@YanLiberman

Piers compresses the entire sector into one variable: $/kg to orbit. Each price threshold unlocks entirely new possibilities. $500/kg opens orbital compute. $200 opens manufacturing. $50 opens the Moon. In hindsight, price per kg to orbit will be one of the defining numbers of the century. This is the clearest map of it I've read.

Crypto is starved for durable yield. In bull markets, yield shows up through leverage: elevated basis, rich funding, and high borrow rates. In quieter markets, @ethena has to source yield beyond crypto-native leverage, which is why the Janus Henderson CLO partnership matters. The second bottleneck is stablecoin funding capacity. There just isn’t that much USDC available to borrow across DeFi money markets. Coinbase changes the ceiling, with ~$19B of USDC in products and an implied ~$13B already reward-earning. The combination is compelling: cheap stablecoin funding capacity at Coinbase scale, deployed into external yield products that are tokenized onchain. Because those products are tokenized, they can be used in looping structures, creating a larger and more scalable source of yield. Delphi Ventures are investors in Ethena.

Near-term BTC price action is going to be heavily dependent on one thing: Did Saylor sell enough BTC this past week? If he sold zero, that’d be a massive mistake on his end and we’re probably cooked. If he sold $1B of BTC, that helps, but realistically I don’t think it’s enough and we probably continue lower. If he sold at least $2B, that’s where it gets interesting and sets up a bounce. The more he sold, the harder we bounce. My base case is that he sold at least $2B. I also think there’s a decent chance BTC bottoms into Monday if the market starts pricing in that he sold some. Rationale: Selling none is my lowest probability scenario. He needs the money. He already did that weird 32 BTC “test” sale and I have a hard time understanding the purpose of it. If he was planning on selling more, all the test did was give him worse execution. If he wasn't planning on selling more, then he nuked the market for no reason. The latter seems completely ridiculous, so my guess is it was indeed a test and he was planning on selling more. A tiny sale ($500m) is the worst of both worlds. It damages the “never sell” narrative without solving the liquidity problem. If you’re going to sell, sell enough to matter. That’s the key here. A material sale does two things at once. It adds real cash runway, but it also sends an important signal to STRC buyers: he is willing to sell meaningful amounts of BTC to keep funding the dividend. That signal matters a lot. Strategy has roughly $871M left in its USD reserve. Against the current preferred + debt cash burden, that’s only about 6 months of runway. If he sold $1B, that takes runway from ~6 months to ~13 months. Helpful, but probably not enough. 13 months is enough to reduce near-term stress, but not enough to make STRC feel like a self-sustaining issuance product again. STRC buyers are still underwriting a shrinking cash cushion and hoping the market rallies materially within that window. I think it becomes very hard for STRC to get back to 100 in that scenario. If he sold $2B, that takes the reserve to ~$2.9B and extends runway to roughly 20 months. That is a very different setup. At ~20 months of coverage, blow-up risk gets pushed much further out, STRC buyers can believe the dividend is properly covered by cash on hand, and the product has a real chance of trading back to 100. It also changes how STRC buyers think about the balance sheet. They’re not just relying on new issuance to get paid. They’re backed by a massive BTC treasury that Saylor has now shown he is willing to selectively monetize to support the credit stack. Once STRC is back at 100, the flywheel can restart. This is the “sell to buy” point. A large BTC sale does not just create cash runway. It can increase his ability to issue STRC, which then gives him the ability to buy more BTC than he sold. So the hierarchy is simple: Selling zero is the disaster scenario. Selling too little helps, but probably does not fix the flywheel. Selling enough to matter is what gives STRC a path back to 100 and gives BTC a reason to bounce.

Still think STRC had legs if Saylor hadn't burned so much cash repaying the 2029s. @fundstrat's setup is cleaner. Zero debt, zero preferred at @BitMNR, and ETH yield makes the coupon more serviceable. Caveat: ETH down = yield dollars down. One tweak worth considering: pre-fund 12 months of dividends out of every raise (~10% set-aside). Almost certainly grows raise capacity by more than the 10% in foregone ETH buys because the market prices in the lower coupon risk. Hoping @saylor sold a lot of BTC this week to fix his cash situation. If he did and STRC issuance restarts, same playbook applies. Set aside a portion of every raise to give the market confidence on coupon coverage.

Reading between the lines for the upcoming product launch referenced. Coinbase x Ethena is bullish because it can turn Coinbase’s ~$19B USDC base, with an implied ~$13B of reward-earning balances, into a funding rail for Ethena. If sUSDe yields clear baseline USDC rates, Coinbase can offer better USDC lending yields, loopers can lever the spread, and Ethena gets deeper/cheaper funding than native DeFi alone. Aave mechanics, Coinbase distribution. We think Ethena will keep finding compelling ways to source yield across all markets, especially as RWAs and more financial activity move onchain. Coinbase gives it a much larger funding base to apply that yield against. @Delphi_Ventures are investors in @ethena