Is $STRC good or bad for Bitcoin?
$STRC is money.
It's not perfect money.
It pays a yield. Perfect money doesn't pay a yield.
Its purchasing power simply increases or decreases at the rate of relative abundance.
$STRC is designed to increase in account size relative to debasement.
This is actually what some people want out of their Bitcoin. A stable store of value at the rate of real inflation.
This is why it's popular, it is why stablecoins and yield farming is popular.
Strc is essentially a shitcoin issued by mstr to attract the person who believes in Bitcoin to give them money to buy Bitcoin instead.
People think it has Bitcoin risk.
Bitcoiners know it has third party risk.
Is this something that people actually need?
If bitcoin was fully adopted, no.
But it isn’t and it still trades like software.
There are many people who don’t want that or can not wait for Bitcoin to increase in purchasing power entirely from the deflation of human activity.
They are old, sick, impatient, or simply buying something else soon.
If that is not you, and you are a Bitcoiner, then STRC is not designed for you.
$STRC for the retail community is a distraction.
Exactly like how the next Bitcoin killer crypto is a distraction.
Bitcoin is the most likely decentralized alternative fair monetary network to succeed.
$STRC is not the money of the future.
It is a money of today.
And Bitcoin in the eyes of the many and the non-revolutionary, is personally defined as speculation.
They may disagree with that, but dig deeper and they know there is a possibility of a dystopian future where Bitcoin does not succeed and they are in it for the lambo.
Myself, I will ride fiat to zero, or I will ride Bitcoin to zero.
$STRC like many shitcoins, might leave you with less Bitcoin at the end of the day.
That is a risk you should be willing to take if you hold it.
You might end up with less Bitcoin if you buy $STRC for a year to get the +11%
And within that year Bitcoin goes up 121% (2024) before you decide to buy back in.
Guess who doesn’t end up with less Bitcoin.
$MSTR
For the cost of your capital, they would return 110% and own more bitcoin than they had before.
In fact they own 720,737 Bitcoin.
48,237 more than they had at the end of 2025
274,337 more than they had at the end of 2024
531,587 more than they had at the end of 2023
588,237 more than they had at the end of 2022
596346 more than they had at the end of 2021
650,267 more than they had at the end of 2020
720,737 more than they had at the end of 2019
Clearly there is a trend. Although it isn’t exactly more than the year prior every time it is still a consistent relentless accumulation of Bitcoin. And this all leads to one question.
Is centralization of Bitcoin a problem?
MSTR is a black hole where Bitcoin goes and does not leave.
When MSTR issues stock, whether common equity, or preferred equity, it buys bitcoin.
That stock can not be redeemed for bitcoin like the ETFs indirectly are forced to do.
Each new capital raising product adds mass to the gravity of the blackhole.
$STRC is the singularity at the center of the blackhole.
It pulls capital from the largest capital base with terms that are too attractive to ignore.
$MSTR pulls capital from speculators, traders, and investors looking for amplified Bitcoin.
$STRC pulls capital from people seeking bond-like risk with returns that outpaces inflation.
$STRF, $STRE, $STRD, and $STRK all seek a niche place around these two ideas with their success as capital raising tools determined by market conditions.
They are all powerful in their own right.
And they all have one goal.
To raise more Fiat, to buy more Bitcoin.
All of this leads to one entity holding more Bitcoin than any other single entity.
More than satoshi, more than any government, more than any OG, and even more than the rest of the Bitcoin that will be issued for the next +100 years until the 21 million Bitcoin supply cap is reached.
I built a tool that measures when the latter one will happen. The great intersection when Strategy will hold more Bitcoin than all of the Bitcoin miners around the world will compete for until 2140 minus fees.
Based on the issuance, and Strategys average accumulation of the last 365 days. My graph estimates the intersection will happen in October of 2026.
The Great Intersection - Plebtools
Strategy
This all points to one thing.
Centralization of Bitcoin held by one entity.
One of Bitcoins main thesis is that it is decentralized.
But this isn’t a general claim. It is specific to the parts of the system that have strength and fairness because of that decentralization.
The bitcoin unit is centralized in holdings like a new company or start up has its shares centralized in the early adopters and those willing to take massive risk.
Source :
River
What Makes the Bitcoin Price Go Up and Down? | River Learn - Bitcoin in 21 Minutes
Bitcoin demand is surging as supply stays fixed. Discover why businesses and governments are investing heavily and what this means for the price.
Bitcoin nodes, Bitcoin mining, and Bitcoin development are all more important to have adequate decentralization than the holdings.
There are thousands of bitcoin nodes, these are users that have a copy of the bitcoin blockchain and download and upload new transactions to the waiting area (mempool) and newly added blocks.
This enforces the strict rules of Bitcoin.
An estimated 0.5% of the world's annual electricity generation goes to bitcoin miners. These miners compete to get the rewards of the block subsidy and transaction fees. Bitcoin mining is possibly the best example of a free market that we have ever seen. It is ruthless and unemotional, if you can’t mine Bitcoin at a profit, you stop mining bitcoin. This creates competition by miners that can seek out cheaper electricity or can innovate in cost saving measures like waste heat re-use. The incentives of mining do lead to centralization with the addition of mining pools, and because mining pools make the block and decide what transactions get included in that block on behalf of the miners contributing their hashrate to the pool this does allow a massive bad acting pool or group of pools to perform a 51% attack and double spend some Bitcoin. Game theory suggests that miners have no incentive to do that since they would lower the value of the bitcoin that they are trying to cheat with.
Bitcoin mining has a real risk of centralization nonetheless however and this is something that needs to be balanced more. Datum and Stratum v2 are solutions that actively give power back to smaller miners by allowing every hasher contributing to a pool to create the block of transactions themselves and this helps decentralize mining again.
Bitcoin development is another area at risk of centralization.
If someone wanted to attack Bitcoin they could infiltrate and influence key developers to push for changes that would make Bitcoin worse. Bitcoin development is open-source, this means the code is auditable and changes happen in a transparent way. It isn’t perfect because it is still a human project but it is robust as long as people care about it.
What Strategy is doing falls under centralizing the Bitcoin unit.
What I am about to say is nuanced, and I will explain that nuance, but owning the bitcoin unit does not give you power on the network, in fact it makes you subordinate to it.
When you own Bitcoin, and capitalize your business on it, you are reliant on the network and market to value Bitcoin for you to continue to get the use out of it as appreciating capital.
It’s possible this begins to flip at some percentage of ownership by a single entity but it would be self destructive and therefore any entity would try to avoid that.
If your ownership is such a perspective problem that other bitcoin users, and potential new users want nothing to do with it because they feel it has been compromised and centralized, then the relative value of bitcoin would decline, and the adoption globally would suffer. This is the way that centralization of bitcoin ownership can be a problem. Not in controlling the network, but by influencing the public image.
It is also unknown at what percentage this would happen but I think it would have to be massive. Much larger than any reasonable projection of what $MSTR will eventually own.
Is it a risk today? No.
Is it something we should keep watching? Yes.
Bitcoin is always under attack. The best attacks involve thinking beyond where your opponent is thinking. The strategists know they have to lose battles to win wars, to befriend and betray, to surprise, and to practice the art of war.
It is up to us Bitcoiners to defend it and to stay vigilant.
