are 3 steps you need to take: 1. Firstly, you need to define your time horizon. In other words, how long do you intend on holding the stock for? 2. Secondly, you need to estimate either — depending on your preferred metric — how much Bitcoin Yield or how much Bitcoin $ Gain you expect Strategy to generate during that period and then calculate how much you expect $MSTR to outperform Bitcoin based on those values. 3. Thirdly, ask yourself whether you’d be satisfied with the level of outperformance you have calculated? In other words, is the trade-off worth it? Or would you be better off investing in either spot Bitcoin, an alternative Bitcoin Treasury Company or a Bitcoin ETF. If you’re satisfied with the level of outperformance that you’ve calculated, then $MSTR it probably a good choice of investment for you. If you're not satisfied, then $MSTR is probably a bad choice of investment for you. I personally believe that $MSTR will outperform Bitcoin by a minimum factor of 1-2x over the next 5/10 years and potentially much more if Bitcoin $ Gain becomes the primary metric by which it is valued, but again, I remain sceptical of that happening. Regardless, the best is yet to come.
11:54

Making Sense Of Strategy What is happening with $MSTR? If you’ve been following me on X for any meaningful length of time, you will know that I have been attempting to calibrate people’s expectations of the stock's performance for the best part of 2025. Here I have synthesised all of my thoughts and distilled them into a single video. If you prefer YouTube, you can watch it here: If you prefer written format, continue reading. The first thing we need to understand is what Strategy is and why people invest in it. Strategy At the highest level, Strategy is leveraged Bitcoin. That’s it. Strategy leverages debt to acquire more Bitcoin. Therefore, the main reason you invest in Strategy is because you want to outperform Bitcoin. The only thing better than Bitcoin is more Bitcoin. The second thing we need to understand is mNAV. mNAV Generally speaking for a pure-play Bitcoin Treasury Company like Strategy, mNAV is a reflection of the market's expectation of future Bitcoin Yield. Bitcoin Yield comes with diminishing returns because each additional Bitcoin purchase contributes less to Bitcoin Per Share. Thus, the larger your Bitcoin stack, the harder it becomes to generate Bitcoin Yield and by extension the harder it becomes to outperform Bitcoin. This is why on a Bitcoin Standard, over a long enough time horizon, mNAV trends towards 1 since the maximum amount of Bitcoin you can own is 21M. With all this in mind, why is Strategy trading where it is and why is it trading at such a low mNAV? There are a few reasons. 1. Strategy Is A Different Company In 2025 Firstly, Strategy is a totally different company in 2025 to the one it was in 2020. For context, believe it or not, the company only introduced Bitcoin Yield and Bitcoin Per Share in the July 2024 Q2 Earnings Call and so it was only after that that they began optimising for those metrics. In my view, that is also when Michael Saylor truly started to understand the opportunity that was in front of him, which is why in October 2024 we saw Strategy announce the 21/21 plan which became the catalyst for the parabolic run we saw in November 2024 where $MSTR went on to briefly hit an all-time-high of around $550. Since people are comparing $MSTR this cycle to the $MSTR of last cycle when it briefly traded at an mNAV of over 8x, it is distorting their expectations. Again, Strategy is a totally different company today with a totally different set of dynamics. 2. New Industry Secondly, we need to recognise that the Bitcoin Treasury Company industry is entirely new which means that the market has been forced to learn and adapt in real-time. With Strategy being the first and by far the largest Bitcoin Treasury Company, it has gained a disproportionate amount of attention and as a result it has attracted a disproportionate amount of speculative capital along the way while everyone has been trying to figure out how to value it. Consequently, in my view, the move we saw in November 2024 was an over-correction to the upside — which by the way coincided with Bitcoin’s parabolic run following Donald Trump’s election win — and what we’re now seeing is an over-correction to the downside. 3. Bitcoin Yield Thirdly, as I mentioned at the beginning, Bitcoin Treasury Companies are currently valued based on how much Bitcoin Yield they are expected to generate in the future. At the time of recording, Strategy currently holds precisely 637,460 Bitcoin — that’s over 3% of the total Bitcoin supply — which means that it is much, much harder to generate meaningful Bitcoin Yield, which again is why we’re seeing the mNAV compress. However, there is a caveat here. There is another metric that Strategy have introduced which is Bitcoin $ Gain. Bitcoin $ Gain is defined as the $ value of newly acquired Bitcoin within any period. Strategy — and I don’t blame them — have been attempting to encourage the market to interpret Bitcoin $ Gain as “earnings” and to value the company based on how much earnings it is expected to generate in the future. For full disclosure, I personally dislike Bitcoin $ Gain as a valuation metric. I think framing it as “earnings” is misleading and disingenuous. I understand why it has been introduced because it speaks the language of Wall Street. However, traditional earnings are final. Bitcoin $ Gain is not because it is forever subject to the price of Bitcoin. Therefore, for Bitcoin $ Gain to be embraced by Wall Street, the market must collectively agree that Bitcoin is going up forever. I remain very sceptical of that happening — especially in the short-to-medium term. However, I am also not attached to my beliefs and so if Wall Street does decide to embrace Bitcoin $ Gain as its primary valuation metric, then $MSTR is likely undervalued by a factor of 5-10x. If not, then $MSTR is likely undervalued by a factor of 1-2x. If you’re not content with the latter being the worst case scenario, then the stock probably isn’t for you. 4. Preferred Products Fourthly, the Strategy thesis right now revolves entirely around the success of its preferred products. Remember, Michael Saylor wants Strategy to become the Amazon of the fixed income market. Thus, we’re not talking about a small innovation here — we are talking about completely transforming global finance. This means that the process of generating awareness and educating the market that will ultimately drive demand for these products is going to take years — not months — which is why you need to have a long time-horizon. Presently, the market is completely discounting the success of Strategy’s preferred products. What it’s not factoring in however is that the capital markets are desperate for yield right now. Thus, when — not if — but when, they eventually wake up to Bitcoin, how do you think they’re going to get that yield? Who is going to be the entity that is offering Bitcoin-backed credit instruments at scale? The answer is obviously Strategy, but again, this is a 5-to-10 year and beyond story. So with all that said, if you’re reading this right now, what should you do? Valuing Strategy There are 3 steps you need to take: 1. Firstly, you need to define your time horizon. In other words, how long do you intend on holding the stock for? 2. Secondly, you need to estimate either — depending on your preferred metric — how much Bitcoin Yield or how much Bitcoin $ Gain you expect Strategy to generate during that period and then calculate how much you expect $MSTR to outperform Bitcoin based on those values. 3. Thirdly, ask yourself whether you’d be satisfied with the level of outperformance you have calculated? In other words, is the trade-off worth it? Or would you be better off investing in either spot Bitcoin, an alternative Bitcoin Treasury Company or a Bitcoin ETF. If you’re satisfied with the level of outperformance that you’ve calculated, then $MSTR it probably a good choice of investment for you. If you're not satisfied, then $MSTR is probably a bad choice of investment for you. I personally believe that $MSTR will outperform Bitcoin by a minimum factor of 1-2x over the next 5/10 years and potentially much more if Bitcoin $ Gain becomes the primary metric by which it is valued, but again, I remain sceptical of that happening. Regardless, the best is yet to come.

Chris Millas

36,835 views • 11 months ago

Did Epstein influence Bitcoin core development? Short answer: No. This is not how Bitcoin works. Here’s what happened: Epstein donated to MIT Media Lab…who in turn supported MIT Digital Currency Initiative…which in turn funded Bitcoin developers. These devs used to be funded by The Bitcoin Foundation (which I used to run as volunteer Executive Director) there are many devs and no dev or team had power or control over Bitcoin. Under MIT’s patronage the devs had the same deal they had with us at The Bitcoin Foundation: that they could work on the code and not have direction from the org. More importantly — how Bitcoin works is that *even if* a dev was compromised then the nodes and miners would still have to run that code to make it included in Bitcoin. So for example if I had somehow asked the devs paid by Bitcoin Foundation to “add 1000 coins for Bruce” 1) they wouldn’t have done this / it would have been counter to our agreement 2) no miners would run that code & no nodes would recognize it. It would be a laughing stock and completely rejected. Does this mean code dev is not an attack vector? No. It’s still a risk. Particularly with nation state style actors and very careful efforts to co-opt which are much more sophisticated than “give Bruce coins” or something. This is one reason I’m cautious of Bitcoin core funding - especially from actors who’ve had bad judgment in the past. I think we should be cautious of who does the dev and view it as an attack vector. Bitcoin code is transparent and has lots of eyes on it. So in this case especially there isn’t even a solid accusation, let alone evidence that MIT directed nefarious code changes. If that was an allegation the first question should be: well what code specifically did MIT direct and what proof is there and how was it harmful? I think claims around this would collapse. There’s obviously plenty to criticize about Epstein and MIT working with him — and when it comes to digital assets MIT’s work with Gensler and especially its work on CBDCs is much more suspect than the chance that malicious code was pushed through on Bitcoin. Be cautious but this is a nothing burger
3:28

Did Epstein influence Bitcoin core development? Short answer: No. This is not how Bitcoin works. Here’s what happened: Epstein donated to MIT Media Lab…who in turn supported MIT Digital Currency Initiative…which in turn funded Bitcoin developers. These devs used to be funded by The Bitcoin Foundation (which I used to run as volunteer Executive Director) there are many devs and no dev or team had power or control over Bitcoin. Under MIT’s patronage the devs had the same deal they had with us at The Bitcoin Foundation: that they could work on the code and not have direction from the org. More importantly — how Bitcoin works is that *even if* a dev was compromised then the nodes and miners would still have to run that code to make it included in Bitcoin. So for example if I had somehow asked the devs paid by Bitcoin Foundation to “add 1000 coins for Bruce” 1) they wouldn’t have done this / it would have been counter to our agreement 2) no miners would run that code & no nodes would recognize it. It would be a laughing stock and completely rejected. Does this mean code dev is not an attack vector? No. It’s still a risk. Particularly with nation state style actors and very careful efforts to co-opt which are much more sophisticated than “give Bruce coins” or something. This is one reason I’m cautious of Bitcoin core funding - especially from actors who’ve had bad judgment in the past. I think we should be cautious of who does the dev and view it as an attack vector. Bitcoin code is transparent and has lots of eyes on it. So in this case especially there isn’t even a solid accusation, let alone evidence that MIT directed nefarious code changes. If that was an allegation the first question should be: well what code specifically did MIT direct and what proof is there and how was it harmful? I think claims around this would collapse. There’s obviously plenty to criticize about Epstein and MIT working with him — and when it comes to digital assets MIT’s work with Gensler and especially its work on CBDCs is much more suspect than the chance that malicious code was pushed through on Bitcoin. Be cautious but this is a nothing burger

Bruce Fenton

231,920 views • 6 months ago