STRD

Mengapa saham dividen crypto Strategy (STRD) anjlok mendekati level terendah? salah satu instrumen pendanaan milik Strategy yang digunakan untuk membeli Bitcoin. Saat ini STRD dan beberapa saham preferen Strategy lainnya mengalami tekanan besar akibat kombinasi beberapa faktor. 1. Harga Bitcoin turun → model bisnis Strategy ikut tertekan Strategy membangun bisnis dengan menerbitkan saham dan instrumen utang/preferen untuk membeli BTC. Ketika BTC turun tajam dari puncaknya, nilai aset perusahaan ikut turun sementara kewajiban pembayaran bunga dan dividen tetap berjalan. 2. Investor mulai khawatir soal kemampuan bayar dividen STRD dan STRC dibeli investor karena menawarkan yield tinggi. Namun ketika harga saham preferen turun, yield yang diminta pasar naik. Artinya Strategy harus menawarkan imbal hasil lebih besar agar investor tetap tertarik. Ini meningkatkan biaya pendanaan perusahaan. 3. Strategy mulai menjual Bitcoin Awal Juni 2026, Strategy menjual 32 BTC untuk membantu memenuhi kewajiban distribusi saham preferen. Nilainya memang kecil dibanding total kepemilikan BTC mereka, tetapi secara psikologis pasar melihat ini sebagai retaknya narasi "buy and never sell". 4. Premium terhadap NAV mulai menyusut Selama bertahun-tahun investor memberi valuasi premium kepada Strategy karena dianggap sebagai "leveraged Bitcoin vehicle". Kini banyak analis khawatir premium tersebut menyusut karena: biaya bunga meningkat, kemampuan menerbitkan saham baru melemah, pembelian BTC baru melambat.

The dividends on STRF, STRD, STRK, and STRC aren't optional, they're contractual, paid out no matter what bitcoin is doing that week. So every dollar of "Digital Credit" you are raising quietly stacks a fixed bill on top of a volatile asset, and it's MSTR shareholders who end up absorbing the whiplash so the credit investors don't have to. The Monkey buying STRC for steady yield isn't wrong about the yield, he's just not the one holding the risk. 🍌

1/ 🧵 The Strange Contradiction I Keep Seeing Among Bitcoin OGs. There is something I've noticed over time, and the more I think about it, the harder it becomes to ignore. Some of the loudest Bitcoin OGs will tell you Bitcoin is the greatest asset ever created. They'll tell you fiat is broken. They'll tell you self-custody matters. They'll tell you banks and middlemen are the problem. They'll tell you Bitcoin is freedom. And honestly, I agree with a lot of that. But then something strange happens. The same people get excited about products like STRC, STRF, STRD, SATA and other financial instruments built around Bitcoin, yet completely ignore or dismiss something like @Coredao_Org without taking the time to understand what it is trying to achieve/achieved. That is the part I find fascinating. Not because @saylor's products are bad. Far from it. They have an important role to play. They are helping bring traditional capital into Bitcoin, and that's a win for Bitcoin. But let's be honest about what they are. They are products built around Bitcoin. Core is trying to build infrastructure for Bitcoin itself. Those are very different things. One gives investors exposure to Bitcoin through financial structures. The other is asking a much deeper question: Can Bitcoin remain Bitcoin while becoming productive? To me, that is one of the most important questions in Bitcoin today. Because if Bitcoin truly becomes what Michael Saylor calls Digital Capital or "thousand-year capital with a half-life of infinity," then eventually the conversation has to move beyond simply owning Bitcoin. What happens after Bitcoin wins? What happens when institutions own it? What happens when governments own it? What happens when trillions of dollars sit inside it? Do we simply celebrate that Bitcoin became the greatest form of capital humanity has ever created? Or do we begin building an economy around that capital? History suggests we will. Every major form of capital eventually becomes productive. Land did. Gold did. Real estate did. Stocks did. Everything that becomes valuable eventually develops an economy around itself. So why should Bitcoin be any different? This is where Core becomes interesting. Core's vision isn't about replacing Bitcoin. It's about preserving the things Bitcoiners claim to care about most: Self-custody. Ownership. Security. Decentralization. While exploring whether Bitcoin can become productive without sacrificing those principles. And this is where I think many Bitcoin OGs should pause and reflect. The same people who tell everyone to "do your own research" often seem unwilling to research Core before dismissing it. The irony is hard to miss. You don't have to support Core. You don't have to buy CORE. You don't even have to believe it will succeed. But if your goal is for Bitcoin to win, shouldn't you at least be curious about a system trying to answer what comes after Bitcoin wins? What makes this even more interesting is something I rarely see discussed. Michael Saylors @Strategy sold a certain amount of bitcoins amd there was an outrage that a man who famously tells individuals "Never sell your Bitcoin", sold from his company. The reality is, companies live in the real world. Companies have expenses. Companies have obligations. Companies need liquidity. Which leads to a fascinating question. But If Bitcoin is truly the best capital humanity has ever created, why should anyone or companies be forced to sell it just to access liquidity? That is exactly the kind of question Core is exploring. Imagine institutional Bitcoin time locked non-custodially. Imagine that Bitcoin remaining under the owner's control. Imagine it earning yield without being handed over to a third party. Imagine using that same Bitcoin as collateral to access liquidity when needed.

Start dates might not be 100% accurate yet, but here is a table summarizing the entire $MSTR Preferred Complex so far. No one is making money with these. $STRC $STRF $STRC $STRD

Disagree. The market looks at $STRD and just sees capped upside and lots of volatility (because $STRD is the lowest pref, its capped ceiling is naturally because of the other prefs). I’m not a big fan of $STRD. It’s not about the over collateralization, it’s about the vol you’re taking vs the return you’d get. Anyone would be better off buying Bitcoin, or if they wanted Bitcoin with yield, they’d buy $STRK.

STRD is "max long" digital credit

STRD will trade much lower because STRC will demand much higher yield.

Yes, dividends can be suspended indefinitely. This would also bar distributions to shareholders of $STRE, $STRK, $STRD, and $MSTR, and legally mandate @Strategy to undergo "commercially reasonable efforts" to restore $STRC and $STRE dividends though the sale of junior securities.

This is not an $STRC quirk. Its fixed-rate sibling, $STRF, shows the same fingerprint. The only difference: investor expectations allow for $STRF, $STRK, and $STRD prices to vary. (4/5)

$STRD was released when Bitcoin was topping out. The market is scared of the collapsing value of the collateral, thus higher yields needed. This fully reverses on a bull market, and we're close to finishing the bear.

Brought to you by the creators of: STRK = "Strike" STRF = "Strife" STRD = "Stride" STRC = "Stretch" Beginning June 31st, STRH = "Starsky & Hutch"

Not like they didn't already do this too... $STRK $STRD ...etc

I'm guessing that would be you. $STRC dividends accumulate regardless of declaration or immediate funds availability, and are senior to $STRE, $STRK, $STRD, and $MSTR.

so many choices to keep it nonproblematic: do nothing (my personal favorite) raise rates increase dividend frequency increase frequency of rate adjustments sell common to buy it back issue STRD, STRF STRK to buy it back

Is STRD at 60 problematic?

Why are dividends on STRK and STRD not paused? They’re trading like garbage

Dispatch from the Monster Model Framework trenches 🏗️ 🚧 I was doing some refactoring in the USD management subsystem and decided to insert a dedicated column to track #Bitcoin sold. The MMF already supported the selling of Bitcoin, but only as a way to settle up on a weekly deficit from things like $MSTR share buybacks, $STRC / $STRF / $STRK / $STRD / $STRE dividend payments, bond interest, early bond payoff, etc. While validating the new setup, I cranked up weekly Bitcoin sales to $500 million. But because the new column tracking sold Bitcoin sits upstream of the rest of the USD management logic, the system found itself with ~$500 million of free cash each week. So it began filling up the USD reserve until, three weeks later, its target minimum threshold was met... ...at which point it started using the #BTC sale proceeds to buy more Bitcoin. 😭😭 I can imagine a bear using the model for the first time, trying to force the selling of Bitcoin to "break" @Strategy, and then realizing that selling BTC just creates surplus cash that, naturally, the treasury management algorithm is going to try to deploy. Sorry bears. 😄🧡

$MSTR / $STRC / $STRF / $STRD / ethereum:0xca14007eff0db1f8135f4c25b34de49ab0d42766 😂😂😂😂😂😂🍿🍿🍿

on STRK, STRD, STRF? that would be ELECTRIC