The Wolf Of All Streets - Fear Crushes Crypto, DeFi Keeps Printing Revenue #CryptoTownHall

Episode Date: June 3, 2026

Today on Crypto Town Hall, the panel discusses Bitcoin’s dip near $66k, breaking down Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy’s recent Bitcoin sale, its market narrative impact, tax-loss harvesting strategies, Bitcoin-per-share growth, and concerns over reduced corporate buying power. They explore AI siphoning liquidity into IPOs and tech stocks, quantum risks, capital flows, and potential short-term downside to the $50-55k range. Additional topics include the Clarity Act, stablecoin regulation, AML and national security narratives, distressed digital asset treasuries, and Hyperliquid’s emerging role in pre-IPO price discovery. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Well, that was challenging. Yeah, that was weird. Can you hear me, Scott, by the way? Yeah. Okay, cool. Yeah. I'm just, I'm in my northern place. Must be nice.

Yeah, well, whatever. I mean, it was interesting using the full self-driving from Florida up to the northeast, I will say. It was a much better experience than I expected, and a hell of a lot better than a gas car. And I always thought it would be more of a pain in the end. Yeah, so that was cool. How awesome would it be if you could just sit in the back asleep seat and nap? Yeah, that's supposedly.

That was my question. About a year out, supposedly. I'd be fine in the front seat. The front seat's perfectly comfortable. It yells at you if you try to do anything. I'm like you try to play a game. Yeah, it's not going to be happy. So what do we think about Bitcoin being at 666 during the show while we couldn't get the spaces started?

Devil number. That's why the spaces couldn't start until we had the dead. devil's number. Yeah, it feels like it, but I just went to 6, 6, 6, 7. Damn, well, whatever. Anyway, we were 666 while the space started, so we got that going for us. I mean, all I could say is, you know, I happened to glance down, saw it was happening yesterday, and it was a good day to be in my car and not be trying to figure out, you know, what the hell's going on and all the people.

I mean, is this all sailor-related? I mean, what do you think? No. I mean, I wrote a whole newsletter on it. That'll be what the daily will surround. I think, well, so I think it's nuanced. It's obviously not the 32 Bitcoin that he sold, right? I mean, what do we have, the market to like 800,000 Bitcoin a day in spot volume? So, you know, the notion that, but the narrative around it or the fear around STRC, I think, could be one of the five or six contributing factors.

I mean, STRC is trading below 97. I think on the VWAP, they're still in the 99, so they're not going to probably adjust the dividend right now. but I would say that the narrative, if you really want to dig into, is probably that there's fear because MSTR is trading below nav and STRC is trading well below par that he won't be able to buy. So I think that might be the more relevant part of it. I don't think him selling is particularly relevant.

I think the fear that the biggest buyer in the market may not buy. But I think right now I think actually a pretty valid narrative is we're getting a lot of FOMO on the kind of AIIPO trades coming. And, you know, we've kind of been predicting that a lot of liquidity is going to be sucked out of other things. And I think that's probably starting to happen. I mean, everything else is going to high as well, Bitcoin goes down. People are clearly selling to get into something else. I don't think you're going to be markets.

Yeah, I think I know what I think. The only narrative that I don't know, because I was trying to, and obviously it's so damn hard. I was I told you it was driving. You know, it looked like there was some interesting news on the quantum side that is, you know, Look, I think that's the narrative that won't die until Bitcoin is post-quantam. And I think that that matters. I think that if you're selling Bitcoin now to be able to raise cash to buy SpaceX and you're not selling other NASDAQ high flyers, I think you are, you're smoking some high

quality stuff is the way I would phrase it. I think that is a crazy scenario. But you're right. People do crazy shit. So I guess we'll see. Anyway, I think, yeah, I literally made the point on my show this morning. I was like, but if that's going to be the narrative, we're going to have to see liquidity coming out of a hell of a lot more things than Bitcoin

to fund hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in IPO. So it's going to be everything liquid. I'll repeat something. I don't know if Fong Lee or Saylor, I know you talk to them every once in a while. But I mean, look, if I'm going to say it simply, if I were on their board or if I was a strategic advisor on how to accumulate more Bitcoin, this week taught me something and should teach them something about how to do so. And if the goal is to be able to buy cheaper, then every once in a while sell and then buy more and use smart techniques to do so.

And they're not stupid people. So I don't know if they're going to learn this lesson, but there's a way for them to trade, which will definitely help them. And I think the people that strive could see it. Anybody who's in this game, this is a week is extremely important for that. Anyway, without going down that rabbit hole, you know, Amateo, I see your hand up. What do you think? Hey, guys. Yeah, I just say that it seems as though AI continues to just siphon everything out of the market, out of activity, whether that's liquidity, whether that's data centers.

And I just don't see this vacuum ending anytime soon. And attention, right? So, I mean, I just think that the great AI vacuuming of all things just continues and accelerates. And then we have all of these correlating things with Sailor strategy that go along with it. And I think that this is going to be prolonged pain as this trend continues until it comes back around. Yeah, the only problem with that narrative is, if you remember Gary and I, Gary was very poetic about this, not poetic's the wrong word, but, you know, specific about this. Poetic sounds awesome for me. I like it. I like it. But the point that you made about the

incredible amount of money that went into stocks that were supposedly going to be disenfranchised by AI like Oracle, you know, and others. It's, you know, yes, it's not just Oracle, but, you know, the entire software index dropping 30% on fears of AI taking it, just destroying the SaaS business, and then having the whole damn sector rally right back to where it was. It makes the notion that somehow Bitcoin is uniquely vulnerable to AI when there's huge evidence that AI agents will probably want to. who save in Bitcoin.

So to me, I find that strange. I think that there's other things going on in the world of crypto. And that's worth talking about that we always kind of dance around the edges whenever we see days like yesterday when Bitcoin gets slammed and everything goes down. But it's a strange narrative. I think that we always make the joke that Wall Street loves to see what happens and then invent something to explain it. And there's only a loose correlation, but whatever.

Anyway, Gorov, unless Amatea, was that a new hand or is that an old one? That was an old hand. I think there's more than just narrative to that conversation, but we can go to Gora for sure. Well, I'd like to hear it. But yeah, Goro, go ahead. Hey, guys, good to hear from all of you. I think there are two, I don't know if it's the same for the larger markets, but this is in my little journey in crypto of the last 12 years.

often seen this happen where if, let's say, you know, one segment was in a bad shape and it has lost all the traction, just out of nowhere for about a week or a month, I mean, crypto is small, so the 10 years are also small. For a week or a month, the liquidity would jump in. those shit coins would rise like 20, 30, 40 times of obviously the volatility is higher in crypto because of the low market cap. And it is nothing but a honey trap

to attract people to these already dead stocks or already dead tokens and then get more money and then eventually take all of that to what's coming next. next, you know, whatever is coming next in that case. How does that imply to the crypto thing, to the stock thing, you know, two days ago when

Gary was talking about all these tech stocks rallying up that are already killed? And by the way, there's no reason these stocks should be performing as good as they are. This probably could be the same phenomena. And I'm clearly not as educated in the financial markets as I am in crypto, but I'm simply correlating the two phenomena that, you know, these old dead stocks that didn't have enough liquidity and the public has already lost their interests, they are rallying to capture some interest, get the old loyalists to reinvest, and then, you know, somebody takes that benefit and then all that liquidity goes to whatever is coming next, which is the AI stocks. Does it make

sense? Is it a valid theory? I mean, sounds valid. You know, look, you know, Gary's post on, you know, 55K incoming. I mean, 55K is so close to here, it's entirely possible. Obviously, anything is possible. You know, it's, to me, it is, as I said, it's about capital flows and it's about what are people thinking. The only thing that we know for sure, we know for sure, there will be more liquidity. They will print. We are going to be running fiscal deficits for as far as the eye could see, and it looks like they're going to accelerate it.

The real question is, what will happen? Will Powell behind the scenes do what has been the unthinkable? And in the history of the Federal Reserve, it's never happened that a deposed chair is still exerting power after their term is over. Generally, the chair gets to set the direction. And there's clearly the markets think there's a risk that that's not going to happen.

And that could be very interesting. We'll see this move. But that, by the way, the deficit and the recovery to the deficit has been a long conversation for a very long time. But recently with Elon and others talking about the narrative of AI bringing all the money of the world to the US. And obviously the majority of services and hence the money that was depleting out of the US was to countries like, you know, Asian countries like India for. software and human resources, which has been cut down by a large percentage. So obviously, the people taking those decisions might find that a surety within this idea of point number one, all these AI IPOs bringing all the money of the world to the US, and that

covers of the deficit to a large extent, obviously projected across the next 10, 20 years. and then the ongoing outflows of the country to human labor cost that is already covered to a large extent by AI for software and soft services, and then further covered for human and hard services by the likes of Optimus and other robots. I think that could be an argument on the table of these insiders and large policymakers to maybe print more, because there is this big resurrection coming, you know, right on the horizon. Yeah, I see Gary's hand up, so rather than me answer that, but that's kind of very twisty logic. Gary, what's up?

Well, I just want to respond on Garza. Hopefully I'm pronouncing your name correctly. Your comment about... Yeah, everybody does that, so I'm used to it. It's God of, but... Mr. Dubet, Mr. Dubet, I'll call you that. The comment about, you know, AI sucking up all the capital and these companies that are generating revenue, real revenues, the IBMs of the world, I'm beginning to wonder if the only benefactors are the companies that will use the AI and that the AI companies themselves will never make money. They're raising too much money, man.

I don't know how these companies are going to make money. but I could see how I as an individual or corporation, if I have a margin of say 30% or 15%, I think my margins are going to expand greatly. I don't think I'm just going to lose all my business tomorrow and the benefactor of the tool, maybe the earnings that you can see into these companies are being revalued today.

So can I answer that a bit, Gary, because I think that... I don't know the things. But there's an answer to it. It's just a thesis of mine that, oh, wow. We're, we're, it's similar. So I think that that it boils down to utility versus, you know, you know, commoditize utility versus, you know, added value. So, for example, in the case of AI, if you come to the conclusion that there will be n number of providers of trained compute and inference, and that it's becomes ultimately, commoditized such that it has to it well but if that it has to it has to transparency always leads to commoditization so so the point here is that fair though like that and the AI is really a transparency I think the thing is ultimately yes and so the scramble among the AI companies is to build enough consumer or sticky consumer services that are priced in such a way as to not make for switching

costs, right? You know, because there's a lot of services that are essentially, I mean, internet service providers were a classic example of an obvious frigging commodity. Cell phones are an obvious freaking commodity, not the cell phone, the self, the cell phone provider networks underneath it. Yet they're still, they still make a fair amount of money. So I think that the descent of the internet of the AI companies to what you're saying will take more time and ultimately some will differentiate and some will not. What is really, what is really, important here, though, is you're saying something that is so, so profound for crypto, and this is Crypto Town Hall, which is if you are a infrastructure that is ultimately

planning on being a utility for other companies to make, your point that the companies that use that infrastructure will make more money, a dramatically more money, than the crypto tokens or open source infrastructure, is something that's not priced into a lot of crypto And I think that is hugely important. Does that make sense, Gary? Yeah. I mean, I think we're just, we got to look at things a little differently than we've ever looked at them before. No, that doesn't mean, by the way, I'm not saying that no crypto, you know, assets will be valuable.

I'm merely saying that if they're undifferentiated and commoditized or have seen that way by the companies that are actually making money, that that's going to make them challenging. Anyway, David, I see your mic is up and you have a hand up as well. Yeah, yeah. No, thanks, Dave. Yeah, I was just going to add to Gary's earlier point about, you know, AI basically sucking all the cash away from crypto. So we've got to look beyond just AI because we're also looking at the rise of robotics. We're also looking at, you know, trillions of dollars being put into space with gold dome.

You've got a lot of growth markets out there that are competing for capital right now and offering better returns. along with it. So, you know, from that standpoint, I also agree with your point that, you know, eventually crypto is going to be commoditized and it's going to be the users of crypto who are going to be making the profit off it while the cost of acquiring or utilizing crypto is going to decline. So, you know, from that standpoint, I'm glad to see that Gary's note was 55. I'm glad to see you're driving the old speed limit there, Gary. We'll see where things pick up from here. hey, if nobody's going to buy it, I'm going to talk this thing down as long as I can.

Like, it's stunning to me that somebody can just, you know, this market's really bizarre. But I do think, I love to know Scott's view on this, but Scott, I think I'm going to buy sub-60-dollar Bitcoin. I just don't see the strength here. Makes sense. Yeah, it's a rounding error down from here, right? I think we did 10% in two days. so it's another 10%, right? I think the setup here screams for,

I think also like, you know, Coinbase premium and perps and open interest are still have a lot of people positioned long, even though I think we saw $1.8 billion yesterday. So I would imagine that the most bullish scenario actually is a very quick flush well into the 50s and sets up what looks like a bottom on every, like, cyclical chart. So, yeah, I think so.

But, you know, been wrong many times before. because it just drives me fucking crazy. It's this Coinbase premium notion. You're looking at the wrong thing. It has nothing to do with the Coinbase premium. It's bullshit. What it is is USDT is trading at a slight discount. Not, I mean, not a lot.

But what is it? 14 basis points, 13 basis points? Or am I getting 1.3 basis. Whatever it is, that USDT trading below par means that the premium of the US dollar versus the buy. which is in USDT looks like a premium, and if it flips, it's the opposite. But what it does mean, whenever USDT for a long period of time trades at a small discount, a non-arbitrachable discount is the best answer. When it does that, what it's indicating is there's not a lot of creation, there's not a lot of

demand for crypto from the world, because the USDT has been the single best vehicle for most of the world to entry new capital in the crypto. So it's telling you that new capital is not coming in. And so So that is important, but it's a backward looking indicator. I just want that to be clear. It doesn't speak to leverage. Now, leverage, of course, could be, you could very well be right, but I just want to make that technical point because it is relevant. Anyway, I see new hands.

I see Grace. I see your hand up and then I think I'm a Tatea. Sure. Hi, everyone. I'm Gracie Chen. I'm a bit new to the town hall, but I know about Smalley. We've had you here before, Gracie. It's been a long time.

Yes, but it's been a while, it's been a while. at least like half a year. It would be great to get your view on stocks and point on leverage. Yes, yes. I want to bring... I want to bring... I want to bring two views here. Number one is personal view on Bitcoin Price.

I heard a lot of earlier discussion from, you know, Dave, Mr. D... I don't know how to pronounce your name either. Dubel, sorry. And other folks about Bitcoin Price. You've done that before, Gracie. It's G. G, okay. We have met a bunch of times.

Okay, sorry, I have very bad memory. So in terms of Bitcoin Prize, I actually just made a Senate tweet this morning, but it was in Mandarin. And I purposely did that only in Mandarin because I want to keep that voice slightly closed in my Chinese community. But basically what I said earlier today is that I think in this cycle, Bitcoin can easily around, you know, 50 to 55K. And I obviously had a lot of firebacks from that tweet

because all my, you know, crypto exchange users and, you know, Chinese community, KOLs are basically targeting me and quite blindly criticizing me saying that I, as a, you know, CEO of crypto exchange should not say something like that. I should always be bullish about crypto, especially Bitcoin. But basically my personal take is that in the long run, I'm still very optimistic. Central banks around the world are printing money like crazy. And commodities like Bitcoin, gold, and silver are due for a uptrend.

But in the short run, factors like the rising CPI and inflation, which may lead to interest re-hikes, along with massive IPOs in the U.S. stocks and the AI sectors, they are, are just, you guys mentioned that, they are just taking the money outside of crypto. And then we've heard, you know, potential, it might be rumor, but basically there might be wealth, like micro strategy, and Mongols selling. So I think these are all short-term factors

that can drive price down. And my personal, all-in sort of price in this cycle is obviously around 50K. Yeah, so that's my personal take. But I'm happy to share a bit more, both finance and BigGET, etc. Listed U.S. stocks for offshore exchange users. But I'll stop here just in case anyone want to jump in for some insights. You have plenty of people who I'm sure want to jump in.

I think we're going to the next hand. Yeah, I just had a question. And this is just kind of to the panel most generally. I'm seeing a lot of posts about how the sailor consolidation of Bitcoin, the amount that's owned, the STRC, and the potential for for selling. Now, I'm not trying to be a doomer here by any means or be overly negative. The question I have is I've seen some content that's been geared towards that this. This potential tail risk and the optics of it have made other institutions more gun-shy or less interested to get exposure to Bitcoin. And I just wanted to get an idea if that is just fud, just baseless fud, or if that's something that any of you guys have seen in your conversations.

I think micro strategy it makes sense for them to sell definitely not all the all the bitcoins that they hold which is like about more than 3% of the total Bitcoin supply but it makes sense for them to sell high and try to buy low and again

I think I'm not very fudding in terms of the whole micro strategy going bust like FTX and bring bring the whole market down. But I think as a company, Michael Saylor, as well as micro strategy, it just doesn't make sense for them to hold forever. They haven't sold when Bitcoin was more than 120K. But right now, it's still more commercially rational to sell if they think the

price can go lower and they get to, you know, buy it back at a lower price. Carlo, is that a legacy hand? I don't think we've heard from you this morning. Yeah, good morning. I think one of the things that's really weighing down crypto right now is the fact that we are just witnessing a massive gaslighting campaign coming from the bank and anti-crypto army side. You know, Senator Lummus was on CNB. and basically called out Jamie Diamond for what I have been saying, and I actually wrote about it yesterday, is that he's either not reading the Clarity Act or he's not being honest about what's in the Clarity Act because he keeps sounding alarm bells, because he keeps sounding the alarm bell

that there are not sufficient anti-money laundering protections in the Clarity Act and that this endanger the financial system. And, you know, I wrote about and released this article yesterday on my substack talking about this very thing. And I ran through the proposed regulatory language that is in the Clarity Act. And more importantly, I ran it through the proposed FinCEN regulations from Treasury that apply to the Genius Act. And they mention anti-money laundering no less than 400 times. So I think one of the problems we're seeing right now is that there is a massive front being waged against passage of the Clarity Act. And, you know, thankfully, blockchain association came out yesterday with a letter signed by 160 individuals with experience and intelligence and law enforcement who basically all supported passage of the Clarity Act because it ties exactly into what Senator Lummis is saying, we need market structure for the instance. to come into this.

This space was downloaded via Spacesdown.com. Visit to download your spaces today. And the narrative that's being pushed right now are by the people that stand to lose the most from market structure because they want to continue to push fearmongering, but they are losing. And I think their time is running out. The clock is running. We know that the Senate has teed this thing up. It's circulated the bill and it looks like it's going to finally get calendared for a floor vote.

So I am optimistic. I know, Scott, you think the ethics clause is going to pull this thing down, but I think they're going to be able to pull enough people across the aisle to get this done because it is just that important to get done. I mean, this new national security narrative is definitely a big, fresh push, right? We literally never heard that before, and all of a sudden, you know, you get this blockchain association letter, as you said, but now everybody tweeting it and talking about it. interestingly it comes at the same time by the way you know and the claim there is that the clarity act basically gives the cops more reach and more power and it's a security you know national security

threat which is kind of funny because i would think most bitcoiners that would get your spiny senses tingling that uh you know we're patriot acting ourselves with the clarity act well there's nuance in that there's nuance in that can i can i respond to that yeah absolutely i don't i'm not saying i believe that i'm telling you what the narratives are yeah go ahead I mean, I've read the FinCEN regulation, and they constantly point to the fact that the majority of the fraud that goes on in stablecoins, particularly, is on secondary markets. And the ability to freeze and to burn tokens, which is baked into the regulations that are probably going to get approved, is a mechanism to stop that. Now, while that should give concern to the crypto army, especially the Bitcoiners out there, the difference is very clear. stablecoins are regulated digital dollars, and they are subject to AML because they're launched

by entities that can be forced under these regulations to shut down, freeze wallets and burn. Bitcoin is a decentralized platform that doesn't have that mechanism baked into it. So you're trying to give the market confirmation and clarity that stablecoins don't present a threat to the financial sector because they have these anti-money laundering mechanisms in place. There's no way any of this stuff is going to get mainstreamed and institutionally adopted if it doesn't come with these restrictions. There's just no way the government's ever going to let that happen. So I think it's something that you have to accept, but it doesn't necessarily mean that obviously all of blockchain technology has become a surveillance state because that's why

we have Bitcoin. Well, I mean, yes and no. I mean, yes and no. I mean, the fact is that bad guys using Bitcoin compared to bad guys using cash, the bad guys get caught a lot more using Bitcoin. I mean, it's just fact. I mean, you know, the FBI will have been saying this for years. I mean, it is harder to cover your tracks in Bitcoin than it is in a lot of other financial assets. That's the real problem with Jamie Diamond is saying. I mean, when you see billions in fines, what does that tell you in terms of the. the amount, the raw amount of actually laundered funds through the traditional financial system

is a staggering number. And we know that and everyone wants to ignore it. But that's besides the point. I mean, look, there's two huge narratives. One is this national security narrative. It's true. I mean, whether it's economic competitiveness, whether it's just, you know, the way they're framing it now, it's a true narrative. I mean, we know that's true. The other one that's absolutely true is investor protection in the event of a bankruptcy without clarity. there is literally no way to avoid the investors getting screwed because they're going to stand behind, you know, stand as general creditors, which means the lawyers get money in front of them. All of that matters. And, you know, Elizabeth Warren could talk out of both sides of her mouth, but there's no answer to that argument. And so, you know, then the third narrative, which is this notion of, well, it's really illegal, it's really bad. Well, okay, but then do you really want Americans to be using offshore exchanges or do you want them to go through regulated exchanges? All of those arguments are for the lack of a better word, for those who ever play bridge. It's a Thursdays are Trump arguments.

There's no answers to them. So that what happens when they come up is the opponents ignore them. And the real question is, is will people let them? And the answer is probably yes. I mean, that's the question because, you know, we got wars going on. We got elections. We got this. We got that.

And the real question is, can you get, and you use the word before, Carlo, can you get attention to the actual issues? because it's very, very hard to justify the other side of this. It's damn close to impossible. So all you do is just push it into tribalism and hope that nobody notices that you're saying stupid shit. And hope that no FTCS happens between now and the elections, because if it does and if it could have been prevented, then that would be a disaster.

And that's what's actually funny about watching fear, extreme fear in the crypto market, is, well, what happens in the case of a bankruptcy? Gorov, is that a new hand? No, that was like ages ago when I wanted to respond to Gary and then wanted to respect to Grace, C, and then wanted to respond to Carlo. Okay. Well, you know, look, I see Grayne of salt up here. Grain, I'm fairly confident.

I'm sorry. I keep wanting to use your real name. Sorry about that. I'm pretty confident that you want to talk about the STRC and, you know, that particular topic. Am I right? you're right and my real name is mike i've used it on my book so my real name is out there that you told it to me i just didn't want to use yeah so my real name is out there um but so many more people know me by great assault so you know going back to uh what uh gracie was saying so look

strategy's goal is to increase bitcoin per share it's not that they're going to sell bitcoin and buy back cheaper. I think that some strategy on Monday of next week will announce that they buy anywhere between 2,500 and 3,000 Bitcoins. And one of the common things that came up on X is like, hey, look, if you're going to buy 10 Bitcoin and then sell one Bitcoin, you have a net of nine Bitcoin. One of you just buy nine. What he was signaling to the market was because what he said for years was, hey, you never sell your Bitcoin because they had previously sold Bitcoin. in 2022. People internalize it that sailor would never sell Bitcoin for strategy. That was an assumption that people made. So by him saying, you know, by him saying, if you buy 10 Bitcoin and

sell one, you signal to the market, now you're being tax lot efficient. And that's where sometimes people are like, oh, you went too fast. I'm like, look, tax loss harvesting is not difficult. It's been around for, I don't know, 75 or 100 years. And so what they're showing to the market is, hey, and they put this in their slide publicly, that they have $129,000 $100,000. It would make sense for them to sell some of those now, right? Book a tax loss carry forward, right?

Which anybody that's competent in investing knows what a tax loss harvesting is, and they'll do that, and then they'll acquire more Bitcoin next week, and their goal is to drive up the Bitcoin per share. The interesting part about that is that that's done a 4x since they started. So the Bitcoin per share for strategy is up 3.9x since they started.

If you're to buy an ETF, it's always one-to-one. If you buy Bitcoin, it's always one-to-one. That's their KPI. I'll take any questions on it. I don't know why people miss this. Right. I personally, I mean, if you ask me, I mean, I've said this a few times, I mean, I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm lobbying for it because I'm not.

But, I mean, if I were sitting as the director of a director at strategy advising on trading, I would say that this week has taught you that doing something that you can't do if you're a broker and you write build algos for people. I mean, when I say can't, I mean, I literally fought for compliance at Citigroup for years on this topic. It is well understood by people who do execution strategies for a living, that if you have the flexibility to sometimes sell when you're buying and sometimes buy when you're selling, to misdirect the market, that you can ultimately get a lower overall price based on market impact and various things that you're doing. And there's a variety of ways.

And what this week has taught anybody with a who understands market structure, that there's an opportunity for strategy to actually do better than they've been doing long term by incorporating strategic sales. Yeah, but I'll push back on that a little bit. And the data tells us something a little bit different than that. First of all, from a narrative perspective, if strategy would have sold Bitcoin when their price was high, let's say Bitcoin goes to 150,000. And so all of their Bitcoin is now in profit. If they were to signal to the market that they sold it again, the same number, 32 Bitcoin, the narrative would be, oh, my God, the top is in, strategy is selling. So that's how it takes place.

The other thing, if they publish their addresses, every time they move coins, if anything has taught us is that if the addresses were published and any time they move coins but don't necessarily sell it, it would spook the market every single week. It just would or every single day. So that would be problematic. The weirdest thing about strategy that people, what's counterintuitive, is that they acquire more Bitcoin when the price of Bitcoin is higher, not lower. And the, so their top five quarters have all been when the price of Bitcoin has been higher.

And the other part that's counterintuitive, Q1, 2026 was their second best quarter out of 25 quarters acquiring Bitcoin during a Bitcoin bare market. So they're access to capital. So the narratives are, they won't be able to access capital when there's a Bitcoin, when Bitcoin drops 50%. That's not true because Q1 was the second best quarter ever. I think Q2 is tracking to be right now is the sixth best quarter ever. So when the price of Bitcoin is the highest, they accrete the most Bitcoin per share. And that's where this gets, people get like lost. And it's like, well, it's a little bit more complex when you're dealing with

$55 billion worth of something versus somebody. It's like, you know what? I own two Bitcoins. Oh my God. I'm so happy for you. That is great. But when you scale two Bitcoins to 840,000 Bitcoins, the level of sophistication goes way up. And I think a lot of commentary that we see online is people that don't have that level of sophistication, not be a mean.

I'm just saying they don't seem to understand the difference in magnitude. Yeah. I mean, there are multiple things that you just said that I don't agree with, that there are things that I do. There's a lot of nuance. The truth is that if their goal is to acquire as much Bitcoin as possible and there is demand in the fixed income markets for them to be able to pay yield and they have the ability to make that yield, it's going to continue to push higher and these little pockets that we get every time there's a downturn are just turned out into opportunities.

The real question is every time people start going through this, well, he's not a not going to be able to buy anymore, he's going to lose his access to capital and he's going to have to sit in his hands or he's going to have to sell, that's when you get these down drafts. And we get them all the time. I mean, let's face it. We've seen it multiple times. I don't see that here. I don't.

But, you know, anything is possible. But what is absolutely true is non-micrategie digital asset treasuries are a cluster fuck. I mean, I'm not, I guess, you know, not all of them, but quite a few of them are. and you know there was a twigrubb. I'll try, wait, let me chime at the last part. Except for strategy and strive, and I pick strive out particularly because they have no debt, and it's the only other one to get out of Prath, and they're the seventh largest Bitcoin treasury. Pretty much all of the other ones are charitably a cluster fuck.

Right. They may be. Arguably, the most bearish post I saw over the last week was Dan held basically. saying three different digital asset treasury companies ask him to, I can't remember whether it was CEO or join the board or whatever, and he said no. What does that tell you? Well, that tells you that we got a lot of companies out there with impaired assets that they may be forced to either sell or I don't know what they can do with it. And that's selling pressure. And that is why I think that is actually what's happening here. And I think that's a large part of what Gary is talking

about it. I mean, who are the buyers for that? I mean, you can, can you buy Bitcoin cheaper by buying it from them? Will they sell the assets? I mean, Nakamoto, I can't imagine him selling his Bitcoin because if he does and it dissolves, you know, he loses his salary and his gravy train and all the other stuff. And who knows, he could end up losing control of his golden goose. But there are others that might be in a different situation. I think it would take, there's going to be a distressed, you know, distressed equity and distressed debt are. are incredibly profitable if you know what you're doing. And my guess is that's going to end up in this sector.

I mean, I don't know if you agree with that, Mike. We're already there. You and I are in agreement with this. Absolutely. Those people, I'll talk to you afterwards about what you just said. I don't want to talk about that publicly. But I think, I think, I'm getting close to that too. Sorry, yeah.

Yeah. So look, there's other hands up. Let's, you know, go to them. I don't want to monopolize the call. But I want people to realize that I'll make one quick distinction. I think that there's two things that people sometimes miss on this is that strategy's original goal. And I think what's shifted with Saylor is getting close to the $1 million Bitcoin mark. And Fred Kruger used a great term yesterday.

And he said, you know, we now have a guy that publishes with an 8K or 10Q, right? their quarterly earnings and the AK pretty much every time he has to do something materially with a Satoshi level number. We'll get to a million Bitcoins September of this year. And so I think what happened is that I think now he's big enough. I think what happened was in January 2024, he had less than 200,000 Bitcoins. And he has now quadrupled the amount of Bitcoins in two years, which is crazy once you see that statistic.

And so now what he keeps on saying, he's been very particular about this metric is Bitcoin per share, not the absolute number. It's the growth. Ken, their public metric is we want to grow Bitcoin per share at 10% a year, which is a very low percentage. And that means in seven years, they double the amount of Bitcoin per share. That's from the rule of 72. They just rounded it down from 7.2 to 7. They said 10% of years are metric. They're at 13% so far for this year. So they've exceeded their metric with their metric is for growing Bitcoin per share. So that's where they're going to get to, I think, to a million Bitcoin, and they're big enough. They were not big enough at all in 2024.

And that's where it is today. So I think it shifted a little bit from the nominal number to the growth rate. That's what's more important. The growth rate of Bitcoin per share. Goro, is that a new hand? Yep, yep, relatively older to the shift of, with respect to the shift of topics. Mike, my response is obviously with the spirit of conversation on the Twitter space and definitely no offense against your remarks.

When you look at founders and when you look at people who have achieved, you know, a lot of, let's say, exceptional achievements. in their enterprise. Most of the times, it is less sophistication, more motivation, less maths, more in the story like MSRT, which was like almost a lot of times

against the popular belief. It is the motivation of that guy, Sailor. So as much as I agree with everything related to sophistication as it falls today and as it looks today, abstraction of wallets, nobody knows their wallets and so on. I don't agree to the idea of sophistication of buying the tops. The buying pressure or the buying ideology came from the underlying belief that Bitcoin will never fail, and no matter how much it drops, I mean, obviously nobody's calculating the quote,

no matter mathematically, but they keep buying, and it did work out till day. So that is one thing that I wanted to point out based on my little experience with enterprises and entrepreneur of the last two decades. Then about... Do you want me to speak about... Sure. Yeah. Sure, sure, please. Sure.

Sure. Sure. So strategies found. Obviously, Michael Say was the founder of it. He could have retired. And then he tried to rebuild the company. This is all public information. He tried to rebuild the company multiple.

times and he couldn't grow against Microsoft so then he found Bitcoin and he did it. I think the part that I'm not getting with what you're saying here is, is that he, you know, buying the tops gave him the optionality. He bought the tops and the bottoms. I think what we would say to anybody, when you buy the top, right, and the price of Bitcoin drops, you have the optionality out of tax loss of harvest. That's sophistication. Do I hear other Bitcoin people talking about that? No. And I typically don't hear people selling saying they want to sell the top either and the reason why is because oh i'll have to pay taxes taxes are unjust it's unfair they're stealing from me and i'm like what's the sense of holding an asset right if you never get to use it and then we get to the part where we talked about briefly about

nakamoto and that that um david dave talked about it is that you know if you pledge your bitcoin as collateral or the bar against it now you have it now it's impaired because it's pledged as collateral which is for them it's over 40%. They're like oh we don't like that either. So I think people have a have a negative bias with everything. We want to see everybody fail because they're emotional. Maybe it's just because of jealousy. Why is Michael Saylor a multi-billionaire and I'm not? Why is he successful and I'm not? I don't understand what he's doing. I think the market is emotional. The fact that we blame him for selling 32 Bitcoin and the price of Bitcoin drops off. I think that's purely emotional.

You can respond to what I said. I think that what he did, he did what he said. No, I agree. You're absolutely correct. I mean, that's what I actually was implying that, whether or not that, you know, the whole buying up was sophistication. I think that was certainly emotional and goes along with that. No, it wasn't emotional.

It was, it wasn't emotional. What he did was he had convinced. and followed through with it. That's what we don't hear from a lot of people. Yeah, but the way you said it was, it sounds like, oh, he's buying the top because it's emotional. No, when he was buying the top, that's the, no, no, no, no. I also mentioned, because of his belief. When he bought the top, that's when the stock was at the highest MNAF, which is counterintuitive. People are like, why would you buy the top? And that's when he had the highest multiple, so it was the most decreative.

If you could sell, if you could sell $1 stock for $3,000, you arbitrage the $2. People don't understand what I just said right there. Let's quickly switch gears to understand the second part, which is the Bitcoin per stock, that should enable, like that commitment should probably have, you know, made him strategized to buy the bottoms, which a lot of people are talking about. What do you think about that?

He did that. I just said that. In Q1 of 2026, which is, which was, we'll assume that that this has been the bear market that we're in, it was their second best quarter ever out of 25 quarters. Now, in 2022, they had approximately like 125,000 bitcoins. So again, this goes to nominal numbers. He just started buying it. He just started, I don't know if he had his first convert done yet. So that was very early in the journey because it was only two years in.

Now we're looking at a company that's coming up on six years. And now they come into this at approximately 600,000. They were at 625,000 bit coins, maybe a little bit less, at the end of the year. And now they've acquired 170,000 bitcoins year to date. So in a downturn, like I said, Q1, 2026 is their second best quarter ever. and Q2, which is another down quarter for Bitcoin, is right now, I believe, number five or number six, at a 25 quarters.

So they've done both. Can I ask the question that most of the audience cares about because this is just right to the chase, especially because we're kind of over time already, is this. What do you view as the odds of non-tactical small tax loss selling, but net selling of Bitcoin that a year, from now, two years from now, three years from now, strategy will have fewer Bitcoin on, you know,

on its balance sheet than it does today. What do you rate the odds? They will always increase the amount of Bitcoin that they have and they will always increase the amount of Bitcoin per share. Right. So if that is true, I'm not saying you're wrong, I actually tend to agree with you. If that is true, then that is telling you that people who are selling today are on the basis of this news are going to, as it always happens, are the people who are locking barn doors after the horses have bolted. And Gary won't be as happy and won't be able to buy Bitcoin in the 50s and the 40s. That's what that says to me. But you're right, in a sense, the fact is, is there's emotions here and people will think and not necessarily agree with you. But that is

that, that's where the rubber meets the road here. I mean, Gorav, I assume you agree on that. I do have questions, but we are running over time, which is around the yields and how would the sustain? Probably, we have another space tomorrow to discuss that because I don't think Bitcoin outperforms our expectations tomorrow. So well on the topic. Okay. It's funny. I just got some texts from listeners that have integer percentage chances, which is, which is, of course, interesting because if you think about the yield, the market it sort of is pricing it as a higher probability than zero. Because if it's zero, then STRC is like the greatest product on the planet.

So essentially, no one gets a chance to buy high yield debt at, you know, from AAA companies, right? And zero would be implied triple, you know, we wouldn't try AAA. So anyway, it's a longer conversation. And what? I was saying we've discussed this so many times in the past two years. Well, sure. But when you see big moves, I see the final outcomes all the time, I think it's worth it. So it's probably worthwhile.

Okay, before we go, I see David's hand up. So what's up? Yeah, my last question is, given the fact that we've got a dividend record date for STRC coming up on Monday, the 15th, June, you know, people should just step in and do a dividend capture strategy. And then, you know, not hold it, obviously, because you don't want to, you don't know if it's going to hold its peg or not. but nonetheless, you'll get the payout. Well, we'll see. I mean, it is interesting. But, well, we'll be back on Friday.

Hopefully we'll get the spaces started earlier so that we don't have to run over. But, you know, look, we've fallen below 666. So, you know, I don't know. We'll see. Gary, you got to get the engines ready for, you know, for the next whoosh down. Okay, I'll, I mean, I will point out one quick note.

There is one crypto in the top, you know, 10 that is up today. Actually, yeah, there is one. And I think it's the only one that's tracking what tech stocks are doing, and that's Hyperliquid. And that continues to be a really interesting story. But I think that given the, you know, what happened yesterday, that's why we didn't really focus on it. Okay. Since you brought up Hyperliquate, can I just jump in and share one interesting case? Sure.

that both hyperliquid and Bigget kind of become a price discovery for some pre-IPO stocks. Actually, I think this happened in early May that there was a U.S. AI stocks called, let me find the name. I think it's called CR, CBRS. It's not small, but I'm not very familiar with CBRS. Before it's launching on NASDAQ that day, actually it was open on perpetuals for hyperliquid and beget already. And the high catalyst perpetual contracts actually generated roughly 320 million in volume before the NASDAQ debat. And then also before the traditional market even open, the crypto-native contract price already find the real price, which is jumped from 290 to nearly 380,

and after it really opened at NASDAQ, that day, intra-high was 386. So I started to see hyperliquant begin and some other offshore exchanges become this price discovery layer for private companies for Wall Street, which is quite exciting. Gracie, I would love you to come back because we really should discuss that because it goes so much beyond that. I mean, on the weekend, Hyper Liquid, Bloomberg is quoting Hyperliquids oil prices on the weekend now.

I mean, it's just there is so much going on in terms of what's actually happening in the world of price discovery. I think that you hit on a really important topic, but since we're literally about to close the space now, you know, yes, definitely. I'll tell you next week or maybe the week after. Very, very important. Yes. Agreed. Yeah. Thank you for having us today, Dave. Well, thank you.

And we'll see everyone here, hopefully, on time. We're on Friday morning at 1015. Take care of all.