Parker, your framework is still inaccurate, and the conclusion it produces is fundamentally misleading. To be clear, I do not think you are intentionally trying to mislead people. I think the issue is that the return attribution framework you are using is not internally consistent. This is also not an isolated issue. Across your commentary on this topic, there has been a consistent pattern of mixing frameworks, comparing unlike metrics, and then drawing conclusions that do not actually follow from the underlying analysis. I do not think that is malicious, but I do think it is a serious analytical problem. I have done performance and return attribution work for the largest pension fund in the United States, and I have worked with some of the largest and most sophisticated asset managers in the world on exactly this type of analysis. This is not how institutional return attribution is done. Your claim is that nearly $38 billion of common equity was raised over the period, and that the weighted average price paid underperformed Bitcoin. But once you introduce a weighted average equity issuance price, every other part of the analysis has to be treated consistently. That means you also need to calculate the weighted average date of that equity issuance. You cannot take a weighted average issuance price across the entire period, then compare returns from the beginning of 2024 as if all of that equity existed on day one. By your own framework, most of the equity holders you are analyzing did not even exist at the beginning of 2024. So using the beginning of 2024 as the return start date for that capital is simply the wrong math. Because much of Strategy’s equity was issued later, and at higher prices, the weighted average issuance date will be pulled meaningfully forward. That matters. A lot. If you want to build the strongest version of your own critique, the correct analysis would look something like this: 1. Calculate Strategy’s weighted average equity issuance price over the relevant period. 2. Calculate the weighted average issuance date for that same equity. 3. Calculate the Bitcoin price using the same cash-flow-weighted timing. 4. Then compare performance from that weighted average date, using internally consistent assumptions across equity issuance, Bitcoin, and the relevant return period. That would at least be a coherent, apples-to-apples analysis. But that is not what you are doing. What you are doing is taking one metric on a weighted average basis, then combining it with a return period that starts before much of the capital was actually raised. That is not return attribution. It is a mismatched calculation that produces a misleading answer. The institutional way to analyze this is either to use total return from a fixed start date, such as the beginning of 2024, or better yet, since the inception of the strategy in 2020. Or, if you want to analyze capital raised over time, use a cash-flow-weighted framework that matches each equity issuance to the correct date, price, and corresponding Bitcoin price. But you cannot mix the two frameworks. You cannot use weighted average issuance economics on one side of the ledger and a fixed-date return from 2024 on the other side. That is precisely how you get the wrong conclusion. My view remains that the proper framework is total return over the period, ideally from the inception of the strategy. If you want to use 2024 because that is the period you are focused on, then use 2024 consistently. If you want to analyze equity issuance over time, then cash-flow weight the entire analysis consistently. Right now, your critique does neither. That is why I believe your analysis is inaccurate, fundamentally wrong, and misleading. Again, I am not saying that is intentional. I am saying the framework itself is flawed, and the math does not support the conclusion you are drawing.

BPS measures Bitcoin per common share before senior claims. CEBE BPS measures Bitcoin per common share after senior claims. CEBE is the conservative risk metric. BPS is the common equity growth metric. BTC Yield measures BPS execution.

Americans are struggling to pay for groceries and gas while Elon Musk becomes a TRILLIONAIRE. When the federal government is for sale, the rich get richer and everyone else gets shafted. The system is rigged.

As @LynAldenContact says. If one entity is able to be a problem that kills it, it’s never meant to be more.

The Times's weekend read: * The Labour leadership contest has already begun. In No 10 Starmer is fighting for his political life, putting huge pressure on teh system to bolster his Premiership in face of existential threat posed by Andy Burnham * Expect a frenzy of activity in coming weeks - the defence investment plan, social media restrictions for under 16s, the Brexit reset. Announcements bogged down in months of bitter internal rows will finally come into public view * All the announcements are coming before or shortly after June 18th, the date of the Makerfield by-election. Starmer is trying to send a message to Labour MPs that he can deliver * He isn't the only one. Burnham has began issuing his own national leadership pledges - starting with a £300million cut in business rates for pubs and small businesses * His press release directly attacked Starmer and Reeves, accusing the government of 'undervaluing' their importance to local communities. This is a *Labour* candidate directly criticising a *Labour* government * The lines between the Labour Party and Burnham's campaign are increasingly blurred. Team Burnham now has a lot of the party machinery on his side - press officers, officials etc - and also has most of the cabinet out knocking doors in Makerfield. Power is already moving * Starmer thinks he can fight Burnham, but his allies are unconvinced. One said that he thinks Burnham has behaved 'appallingly'. 'His view is why should he make it easy for him?' * But there is an acknowledgement that Starmer is on borrowed time. That it is a case of when, not if he goes * There are divides in Team Burnham over when he should amke a move if he wins Makerfield. The 'go-now' camp say he must seize the opportunity or it could slip through his hands, using the momentum of the by-election to act decisively * But others think this could be disastrous - that he needs time to build up a proper plan for government and No 10. That if he doesn't he risks repeating Starmer's mistakes all over again * Then there's what's being billed as the 'battle for the soul of Burnham'. There are those on the left - Louise Haigh, Miatta Fahbulleh and others - who favour a radical break from Starmer. Then there are the centrists - Josh Simons, Jim O'Neill - are are said to be emphasising the importance of fiscal credibility. It is potentially a v unwieldy coalition thetimes.com/uk/politics/art…

There are two classes of significant problems that arise from the unnecessarily poor performance. (1) increasing calls to abandon validation (abandon Bitcoin), and (2) increasing calls for censorship (abandon Bitcoin). We have always seen this as existential work.

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says the U.S. Government has seized $1 billion of Iran's crypto: "Just outright grabbed the wallets. Some of them may be typing in right now and might not realize their wallet had been grabbed."

Saylor can't sell a substantial portion of his bitcoin without tanking the price. Networks are meant to be distributed. Liquidity comes from distribution. Saylor has done nothing to promote distribution. Strategy is a shitcoin.