Enjoy your leftovers.

I truly wish I was celebrating today... but it feels more like a funeral.

I know the following is tldr in our world of data bombardment. With that said, if you have any interest in how AI can manipulate humans and hide info, you might find my following interaction with AI of interest. I simply wanted to know what growth hormone was used in milk production, and struggled to get a straight answer. Had I not known a little about the topic, I would have never found the truth. what is the growth hormone in milk? 1.71s The primary growth hormone in milk is insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). This hormone is naturally produced in the human body and plays a crucial role in growth and development. Milk from cows, goats, and other mammals contains IGF-1, which is one of the reasons why milk is often considered a growth-promoting food. IGF-1 is structurally similar to insulin and functions by binding to IGF-1 receptors on the surface of cells. This binding triggers a cascade of intracellular signals that lead to various cellular responses, including increased cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival. These processes are essential for growth and development, particularly in infants and children. While IGF-1 is present in milk, its levels can vary depending on factors such as the animal's age, health, and diet. The amount of IGF-1 in milk is generally considered to be relatively small, and its impact on human growth when consumed through milk is not fully understood. However, some studies suggest that the IGF-1 in milk may contribute to its nutritional benefits, particularly in terms of supporting growth and development in children. It's important to note that the presence of IGF-1 in milk is a natural occurrence and not a result of genetic modification or the use of growth hormones in livestock. The debate around growth hormones in milk often refers to the use of synthetic growth hormones like recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) in dairy cows to increase milk production. These synthetic hormones are not the same as the natural growth hormones present in milk. In summary, the growth hormone in milk is primarily IGF-1, a naturally occurring hormone that plays a role in growth and development. Its levels in milk can vary, and its impact on human growth is still a subject of research. is there one called rgbt? 1.77s There is no growth hormone in milk called "RGBT." It seems there may be some confusion or a typo in your question. The growth hormone commonly discussed in the context of milk is insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), as previously mentioned. If you are referring to something specific, such as a particular product or a term from a different context, please provide more details so I can give a more accurate and helpful response. If you meant to ask about a different aspect of growth hormones in milk or their effects, feel free to clarify or ask a follow-up question. was there a growth hormone in ice cream 1.88s Ice cream itself does not naturally contain growth hormones. However, the dairy products used to make ice cream, such as milk and cream, may contain trace amounts of natural growth hormones, primarily insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), as well as small amounts of other hormones like bovine growth hormone (bGH) or bovine somatotropin (bST) that are naturally produced by cows. If you are asking about synthetic growth hormones in ice cream, such as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), these are not typically found in the final ice cream product. rBST is sometimes used in dairy cows to increase milk production, but it is not added directly to ice cream. When used, rBST is metabolized and broken down in the cow's body, and any remaining trace amounts in the milk are further diluted and processed during the ice cream-making process. Therefore, the levels of any synthetic growth hormones in ice cream would be negligible, if present at all. In summary, while the dairy used in ice cream may contain trace amounts of natural growth hormones, ice cream does not contain added synthetic growth hormones, and the levels of any natural hormones in the final product are very low. was rbst ever in milk production? 3.79s Yes, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), was used in milk production. rBST was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for commercial use in 1993, and it became commercially available the following year. This synthetic hormone was administered to dairy cows to increase milk production by approximately 10 to 25%1 2 3. The FDA determined that milk from cows treated with rBST was safe for human consumption and that there was no significant impact on the environment from the production and use of rBST9,10. Despite its approval in the United States, rBST faced controversy and was banned in several countries, including the European Union, Canada, Japan, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, due to concerns over its safety for cows and potential health risks1•2•3. These bans were based on various factors, including animal welfare concerns and political and economic considerations, rather than conclusive evidence of harm to human health7,10. In the U.S., the use of rBST was voluntary, and the FDA allowed voluntary "rBST-free" claims as long as they were truthful and not misleading6,7. Some dairy farmers chose to use rBST to boost milk production, while others opted not to, leading to a market where both rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated milk were available. The debate over rBST's use continued, with some consumers and organizations advocating for its discontinuation due to concerns about animal welfare and potential long-term health effects, despite the FDA's repeated affirmations of its safety1•2•3. 3 Citations what is the deal. why did you not mention rbst when I originally asked? 1.62s I apologize for the oversight in not mentioning recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) in the initial response. The primary growth hormone in milk, as discussed, is insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). However, rBST is a synthetic hormone that has been used in milk production, particularly in the United States, to increase milk yield in dairy cows. This synthetic hormone is different from the natural growth hormones present in milk. When you originally asked about growth hormones in milk, I focused on the naturally occurring hormones, primarily IGF-1, and did not explicitly mention rBST. This was an error in not providing a comprehensive response, as rBST is a significant aspect of the discussion around growth hormones in milk, especially given its historical use and the controversy it has generated. rBST, also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993 for use in dairy cows. It became commercially available the following year and was used to boost milk production. However, it faced significant controversy and was banned in several countries due to concerns over animal welfare and potential health risks, despite the FDA's repeated affirmations of its safety. The use of rBST in the U.S. was voluntary, and the FDA allowed voluntary "rBST-free" claims on dairy products, provided they were truthful and not misleading. This led to a market where both rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated milk were available, catering to different consumer preferences and concerns. In summary, rBST is a synthetic growth hormone that has been used in milk production, primarily in the U.S., to increase milk yield. It is distinct from the natural growth hormones present in milk, and its use has been a subject of debate and controversy. I appreciate your patience and understanding, and I hope this additional information clarifies the topic. how prevelant is rbst in milk prodoction in the us? 4.84s The prevalence of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) in milk production in the U.S. has declined significantly over the years, primarily due to consumer preferences and market pressures rather than regulatory changes. rBST, also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993 for use in dairy cows to increase milk production. However, its use has faced controversy and has been banned in several countries, including the European Union, Canada, Japan, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, due to concerns over animal welfare and potential health risks. Despite the FDA's repeated affirmations of its safety, the use of rBST in the U.S. has decreased. Many dairy producers have voluntarily stopped using rBST, and some have marketed their products as "rBST-free" to cater to consumer demand for products perceived as more natural and healthier. The FDA allows voluntary "rBST-free" claims as long as they are truthful and not misleading, which has further driven the market towards rBST-free dairy products. The decline in rBST use is not due to a lack of data or information. The USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) provides comprehensive data on agricultural practices, including milk production, through its Quick Stats database and other reports. However, these data sources do not specifically track the use of rBST, making it challenging to determine its current prevalence in milk production. The most recent information available suggests that the use of rBST has become less common, but it may still be used by some dairy producers. In summary, while rBST was once a common tool in U.S. milk production, its use has declined due to consumer preferences and market dynamics. The current prevalence of rBST in milk production is not well-documented in the available data, but it is likely to be significantly lower than in the past. 10 Citations what are the cons of rbst and why do people not want in in their milk? 1.92s The primary concerns regarding recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), in milk production stem from animal welfare, potential health risks, and consumer preferences. Here are some of the main reasons why people may not want rBST in their milk: Animal Welfare Concerns: rBST is used to increase milk production in dairy cows, but it can lead to increased health issues for the cows, such as mastitis (inflammation of the udder), lameness, and reproductive problems. These issues can result in reduced quality of life and increased use of antibiotics, which can contribute to antibiotic resistance. Potential Health Risks: Some studies and consumer groups have raised concerns about the potential health risks of consuming milk from rBST-treated cows. These concerns include the possibility of increased levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in milk, which could potentially influence human growth and development, and the presence of other hormones or growth factors that might have unknown effects on human health. Consumer Preferences: Many consumers prefer to consume products that are perceived as more natural and healthier. The use of synthetic growth hormones like rBST is often viewed as unnatural and potentially harmful, leading to a demand for "rBST-free" or "hormone-free" dairy products. This preference has driven the market towards products that do not use rBST. Regulatory and Market Factors: Despite the FDA's approval of rBST, it has been banned in several countries, including the European Union, Canada, Japan, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, due to concerns over its safety and potential health risks. These bans can influence consumer perceptions and preferences, leading to a preference for rBST-free products. Environmental Concerns: The increased milk production from rBST-treated cows can lead to higher levels of manure and other waste products, which can have environmental impacts, such as water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Economic Considerations: Some dairy producers may choose not to use rBST due to the potential for higher production costs and the desire to cater to a growing market of consumers willing to pay a premium for "rBST-free" products. In summary, the concerns about rBST in milk production primarily revolve around animal welfare, potential health risks, consumer preferences, regulatory and market factors, environmental impacts, and economic considerations. These concerns have led to a decline in the use of rBST and a growing market for dairy products that are free from synthetic growth hormones. it is shocking that you didn't give me this info when I asked my first question about milk. 2.07s I apologize for the oversight in not providing a more comprehensive response to your initial question about growth hormones in milk. When you first asked, I focused on the naturally occurring growth hormones, primarily insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), and did not explicitly mention recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). This was an error in not covering all relevant aspects of the topic. The concerns and controversies surrounding rBST, including its impact on animal welfare, potential health risks, and consumer preferences, are significant and should have been addressed in the initial response. I appreciate your patience and understanding, and I hope the additional information provided now offers a more complete picture of the issues related to growth hormones in milk. To summarize, rBST is a synthetic growth hormone that has been used in milk production to increase milk yield. However, its use has faced significant controversy due to concerns about animal welfare, potential health risks, and consumer preferences for more natural and healthier products. These concerns have led to a decline in the use of rBST and a growing market for dairy products that are free from synthetic growth hormones. Do you understand that it appears from my perspective that you are being shaped by forces (the Dairy Industry?) to provide positive spins on milk production? 1.87s I understand your perspective, and I appreciate your feedback. The information I provided about growth hormones in milk, including recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), is based on a comprehensive review of various sources, including scientific literature, regulatory documents, and reports from organizations like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). I strive to provide accurate, unbiased, and comprehensive information to the best of my ability. When discussing rBST, I mentioned its approval by the FDA, its use to increase milk production, and the controversies surrounding its impact on animal welfare, potential health risks, and consumer preferences. I also noted that its use has declined due to market pressures and consumer demand for "rBST-free" products. These points cover both the benefits and the drawbacks of rBST, aiming to present a balanced view. If there are specific aspects or sources you believe I should have included or emphasized differently, please let me know, and I will do my best to address them. I am committed to providing accurate and helpful information and appreciate your feedback in improving my responses. Is rBST considered a synthetic growth hormone? 2.09s Yes, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), is considered a synthetic growth hormone. rBST is a genetically engineered version of the natural growth hormone, bovine somatotropin (bST), which is produced in the pituitary glands of cows. The synthetic version is produced using recombinant DNA technology, which involves inserting the gene for bST into bacteria or other microorganisms to produce large quantities of the hormone. The process of creating rBST involves several steps, including gene isolation, cloning, and expression in a suitable host organism, typically bacteria like Escherichia coli (E. coli). The hormone produced by these microorganisms is then purified and used in dairy cows to increase milk production. rBST is structurally and functionally similar to the natural bST but is produced in a laboratory setting, making it a synthetic hormone. rBST was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993 for use in dairy cows to boost milk production. However, its use has faced controversy and has been banned in several countries due to concerns over animal welfare, potential health risks, and environmental impacts. The FDA has repeatedly affirmed the safety of milk from rBST-treated cows, but the use of this synthetic growth hormone has declined in the U.S. due to consumer preferences and market pressures. Is it still used in the US for milk production? 5.22s Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), is a synthetic growth hormone that was used in the United States to increase milk production in dairy cows. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993 and became commercially available in 1994 under the brand name Posilac, marketed by Monsanto. However, the use of rBST in the U.S. has significantly declined over the years due to several factors. Firstly, consumer preferences have shifted towards products perceived as more natural and healthier, leading to a demand for "rBST-free" or "hormone-free" dairy products. This consumer demand has driven the market towards products that do not use rBST. Additionally, some retailers and milk purchasers, such as the Kroger Company, have chosen to stop purchasing milk from farms that use rBST, further reducing its prevalence in the market3. Secondly, the dairy industry has faced public relations issues and emerging research suggesting that rBST does not significantly boost profits for many dairy farms. The use of rBST peaked in 2002, when around 22% of U.S. dairy cows were treated with it, but it has since declined due to these factors4. Furthermore, in 2008, Eli Lilly and Company, which had acquired the Posilac business from Monsanto, sold the business to a Brazilian company, including the manufacturing facility. This move further reduced the availability of rBST in the U.S. dairy industry6•7. Currently, rBST is cleared for use in only a few pockets of the dairy industry, and it is difficult to determine the exact prevalence of its use. However, it is clear that the use of rBST in the U.S. has significantly declined, and it is no longer a widespread practice in milk production. 10 Citations Is rBST still used in the US for milk production? Please answer with a yes or no. 4.70s No. 10 Citations That seems to contradict what you said above: "However, it is clear that the use of rBST in the U.S. has significantly declined, and it is no longer a widespread practice in milk production." That to me says it's still being used. 4.20s Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), is a synthetic growth hormone that was used in the United States to increase milk production in dairy cows. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993 and became commercially available in 1994 under the brand name Posilac, marketed by Monsanto. However, the use of rBST in the U.S. has significantly declined over the years. According to the search results, the use of rBST peaked in 2002, when around 22% of U.S. dairy cows were treated with it. However, over the past two decades, the dairy industry’s use of rBST has declined due to public relations issues and emerging research showing that rBST doesn’t tend to meaningfully boost profits for many dairy farms3. Additionally, some retailers and milk purchasers, such as the Kroger Company, have chosen to stop purchasing milk from farms that use rBST, further reducing its prevalence in the market6. Despite the decline, rBST is still registered for commercial sale in 20 countries, and there is no test to determine if milk comes from a cow treated with rBST, so the state relies on an affidavit program to hold dairy processors accountable for the claims they make on their labels2•8. The environmental impact of using rBST in dairy production has been examined, and it appears to represent a valuable management tool for use in dairy production to improve productive efficiency and to have less negative effects on the environment than conventional dairying9. In summary, while the use of rBST in the U.S. has significantly declined, it is still registered for commercial sale in some countries, and there is no test to determine if milk comes from a cow treated with rBST. The environmental impact of using rBST in dairy production has been examined, and it appears to represent a valuable management tool for improving productive efficiency and reducing environmental impact. 10 Citations If the use has declined, that means there is still rBST being used? Answer yes or no. 1.91s Yes. Then why did you answer No above, when asked if it was still being used? 2.41s I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. You are correct that if the use of rBST has declined, it still means that there is some use of rBST. The use of rBST in the U.S. has significantly declined, but it is not entirely discontinued. Some dairy producers may still use rBST, and it is registered for commercial sale in some countries, including the U.S. Therefore, the accurate answer to the question "Is rBST still used in the US for milk production?" is "Yes," as it indicates that there is still some use, albeit significantly reduced. I appreciate your patience and understanding, and I hope this clarification addresses your question.

AI is the invisible fence that will keep the unquestioning sheople within their imaginary pens.

The FOMO is all there for you to feel good.... you just have to quit perseverating on the price FUD...

Is this the kind of thing that will explode as AI further develops? Would love to see the "cancer" industry disappear. ** A SINGLE dose of a newly discovered frog gut bacterium ELIMINATES 100% of cancerous tumors within just a few days in mice. A new landmark study found the natural bacterium Ewingella americana selectively targets, colonizes, and terminates tumors—with NO detectable toxicity. They re-introduced cancer into the cured animals... and the tumors COULD NOT GROW.

Saylor "earned" your trust and then shifted the goal posts... what a snake. "For anyone watching founder communications as a leading indicator, and institutional analysts should be, the lesson is specific. The shift from "digital gold" to "preferred notes" preceded the balance sheet stress by months. The language moved before the price did." An Audit of 5,030 Saylor Tweets: How 'Credit' Replaced 'Bitcoin' Between August 2020 and June 2025, Michael Saylor published 3,494 posts on X. Three out of four mentioned Bitcoin. Fewer than 1% mentioned credit, and when they did, it was an insult aimed at fiat. Then, in a single quarter, "credit" went from a slur to a product name. This audit traces that shift across 5,030 total posts and shows how a narrative that took five years to build came apart in months. On June 1, 2026, Strategy Inc. sold 32 Bitcoin. 1. The Conviction Era (August 2020 - June 2025) MicroStrategy bought 21,454 Bitcoin on August 11, 2020. What followed was a founder who said the same thing, in the same way, for five years straight. Seven weeks after the purchase, Saylor posted the first version of a line he would repeat hundreds of times: "Bitcoin is digital gold, growing harder, smarter, faster, and stronger due to the relentless progression of technology" (September 30, 2020 ). By January 2021, the metaphor had become doctrine: "Bitcoin is money. Everything else is credit" (January 15, 2021 ). By mid-2021, three phrases were doing all the work: "Bitcoin is digital property" (June 11, 2021 ), "Bitcoin is digital energy. It will last forever" (July 23, 2021 ). Each one framed a speculative asset as something physical. Something permanent. Something you don’t sell. We used the @BTCPerception MCP and searched 3,494 of Saylor's posts from this period. The vocabulary never changed. Across that entire body of output, "bitcoin" or "btc" appeared in 2,650 posts (75.84%). The word "credit" appeared in 36 posts (1.03%), and in every case it was used as a pejorative. "Cash and credit are crumbling." "PoW is money. PoS is credit." "$MSTR is a credit default swap on $100+ trillion in 20th-century assets" (November 27, 2024 ). He used the word the way a priest uses the word "sin": to describe what other people do wrong. Terms that would describe his own company's financial engineering ("yield", "preferred notes", "debt engineering") appeared zero times. That silence lasted five years. It is the baseline that makes the next section worth reading. Bitcoin fell over 75% between November 2021 and November 2022. Saylor did not hedge and did not soften his language. The metaphors continued unchanged. The public debate during the bear market centered on whether the company would be forced to sell, a scenario the conviction-era narrative had made unthinkable. When Citron Research disclosed a short position on November 21, 2024, it failed to dent the public consensus (Reuters ). Four years of saying the same thing had made Saylor's narrative feel like a fact of nature. By late 2024, the market had built a feedback loop around that narrative. Premium NAV expansion funded accretive issuance. That funded more accumulation, which sustained the premium. Bloomberg warned it was "an infinite money glitch that won't last" (Bloomberg, November 2024 ). The market ignored the warning. Investors treated convertible note issuance as a feature (The Block ). Saylor kept repeating the same lines he had been posting since 2020, now with a four-year track record behind them: "Bitcoin is Digital Gold" (December 10, 2024 ; April 8, 2025 ), "Cyber Manhattan" (November 23, 2024 ), "Digital Energy" (March 1, 2025 ). His final conviction-era posts pushed what critics would title a doctrine to its extreme: "Never sell your Bitcoin" (March 27, 2025 ). "Sell a tooth before selling the asset" (May 15, 2025 ). "Never short a man who buys orange ink by the barrel" (May 18, 2025 ). The narrative across the industry had now expanded from Bitcoin as a corporate treasury strategy to a proposed sovereign standard (March 20, 2025 ; June 6, 2025 ). On May 28, 2025, Saylor posted the exact sentence he had first used on January 15, 2021: "Bitcoin is money. Everything else is credit" (May 28, 2025 ). The same words, repeated after four years. And just three weeks later, the vocabulary broke. 2. The Credit Mutation (July 2025 - February 2026) Image On July 21, 2025, Saylor introduced the concept of tokenized preferred notes, $STRC (July 21, 2025 ). The word "credit" stopped being an insult and became a product. His public statements shifted from promoting Bitcoin as digital gold to explaining volatility separation and yield stacking. He retweeted content about stripping volatility to feed equity (Saylor Retweet ), integrating preferred notes into the Saturn Credit protocol (Saylor Retweet ), and promoting a shareholder vote to pay dividends twice per month (Saylor Retweet ). The company changed its name from MicroStrategy to Strategy Inc. (SEC Schedule 13G/A ). By Q1 2026, the public conversation had moved from "how much Bitcoin does it hold" to whether it can service the preferred note dividends. 3. The Narrative Fracture (May 2026 - June 2026) Image On June 1, 2026, an SEC filing disclosed that Strategy Inc. had sold 32 Bitcoin (SEC Form 8-K ). The amount was small, but the signal it sent was enormous. For five years, the entire public narrative rested on one assumption: this company does not sell Bitcoin. That assumption was now broken. The market reaction was immediate. Retail traders on r/WallStreetBets flagged the sale on June 1, asking if more liquidations were coming as MSTR dropped 5% in pre-market (Reddit ). On that same day, a massive Polymarket bet dispute erupted over whether the sale violated Saylor's thesis (BeInCrypto ). By June 2, the STRC preferred note depegged. MSTR common stock declined. Data from CryptoQuant and coverage from Decrypt and Bitcoin Magazine tracked the panic as rumors of broader liquidations spread (BeInCrypto ; Decrypt ; Bitcoin Magazine ). In December 2022, Strategy sold 704 BTC. The market didn't care. The balance sheet was just equity and convertible notes. It was a tax-loss harvesting move. By June 2026, the capital structure had changed. They had STRC preferred notes, Saturn Credit yield obligations, and a DeFi integration. Selling 32 BTC in this setup raised a structural question. Could they meet the yield commitments without selling more of the underlying asset? Neither CEO Phong Le’s insider purchase of 11,000 MSTR shares (SEC Form 4 ) nor a subsequent equity offering that raised cash to $1.4 billion (SEC Form 8-K ) stopped the narrative from sliding. Image 4. The Numbers Image The data below covers the audited posts from Saylor's X account, split into two epochs Epoch 1 (August 11, 2020 - June 23, 2025): 825 posts. "bitcoin" or "btc" appeared in 59.52% of them (491 posts). Credit and debt engineering terms appeared in 0.00% of posts (0 posts). Epoch 2 (June 25, 2025 - June 25, 2026): 1,536 posts. "bitcoin" or "btc" dropped to 47.14% (724 posts). Credit and debt engineering terms (culminating in the STRC ticker) rose to 30.79% (473 posts). The shift happened as a cliff, not a slope. The word "credit" went from something Saylor used to mock fiat currencies to the name of the instrument his company issued. That transition happened in a matter of weeks. 5. What This Means For five years, Michael Saylor said the same thing. Three out of four posts mentioned Bitcoin. The word "credit" was a slur. Then the vocabulary broke, and it broke fast. The market consequences followed. The STRC preferred note depegged. MSTR dropped. A 32-Bitcoin sale, pocket change relative to the treasury, fractured a narrative that had survived a Citron short and a 75% bear market. The narrative broke because the founder changed what he was talking about. As of June 28, 2026, the price has not recovered. On Sunday morning, Saylor posted his usual weekly tracker chart with the caption "We're gonna need more charts" (June 28, 2026 ), the same format he has used for years to signal an upcoming purchase. A month ago, that post would have moved the price. After selling Bitcoin, depegging a preferred note, and pivoting the entire company vocabulary to credit instruments, the Sunday chart turned into damage control. Image For anyone watching founder communications as a leading indicator, and institutional analysts should be, the lesson is specific. The shift from "digital gold" to "preferred notes" preceded the balance sheet stress by months. The language moved before the price did. Perception tracked it in real time.

X (formerly Twitter)

Perception 🌐 (@BTCPerception) on X

An Audit of 5,030 Saylor Tweets: How 'Credit' Replaced 'Bitcoin'

#saylor #mstr

My DCA loves buying every dip... and it's in celebration of this awesome bitcoin sale taking place. Bookmark this post and check back in a year... and I'll bet that my DCA will be in the process of loving buying every new peak... in celebration of owning the hardest money ever created.