Why I think that MicroStrategy's best days are behind it. TLDR: before spot-Bitcoin ETFs existed, MicroStrategy (ticker MSTR) was a useful containment valve - a corporate proxy that soaked "number-go-up" demand inside regulated equity rails. Post-ETF, the State's cleaner lane is ETF exposure (surveilled custody, halts, AP/MM plumbing) rather than a corporate that keeps removing coins from float. MicroStrategy was very useful for the Controllers in the pre-Bitcoin ETF environment - it normalized holding Paper Bitcoin instead of holding your coins in self-custody. However, the Controllers now prefer that you buy Bitcoin ETFs instead of MSTR. Let's look at the Controllers’ incentives around MSTR: - Pre-ETF (2020–2023/24): Let MSTR run as the de facto Bitcoin proxy; it channels retail/institutional risk into brokerage accounts and away from self-custody. - Post-ETF (2024–): Prefer ETF rails (centralized custody; derivatives-anchored price discovery). * A Bitcoin-dominant operating company accumulating more coins creates supply withdrawal you can't easily nudge. * Keep it out of the S&P 500 to avoid importing crypto beta into the core benchmark; allow Nasdaq-100/QQQ because it’s rules-based and already tech-volatile. * For context, 5 days ago MicroStrategy was denied S&P 500 entry, even though it meets all the requirements. * MicroStrategy is included in the QQQ index which is rules-based, whereas S&P 500 inclusion is committee-discretionary (subjective). - Committees and boards don't want a corporate balance-sheet Bitcoin fund inside widows-&-orphans benchmarks. That's why Robinhood/AppLovin/Emcor got the S&P nod instead of MSTR. * In other words, the S&P index gatekeepers didn’t want a de-facto Bitcoin proxy (MicroStrategy’s balance sheet) inside a core benchmark. - Reflexivity brake: In July '25 MSTR said it won't issue common stock below ~2.5× "mNAV" (the ratio that compares the company's market capitalization to the value of their Bitcoin holdings). * So unless the equity premium widens, they buy less Bitcoin with equity. That dampens the feedback loop that would otherwise tighten Bitcoin float. * MSTR's MNAV is ~1.4 right now. In other words, MSTR has now entered the short selling price-manipulation phase (more context in the post below). With spot ETFs + CME futures, MSTR trades inside a tighter cross-asset box; options/swap "synthetics" and borrow supply cap squeeze dynamics. MSTR has been roughly flat and its volume has been much lower since joining the Nasdaq-100/QQQ on Dec 23, 2024. On Dec 23, 2024, MSTR price was at $332, its price today is ~$326.45 (it has had episodic spikes). Saylor really wants to get a pass from the Controllers with his endless "Bitcoin is a store of value, not a medium of exchange" narratives, but it doesn't seem to me like he's getting one. Another way he wants to get a pass from the Controllers is by masterfully dodging Proof-of-Reserves questions with lame excuses. Imagine if MSTR normalized Proof-of-Reserves, then most, if not all Bitcoin treasury companies would have to play along. What would falsify this theory: - If S&P 500 later adds MSTR with no methodology tweak -> committee tolerance for Bitcoin-proxy risk rose (containment softening). - If MSTR's ops mix re-grows (software cash flow matters; Bitcoin marks minority) -> "operating company" optics improve. - If a G-7 adopts Bitcoin reserves -> the whole "ETF-only containment" thesis weakens. But for now: - Containment = steer flows to Bitcoin ETFs, not a reflexive BTC-hoarding corporate inside the core equity benchmark. - Allow QQQ (rules-based) but keep the S&P gate shut. - Let MSTR’s own issuance rule cap its Bitcoin absorption unless its premium expands. The Controllers aren't fond of corporations that keep removing coins from float, they'd like you to buy the ETF and shut the fuck up 😂 Here is more context on the Bitcoin ETF era: View quoted note → Here is more context on how the Controllers suppress companies they don't like with magic short selling. View quoted note →