Ten Thousand Words Interpretation of STRC: Strategy for Making Money to Buy Coins New Magic

Original Author: Viktor

Compiled by: Azuma, Odaily Planet Daily

In the past two weeks, we have seen a significant increase in the trading volume of STRC, while its popularity on social media platforms like X is also rising. Therefore, I believe it is a good time to write an article about Strategy and its new structure. This is the fourth article I have written about Strategy and the Bitcoin treasury model:

• The first article is an introduction to the Strategy playbook, in which I clarify some common misunderstandings about the model.
• The second article explains the "full-stack treasury company" model and the mechanism that supports its NAV premium.
• The third article introduces the play of preferred shares, which is a brand new model launched by Strategy in 2025 and is currently the company's main strategy.

In this article, we will focus on STRC. It has now become the main preferred stock product of MSTR and is also the core focus of Michael Saylor (the founder of Strategy) and his management team.

TL;DR

1. STRC is a yield-generating instrument supported by Strategy's Bitcoin treasury, with a dynamic dividend rate to keep the price close to par value (100 USD). Currently, you can earn an annualized return of 11.5% on a relatively stable and risk-transparent instrument (paid monthly).
2. STRC is essentially a way for Strategy to convert yield demand into structural buying pressure for BTC. As long as Strategy operates the ATM issuance mechanism for both STRC and MSTR simultaneously (and mNAV > 1), this structure can expand significantly without increasing the leverage level of MSTR. This means Strategy can absorb hundreds of billions of dollars (or more) in new demand for STRC while maintaining a leverage ratio of about 33% and unchanged credit risk.
3. By maintaining leverage through the common stock ATM mechanism, for every 1 USD of STRC issued, approximately 3 USD of BTC is added to the treasury. Based on rough estimates, when the daily trading volume of STRC is 100 million USD near par value (100 USD), it could lead to 100 to 150 million USD in BTC purchases.
4. Strategy effectively splits the BTC risk exposure into two different risk tranches: STRC holders receive relatively stable, low-volatility returns, while MSTR shareholders bear the remaining upside potential and volatility of BTC. As Lavoisier said, "Nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed."
5. The design goal of the entire structure is to increase the number of Bitcoins corresponding to each share over time. This will ultimately benefit MSTR common stock shareholders, as it means MSTR's performance will theoretically mechanically outperform BTC.
6. A short-term pullback of 5% to 10% in STRC is possible, but as long as the market maintains confidence in this structure, prices typically return to near par value through arbitrage trading.
7. The real risk is not a sudden collapse, but a prolonged bear market for BTC, which could gradually put pressure on the entire structure over time. Even in the (extremely unlikely) worst-case scenario, due to dollar reserves and Strategy's flexibility in adjusting dividend rates, the process would be very slow.
8. If Strategy ultimately collapses, it is unlikely to happen in a dramatic and violent manner like Luna/UST, but rather as a slow and prolonged deterioration process.
9. If you are bullish on BTC but bearish on MSTR and STRC, it is logically difficult to justify. Given Strategy's current risk levels (which may change in the future), if BTC does not "die" first, it is basically impossible for Strategy to die first.

What is STRC and How Does It Work?

First, let me briefly review the concept of preferred shares: Simply put, they are debt-like financial instruments but legally still belong to the company's equity. This means these preferred shares never need to be "repaid," and Strategy cannot default on these preferred shares.

In the capital structure, the repayment order of preferred shares is higher than that of common stock MSTR, meaning that in the event of bankruptcy, preferred shareholders will be paid before common shareholders.

So far, Strategy has issued five types of preferred shares (STRF, STRC, STRK, STRE, STRD), which I introduced one by one in the previous article. Here are the main features of STRC (also known as Stretch):

• It belongs to the category of "short-duration high-yield credit."
• Strategy aims to keep the price of STRC as close to 100 USD (i.e., "par value") as possible, ideally within a 1% fluctuation range between 99 and 100 USD.
• STRC pays a floating dividend monthly; the current dividend rate is 11.5%.
• If the trading price of STRC is significantly below par value, Strategy can increase the monthly dividend rate to make the product more attractive, increasing demand until the price returns close to par value.
• If the price of STRC is above 100 USD, Saylor can issue and sell new STRC shares at 100 USD through the ATM (at-the-market) issuance plan. This effectively creates a price ceiling near 100 USD.
• If Saylor does not wish to issue shares through the ATM, the company has another option—redeem STRC at 101 USD, meaning market participants have little incentive to buy STRC above this price.
• Like Strategy's other preferred shares, STRC is a perpetual preferred stock, meaning it has no maturity date and no repayment period.

Odaily Note: All data on STRC can be found on Strategy.com. The following screenshot is from March 13, 2026, which was the ex-dividend date, so the price of STRC would be below par value.

How Does Strategy Use ATM to Control Leverage?

Although Strategy's preferred shares are not technically debt, they can be viewed as a way to introduce leverage to the balance sheet. Strategy distinguishes between leverage ratio and amplification ratio—where the leverage ratio only calculates the ratio of "convertible debt / BTC reserves"; the amplification ratio calculates the ratio of "convertible debt + preferred shares / BTC reserves."

In fact, the amplification ratio is the true indicator of Strategy's leverage level. This means that every time Saylor issues and sells new STRC, Strategy's leverage level increases. If Saylor wants to reduce the company's leverage level, the tool available to him is the common stock ATM issuance mechanism—by issuing new MSTR shares and using the proceeds to purchase BTC, thereby expanding the company's scale while reducing the leverage ratio.

This logic is easy to understand: Suppose a company holds 10 billion USD in BTC and has 3 billion USD in debt, with a market value of 12 billion USD, its leverage ratio would be: 3 billion USD debt / 10 billion USD BTC = 30%.

Suppose the company issues an additional 2 billion USD in new shares and uses that money to purchase 2 billion USD in BTC. With the BTC price unchanged, the company's market value now becomes 14 billion USD, the BTC treasury value becomes 12 billion USD, but the nominal amount of debt remains unchanged, so the new leverage ratio is: 3 billion USD debt / 12 billion USD BTC = 25%.

From this example, it is clear that through the common stock ATM issuance, the company can both expand its scale (market value from 12 billion to 14 billion) and reduce its leverage level (30% to 25%).

Is Strategy Using STRC to Buy BTC in Bulk?

How STRC Demand Translates into BTC Buying Pressure

As I mentioned earlier, Saylor will only sell STRC at a price of 100 USD and will not sell below 100 USD.

This means that when the price is below 100 USD, all trading volume is merely the exchange of STRC shares among past, present, and new holders. When the price reaches 100 USD, part of the trading volume still corresponds to regular STRC share transactions (because some are willing to sell at 100 USD), but the remaining volume corresponds to Saylor issuing new shares and selling them at 100 USD to meet "excess demand."

Last week, the ratio of STRC's weekly trading volume to the ATM scale for that week was about 40%. I will use this number in the example below, but this is clearly not a fixed rule; in some cases, this ratio could also be 25% or 60%.

When STRC trades near par value and the daily trading volume is 100 million USD, the situation is roughly as follows—Saylor can issue 40% of that amount through STRC's ATM issuance plan, which means issuing and selling 40 million USD of new STRC shares. He would then immediately use that 40 million USD to purchase BTC.

Odaily Note: The ATM will activate when the STRC price reaches 100 USD.

However, selling STRC will increase the company's leverage level (as it is a debt-like tool), and Saylor certainly wants to keep leverage stable. Currently, Strategy's leverage level is about 33%, and I believe he wants to maintain it around this number. This means that for every additional 1 USD of debt, there must be an increase of 3 USD in BTC reserves. In the previous example, if Saylor increased 40 million USD of "debt" through STRC and purchased 40 million USD of BTC, he would still need to add another 80 million USD of BTC to the company's reserves. How would he do that?

The answer lies in the previous section—by using the common stock MSTR's ATM issuance mechanism. Therefore, Saylor would issue and sell 80 million USD of new MSTR shares and immediately use the proceeds to purchase 80 million USD of BTC.

So the conclusion is that, based on this rough calculation, a daily trading volume of 100 million USD for STRC would correspond to approximately 40 million USD of new STRC issuance and the purchase of about 120 million USD of BTC. With STRC, Strategy has found a way to convert the demand for stable yields into buying pressure for BTC.

What Happens If STRC Demand Explodes? Will Saylor Be Forced to Max Out Leverage?

I also want you to note another point: according to the model I just described, Strategy can completely triple the market value of STRC (in other words, increase STRC debt by about 8 billion USD on top of the current 4 billion USD market value) without increasing the company's leverage ratio (i.e., credit risk).

Saylor has all the necessary tools to expand the scale of STRC to meet market demand while keeping the leverage level stable at 33%.

Clearly, this will increase the nominal size of the company's debt and the amount of dividends to be paid, but these metrics will grow in sync with the size of the BTC treasury, meaning Strategy will not take on any additional risks related to BTC prices.

What Is the True Limitation of This Strategy?

The model of simultaneously operating the ATM mechanisms for both STRC and MSTR requires two conditions to be met.

The first condition is obvious: the trading price of STRC must be at 100 USD. When this occurs, it essentially means that the demand for STRC exceeds its current market value, so Saylor will issue new shares to meet the excess demand.

The second condition, which I have not mentioned before, is that mNAV must be above 1 to use the common stock ATM mechanism. I have explained in another article that Strategy's core goal is always to increase the number of Bitcoins per share (bps) over the long term. When they sell MSTR shares and buy BTC while mNAV is above 1, it is accretive from the bps perspective; the higher the mNAV, the more pronounced the accretive effect of this operation; when mNAV is exactly equal to 1, this operation is neutral; but when mNAV is below 1, using the proceeds from selling MSTR to buy BTC would be dilutive from the bps perspective, so they would avoid doing so.

You may have noticed that in the previous section I mentioned: using the MSTR ATM mechanism can both expand the company's scale and reduce the leverage ratio. But if mNAV is above 1, then using the common stock ATM has an additional benefit—improving the bps ratio.

By the way, the mNAV metric is actually directly displayed on the homepage of Strategy.com. They use the most diluted mNAV as a reference, which is the correct approach. Currently, this value is about 1.2, and I believe the lowest since 2026 has been around 1.

So what happens if there is a situation where, due to excessive demand for STRC, Saylor has to issue new STRC shares, but at this point, mNAV is below 1? Does this mean he cannot use the MSTR ATM to maintain stable leverage levels and is forced to increase leverage?

First, I think this scenario is unlikely because the ability of STRC to trade steadily at 100 USD itself indicates that investors have confidence in the overall structure, so theoretically, MSTR's mNAV should also be at least above 1. Secondly, this assumption overlooks the fact that they have another tool to control STRC demand—lowering the dividend.

The Dividend Rate Issue: Can 11.5% Be Sustained?

First, let me remind you that the dividend rate for STRC at launch was 9%. The dividend rate is an adjustable tool used to match STRC demand and ensure its price remains near par value.

The current guidance from Strategy is: if STRC's monthly VWAP (volume-weighted average price) is between 95 and 99 USD, they will increase the dividend rate by 25 basis points (bps); if the monthly VWAP is below 95 USD, they will increase it by 50 bps; if the monthly VWAP is above 101 USD, they will lower the dividend rate.

Therefore, so far, what they have done is essentially gradually increase STRC's dividend rate from 9% to 11.5% to reach a balanced state, allowing STRC to fluctuate around 100 USD in daily trading. This week has been STRC's most successful week to date, as it has not only continued to trade near par value but also has had very large trading volumes (about 300 to 400 million USD daily, while the previous average trading volume was just above 100 million USD).

Odaily Note: The price trend of STRC since its launch.

The demand for STRC fundamentally depends on several variables:

• Credit risk: What is Strategy's current leverage ratio? In other words, how much BTC is currently "supporting" STRC? This directly depends on the price of BTC—if BTC falls, all else being equal, the leverage ratio will rise, credit risk increases, and demand for STRC will decrease (i.e., STRC price falls).
• Yield: What is the current dividend rate paid by STRC? The higher the dividend rate, the greater the demand for STRC.
• Awareness: How many people know about the existence of STRC? In the first few months or years after the product launch, this is a very important factor, as it is essentially a variable that only increases, significantly affecting STRC demand under other constant conditions.
• Confidence: How many people are willing to invest after seeing STRC trade for several months and continue to pay dividends? This is a special factor, as the degree of change in confidence can be significant—if STRC trades within a narrow range close to 100 USD for a long time, more and more people will consider it safe; but if we suddenly see a 10% drop in one day, that trust can quickly evaporate.

Since the launch of STRC, we have seen that: credit risk has increased (as BTC has fallen 45% from its historical high), yield has increased, awareness has increased, and confidence has also increased. One factor has negatively impacted demand, while the other three factors have positively impacted it, and we are now finally in an "ideal" state: STRC is stabilizing around 100 USD.

When the price of BTC is around 68,000 USD, an 11.5% yield is the dividend level needed to pull STRC's price back to par value. For a product that has been publicly traded for less than eight months, this seems to me to be a quite positive signal. Saylor expects BTC to have a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20-30% over the next 20 years. As I explained in another article, under this assumption, issuing debt at an 11.5% rate to purchase an asset with an annual growth rate of 25% is entirely reasonable. Theoretically, you could even pay a higher interest rate and profit from the spread between interest costs and BTC's expected annual returns.

In my view, the most likely development path is that demand for STRC will continue to grow, and Strategy will gradually lower the dividend rate back to 10% (or even below that level in the long term) to control demand while reducing the company's interest costs.

What Happens If Everyone Wants to Sell?

In this case, the price of STRC would plummet! But in fact, we have already seen similar situations with this product: In August 2025, STRC fell from 98 USD to 92 USD (a drop of 6%); during the market sell-off in November 2025, STRC dropped from 100 USD to 89 USD (a drop of 11%); and this February, it fell from 100 USD to 93 USD (a drop of 7%).

It is important to note that Saylor's explicit goal is to keep STRC consistently within a narrow range close to 100 USD, and STRC has already become a core focus of Strategy. Therefore, if the average price of STRC falls below 99 USD within a month, Strategy will increase the dividend rate to bring demand back to a level that can support the 100 USD price. As long as market participants have confidence in Strategy's ability to maintain this mechanism, there will always be buyers at lower prices who hope to profit from "arbitrage trades back to par value."

In the short term, due to the panic of holders, the price may indeed drop by 10%. But if you have confidence in the structure established by Strategy, the price will typically return to near par value within a few days or weeks—as we have seen in the past.

Why Won't the Dividend Rate Rise Indefinitely?

Let’s assume STRC fails to return to par value, which means Strategy must continuously raise the dividend rate... and since the dividend rate does not have a formal upper limit, does this not seem like a "death spiral"? Not exactly.

First, you need to understand that the so-called dividend "guidance" does not legally bind Saylor to take any action. Ultimately, the company has complete autonomy over the dividend rate, and even if the average price falls below 99 USD, they can stop raising the dividend rate.

If Strategy expects BTC to grow by 20-30% annually, then they likely have an acceptable "maximum dividend rate," perhaps around 15%. Once this level is reached, they will ignore the trading price of STRC and stop raising the dividend rate.

It is important to remember that the dividend rate can be adjusted monthly. If you expect BTC to recover after a bear market, then a higher dividend rate does not need to be maintained indefinitely. As BTC prices rise again, the credit risk of STRC will improve, mechanically increasing demand for STRC and pushing its price back to near par value. At that time, Strategy can begin to lower the dividend rate again. In the long run, even if the dividend rate briefly rises to 13% during a period of pressure, it is likely that STRC's dividend rate will eventually fall back to a level similar to 8%.

In the next section, I will outline a worst-case scenario: what would happen if BTC enters a prolonged bear market and Saylor is forced to continue raising the dividend rate.

Understanding Risks

Reading through the article, it seems that everything will be fine, but there is no free lunch in the world. So, as a holder of STRC, what are the actual risks I am taking?

Let me clarify my position: I believe the market is mispricing the risk of STRC, and under a reasonable bullish assumption for BTC prices, its risk-reward ratio is quite attractive. Note that I am not saying you can achieve high returns with zero risk; risks do exist and are always related to BTC's performance.

I believe there is a mismatch between people's expectations for BTC's future price movements and their perception of STRC's risks. Simply put, if you observe the expectations of crypto-native investors for BTC over the next few years, 95% of them expect scenarios that will not materially impact STRC. In other words, within their own BTC expectation framework, they believe they can achieve a "low-risk" yield of over 10%. But we still need to discuss these risks specifically.

Risk 1: Asymmetry Between Downside Risk and Upside Reward

The structure of STRC means that if you buy in at 100 USD, your upside is limited to the annual dividend yield (currently 11.5%), while your downside could reach 0-10% within days—based on historical price performance.

This means that if STRC drops 6% in a week, you have effectively lost an amount equivalent to half a year's dividend income. If you need to exit your position quickly, this could become a problem.

If your goal is to hold STRC long-term, then this is less important; as long as you believe it will eventually return to 100 USD, you can still exit your position without a discount. Just a reminder, the dividends of STRC have a return-of-capital nature, meaning holders do not pay taxes on dividends, so they do not have a strong short-term trading motivation.

Risk 2: STRC and BTC Declining Simultaneously

The credit risk of STRC is directly related to the price of BTC, so you may have noticed that STRC's pullbacks usually occur when BTC suffers significant sell-offs. This means that your portion of "stable, yield-generating asset allocation" will incur losses precisely when you are most vulnerable as a crypto bull.

Odaily Note: The largest drops in IBIT (BlackRock Bitcoin ETF) often accompany declines in STRC.

Risk 3: STRC Trading at a Long-Term Discount

People's trust in STRC's ability to return to par value comes from two factors: its actual credit risk and the risk perception formed by historical price trends. The second factor could also work in reverse: if everyone believes a 5% pullback will be quickly bought back, but suddenly one instance does not occur, what will happen?

If that happens, those who bought in during a 5% pullback may choose to exit their positions, leading to further price declines and potentially triggering new emotional sell-offs, ultimately resulting in larger drops. We can imagine a scenario where STRC drops 15% and fails to rebound within days, then the accumulated confidence may gradually erode, leading to greater selling pressure.

In this case, what can stop this vicious cycle? The answer remains the price of BTC. Saylor's entire strategy is ultimately built on the expectation that BTC can achieve over 20% returns over the next decade.

Risk 4 (Worst-Case Scenario): The Fundamental Risk Always Lies in BTC's Performance

The worst-case scenario for STRC is the situation I just described, but at the same time, BTC fails to recover strongly during a prolonged bear market. Due to the many variables involved, it is difficult to predict precisely what will happen in this case, but it might look something like this: STRC will continue to trade below par value, so Saylor will raise the dividend rate each month in an attempt to pull its price back to 100 USD.

At some point, the dividend rate will become unreasonably high, and he will stop raising it, merely maintaining it at a certain level. This means he will no longer follow the previous "guidance"—that is, to raise the dividend rate when the monthly VWAP is below 99 USD. Remember, this is just guidance, and nothing forces him to comply.

Not adhering to this guidance will further weaken market confidence in STRC, and it may continue to trade at a significant discount, such as a 40% discount with a 15% dividend rate, meaning the actual yield could reach 25%.

The trading price of MSTR will also fall below 1 times mNAV, meaning the company cannot help pay dividends by selling MSTR shares. Strategy will rely entirely on its dollar reserves to pay dividends, and currently, their reserves are sufficient to cover 28 months (about 2 years and 4 months) of dividend payments. As this 28 months gradually comes to an end, all related assets may face greater pressure, and BTC, MSTR, and STRC will have more reasons to continue declining.

Once the dollar reserves are exhausted, Strategy will have to gradually sell BTC. Currently, the annual dividend expenditure is about 1 billion USD, and if this number rises to 2 billion USD, Strategy must sell about 200 million USD of BTC each month to maintain dividend payments. Alternatively, they could choose to stop paying dividends, in which case the value of preferred shares, STRC, and MSTR would further decline, and the company would have little to do until BTC prices recover.

This roughly outlines the worst-case scenario. As you can see, Strategy's dollar reserves provide a significant buffer for a prolonged bear market, as Strategy can theoretically do nothing and rely solely on reserves to pay dividends for over two years without being forced to take action.

We are currently in the middle of a BTC bear market, with prices around 70,000 USD (down about 45% from the peak), but STRC is still trading near par value (with a dividend rate of 11.5%) and mNAV at 1.2. Considering that I do not believe BTC will experience a two-year bear market (the 2022 bear market lasted about a year from peak to trough), and Strategy has not even begun to use its dollar reserves, I believe that under the current leverage levels, Strategy's overall structure is quite safe and resilient.

Risk 5 (Long-Term Concern): Strategy's Model Is Too Effective

As I mentioned yesterday on X, as a BTC bull, the biggest risk associated with Strategy is—it may be too successful.

"The biggest short logic for Strategy is that this strategy is running too successfully. If it succeeds, they will continue to increase their BTC holdings. But ultimately, they will become too large, thus contaminating BTC's originally 'pure' narrative. In fact, this is already happening."

In fact, Strategy already holds about 3.5% of the total supply of BTC. This could negatively impact future BTC demand, as it may begin to weaken BTC's narrative as a purely decentralized asset. Additionally, the narrative surrounding STRC and its high-yield "Digital Credit" has sparked some negative reactions within the crypto community, which could also indirectly affect BTC's demand.

As I have explained throughout this article, the amount of BTC held by Strategy will only continue to increase. The only scenario that could invalidate this situation is if BTC undergoes a painful cycle lasting at least two years. Even so, a longer period of stagnation would be required for Strategy's BTC reserves to gradually decrease due to dividend payments.

I can understand why some people feel uneasy about Strategy's role in the BTC ecosystem. But from my perspective, if this alone is enough to turn you bearish on BTC's long-term prospects, then you may not have been very bullish on BTC from the start. From my viewpoint, this is not particularly serious. Indeed, Strategy is a single entity holding 3.5% of BTC's supply, but ultimately, Strategy and its BTC reserves belong to its shareholders.

How different is this from BlackRock holding a similar amount of BTC on behalf of IBIT shareholders? Of course, they are not entirely the same, and IBIT does not face bankruptcy risk. But in my view, they are somewhat similar—they both represent the financialization of BTC, and this trend itself is also inevitable.

I do not believe that Strategy and STRC pose systemic risks to BTC, but I do understand the potential negative impact they may have on BTC's narrative. In any case, this article is primarily intended to help everyone understand STRC and the structure of Strategy. After this, you can decide for yourself whether to be more bullish or bearish on it.

Is STRC the New UST?

In recent social media discussions, the comparison of STRC with Luna/UST/Anchor has been mentioned too frequently, so I think it is worth discussing separately. In fact, these two are fundamentally different on many levels.

Odaily Note: The price trend of LUNA before its collapse.

UST is a stablecoin, so maintaining a 1 USD peg is crucial; whereas STRC is a preferred stock, ideally trading within a 1% range close to 100 USD, but it can certainly drop a few percentage points. This has happened before and will happen again, and this in itself is not necessarily a problem.

UST is supported by LUNA, and the value of LUNA, to some extent, depends on the success of UST. When UST falls below the peg price, users can exchange UST for newly minted LUNA. This increases the selling pressure on LUNA, weakening market confidence in the system and further increasing selling pressure on UST. The result is a reflexive death spiral that can drive the values of UST and LUNA to nearly zero within days. STRC does not have this reflexive mechanism, as a drop in STRC's price does not trigger forced issuance, redemptions, or dilution of other assets in the system, nor does it affect BTC.

The yield provided by Anchor for UST is 18%-20%, which is not only significantly higher than STRC's current yield of about 11.5%, but is also largely subsidy-driven and structurally unsustainable. The source of STRC's yield is relatively simple: Strategy expects BTC to have an annualized return exceeding 20% over the next decade, with STRC holders receiving the initial approximately 11.5% (or the then-current dividend rate), while MSTR shareholders bear the remaining upside potential and volatility.

We are also very clear on how Strategy continues to pay dividends. If mNAV is above 1, they can issue MSTR shares through the ATM; if mNAV is below 1, they can rely on dollar reserves (currently sufficient to cover over two years of dividend payments). If reserves are exhausted, they can ultimately sell BTC derivatives or directly sell BTC in the treasury. In the case of UST and Anchor, it essentially boils down to—"Trust me, I will definitely keep paying."

The impact of price declines on these two systems is also entirely different. When UST loses its peg, confidence collapses rapidly, and the market quickly believes the system may go to zero; whereas for STRC, the lower the price, the higher the effective yield, which may attract new buyers. For example, in a completely pessimistic scenario, if STRC trades at 50 USD with a dividend yield of 12%, its actual yield would be about 24%.

Finally, the time dynamics of the two are completely different. Luna/UST is an extremely fragile system that can collapse within days after a loss of confidence. In contrast, for STRC, even in the worst-case scenario described earlier, the process would be much slower (a very gradual decline), potentially taking years unless you assume BTC suddenly drops 90% in a few months.