Bitcoin will triumph, but not everyone will win alongside it.

Author: Deep Tide TechFlow

In the history of Wall Street, legendary stories are never in short supply, but the transformation journey of MicroStrategy is destined to become a unique new legend.

An obscure enterprise software company made a stunning decision in August 2020 to invest all of its idle $250 million in Bitcoin. This decision not only changed the fate of the company but also pioneered an unprecedented business model.

In just four years, MicroStrategy transformed from a software company with an annual revenue of only $500 million into the world's largest publicly traded holder of Bitcoin, owning nearly 390,000 Bitcoins, accounting for 1.8% of the global supply. Even more astonishing is that its stock price skyrocketed from $12 to a peak of $500, with a market capitalization exceeding $100 billion, and its daily trading volume once surpassed that of Nvidia.

This is not just a simple investment story, but a meticulously designed art of capital operation. Through low-interest borrowing and issuing stocks, MicroStrategy wove a breathtaking "spiral pull-up" web.

How did it achieve this? Is it commercial innovation or hidden crisis?

Guest: Todd (@0x_Todd), Partner at Nothing Research, Co-founder of Ebunker

The following content is a整理稿 of our conversation, and the podcast audio version is also online. Feel free to subscribe to "Let's Flow" on Xiaoyuzhou.

Xiaoyuzhou link or scan the QR code in the image below to listen.

Background Introduction

MicroStrategy was founded in 1989 and went public on NASDAQ in 1998, originally focusing on enterprise analytics software.

In August 2020, under the leadership of Chairman Michael Saylor, MSTR announced a $250 million investment to purchase approximately 21,400 BTC, becoming the first publicly traded company to implement a Bitcoin treasury strategy.

What sets MicroStrategy apart is not only its pioneering move to incorporate Bitcoin into its balance sheet but also its continuous buying and willingness to borrow money for purchases. MicroStrategy borrowed money at about 1% interest through issuing stocks and bonds to buy Bitcoin.

Over the past four years, MicroStrategy has announced approximately 41 Bitcoin purchases.

As of now, on November 26, MSTR holds over 386,700 Bitcoins, accounting for about 1.8% of the total global Bitcoin supply, making it the largest publicly traded Bitcoin holder in the world.

MSTR has spent a total of $21.983 billion on Bitcoin, with an average cost of about $56,849, and as of now, it has an unrealized profit of over $14 billion.

On November 21, MSTR's stock price briefly surpassed $500, with a market capitalization exceeding $100 billion. On that day, its trading volume even surpassed that of the leading U.S. stock Nvidia, and the stock price has increased more than 40 times since it began accumulating Bitcoin at around $12 in August 2020, rising fivefold year-to-date, outpacing Bitcoin's growth by four times.

Currently, while MicroStrategy still maintains its main business, it has reported losses for three consecutive quarters and has underperformed. However, this has not hindered it from becoming a super bull stock in the U.S. market this year; it has successfully transformed into a shadow stock of Bitcoin or a leveraged Bitcoin in the U.S. stock market.

MicroStrategy's strategy of issuing stocks and bonds to finance Bitcoin purchases has driven up Bitcoin prices, and the rise in Bitcoin has further boosted MSTR's stock price.

The Magic of MicroStrategy's Pull-Up

Deep Tide TechFlow: Why has a previously unremarkable company been able to continuously attract so much capital in the market? What is its spiral pull-up technique?

Todd:

I want to start from the beginning to explain how MicroStrategy has reached this level step by step.

In many people's impressions, MicroStrategy does not seem to be a very impressive company. In 2020, MicroStrategy was a software development company that helped other companies develop software, famously including some software for McDonald's. By 2020, it had about $250 million left on its balance sheet.

From a more mundane perspective, a company that has been around for so many years with an unrealized profit of $250 million is quite good. However, at that time, this money was sitting idle on the balance sheet.

Our protagonist today, Michael Saylor, felt it was time to make a bold decision. As the chairman of the board, he personally pushed for MicroStrategy to invest almost all of its $250 million cash into Bitcoin. This was indeed a very bold move, and it is difficult for most people to make such a decision.

After making this investment, he felt that the exposure was not large enough, so he began to consider leveraging, which is where the magic of MicroStrategy began.

He thought about borrowing some money off-market to continue increasing his Bitcoin position, so he adopted a well-established method in the capital market called convertible preferred bonds.

He promised creditors: if you lend me money now, at maturity, creditors have two options: either take back the principal with interest at a certain time, or choose to take equity.

He set a conversion ratio that allowed the borrowed money to be converted into equity, which made creditors feel more secure. If there was money on the balance sheet, they could get back their principal and interest; if not, creditors could still take stocks to sell in the secondary market, which would provide some return, making it a good guarantee for creditors.

This is the play of convertible preferred bonds. As a creditor, you can choose to take back the principal at maturity or convert the debt into stock, or choose partial conversion. You should know that the bonds MicroStrategy initially issued all had 0% interest; investors were focused on another opportunity.

Because everyone knew Saylor was going to bet all the funds on Bitcoin. If Bitcoin rises, the company's stock price will naturally rise. What creditors are interested in is that the bond-to-stock conversion ratio is fixed; if Bitcoin rises in the future, MicroStrategy's stock will also rise, and they can choose to convert all into stock, completing an arbitrage. Even if the stock price soars, they can still convert at a very low price.

This creates a very attractive investment logic: at worst, you can get back your principal or suffer a small loss, but if MicroStrategy skyrockets, you might turn a $1 million investment into $1.5 million or even $2 million in stock.

For this reason, MicroStrategy easily raised its first round of funding and subsequently issued multiple rounds of ultra-low-interest loans, with interest rates between 0%-0.8%. Even during the Federal Reserve's interest rate hike cycle, when Treasury yields reached 3.4%-5%, investors were still willing to lend them money at ultra-low rates.

Later, as Bitcoin and the company's stock price continued to rise, although it would be easy for MicroStrategy to borrow again now, the truth is that borrowing always carries risks, as debts must be repaid. So now MicroStrategy has started to adopt a second approach, directly issuing stocks for financing.

As a publicly traded company, Saylor used his position as chairman of the board to choose to issue additional shares and sell them in the market in compliance with regulations. In recent days, MicroStrategy's trading volume even surpassed that of the bull market star stock Nvidia, raising nearly $4.6 billion through this method, and then continued to increase its Bitcoin position. This is also one of the important reasons for Bitcoin breaking through $95,000.

This is MicroStrategy's second strategy: after the company's stock price rises, it raises funds through issuing additional shares. The funds obtained through this method are not debt at all, with no repayment pressure.

MicroStrategy is not the next LUNA

Todd:

Many people will ask a question: With MicroStrategy borrowing so much money, will there be repayment pressure in the future?

Regarding MicroStrategy's debt issue, they have been very smart. For example, their earliest 0% interest debt does not mature until 2027, and now it is 2024, leaving ample time for operations. Moreover, the current yield on their balance sheet is close to 50%, so there is no immediate repayment pressure.

Even if they have to repay in the future, they have multiple options: they can sell some Bitcoin or issue new debt, as many people are willing to lend them money now. According to the current trend, their repayment pressure is not significant.

Some have compared MicroStrategy to Luna, but I think this analogy is inappropriate. Upon closer examination, MicroStrategy is simply leveraging at the right moment to go long; making money by going long is a normal market behavior, not a Ponzi scheme.

They just seized the opportunity, used good leverage, and achieved a great return.

MicroStrategy previously proposed a concept that I strongly agree with; they understand this as "sharing volatility." What is sharing volatility? Those bond investors are usually quite conservative; they only like low-volatility investments. Well, then let them have the low-volatility part, while MicroStrategy guarantees the downside. The cost for MicroStrategy is to provide investors with a low-volatility return, while it enjoys the high-volatility returns from Bitcoin.

This is why Saylor likens MicroStrategy to a "transformer": just like in an electrical system, the same energy can be converted into low and high voltage. Low voltage is given to those stable investors, while high voltage is enjoyed by themselves.

This is actually a common practice in financial markets, where assets are stratified: the low-risk portion is sold to others, while they enjoy the high-risk, high-return portion. This model has often been seen in past fund and securities markets.

So overall, MicroStrategy is definitely not a Ponzi scheme like Luna; they are more about having the courage to choose to go long at the right moment and betting in the right direction. Of course, they have indeed become part of the market now, but they are not the decisive force in the market. This is an interesting case where MicroStrategy, Bitcoin, and creditors can all benefit.

Deep Tide TechFlow: MicroStrategy's approach reminds me of domestic real estate companies in the past, where developers also used low-interest convertible bonds to hoard land, achieving land reserve expansion, and then during the real estate upcycle, rising land prices drove up stock prices, followed by issuing bonds or stocks to obtain cash flow and continue hoarding land, thus cycling.

These two are indeed very similar, but the difference is that Bitcoin is an asset with global consensus and better cross-cycle liquidity. I want to ask, can MicroStrategy's method of leveraging through off-market financing, buying Bitcoin, and pushing up stock prices continue indefinitely?

Todd:

That's a good question. Indeed, many real estate developers, including Evergrande, have similar operations. But I want to point out the essential difference between real estate and Bitcoin: Bitcoin has very good liquidity, while real estate is constrained by many factors. Building houses requires complex capital chain management, but trading Bitcoin is much simpler; it's just borrowing money to buy coins.

An asset with global liquidity that can be traded in various currencies is on a completely different level of liquidity compared to real estate in a city.

When it comes to whether MicroStrategy's strategy can last forever, there is no magic that lasts indefinitely. However, many investors are not particularly concerned about what will happen in 5 or 10 years; they are more focused on the present. From a practical standpoint, at least until MicroStrategy needs to repay its first debt, we do not see them selling Bitcoin.

Here, I want to share an important concept from MicroStrategy. Looking at the history of development in the United States, it began with the original 13 states and expanded through wars and land purchases, acquiring land from France, Mexico, and Russia, thereby establishing the foundation of the nation through land space. MicroStrategy believes that the era of land space has ended, and we have entered the era of cyberspace. In this cyberspace dominated by internet currency, controlling cyberspace equates to controlling the new world, and Bitcoin is the most important currency in this space.

They predicted early on that in the future, countries would establish Bitcoin strategic reserves, as this represents control over cyberspace, just as land represented control over physical space in the past. Now, especially in the context of Trump and his team's support for Bitcoin, this prediction is becoming increasingly clear. In the past, countries needed to hoard land to rise; now, to rise in cyberspace, they need to hoard Bitcoin.

From this perspective, although Bitcoin's price is significantly higher than in previous years, if the future indeed aligns with the U.S. Bitcoin Reserve Act, which mentions the U.S. holding 1 million Bitcoins, accounting for 5% as a strategic reserve for cyberspace, then the current price may still be relatively low.

Of course, this is not investment advice. However, if one believes that Bitcoin is currently undervalued, MicroStrategy's strategy is essentially a long position, with the key being the entry point. If one anticipates that Bitcoin is still at a relatively low level, then continuing to go long and leverage is not unreasonable. Of course, this is based on certain premises, such as Trump successfully taking office and his pro-Bitcoin team being able to assume key positions and advance previous commitments.

So overall, while MicroStrategy's current strategy is bold, it is not entirely absurd or crazy, in my opinion.

The Mystique of Citron Capital's Defeat

Deep Tide TechFlow: I see that some institutions, including Citron Capital, have started shorting MicroStrategy, leading to a decline in its stock price. However, from their statements, it seems this is not just a simple shorting strategy but a form of hedging.

They believe that MicroStrategy's stock value has detached from the fundamentals of Bitcoin, with a premium of about three times compared to the Bitcoin it holds. Although Citron remains optimistic about Bitcoin, they think this premium is outrageous, so they are betting that this premium will revert. Do you think Citron will be right this time? Or do you think the current premium of MicroStrategy is reasonable?

Todd:

Regarding Citron, I want to approach this from a rather interesting angle.

From a somewhat mystical perspective, Citron is a long-established company that has indeed had many spectacular shorting successes, but they have also had several significant failures, and these failures seem to be particularly associated with certain specific sectors.

Let me give you a few examples. The most memorable might be Citron's shorting of GameStop (GME), which resulted in substantial losses. An earlier example was in 2018 when Citron continuously shorted Tesla, believing that Tesla's production capacity was inadequate and its valuation too high. But we all saw how Tesla performed later, and Citron ultimately had to admit defeat and exit.

Interestingly, Tesla and Bitcoin are highly correlated, and everyone knows Elon Musk's attitude towards cryptocurrencies. GME also has some intricate connections to cryptocurrencies; the spirit of the GME community is somewhat similar to that of cryptocurrencies, especially meme coins. Therefore, Citron's two major failures are somewhat related to Bitcoin.

From this mystical perspective, it seems that Citron's judgments on such assets are often inaccurate, with several major failures occurring in these related themes. Now it's MicroStrategy's turn, which is also a strongly correlated asset with Bitcoin. From this angle, they may not have a smooth experience this time either. If a situation like GME were to repeat, MicroStrategy could experience unpredictable surges. Of course, this is just an entertaining interpretation and does not constitute investment advice.

From a fundamental perspective, Citron's claims do make sense. The market is indeed very FOMO right now; the greed index reached around 94-95 a few days ago. So MicroStrategy may indeed be overheated in the short term. Their shorting of this premium may also involve holding long positions in Bitcoin to hedge, which is a reasonable operation. However, as mentioned earlier, based on historical experience, Citron has often not fared well in Bitcoin-related themes, which is just an interesting observation.

Potential Flaws in MicroStrategy

Deep Tide TechFlow: Currently, it is indeed difficult to find flaws in MicroStrategy's strategy, but if one had to identify the biggest flaw, what do you think it is?**

Todd:

This question is quite sharp. I believe the biggest flaw lies in the possibility that if MicroStrategy continues to implement such a strategy, the most concerning aspect is that it may not synchronize with Bitcoin's rhythm.

Let me give you an example to illustrate this issue.

There are many "ancient whales" in the Bitcoin market, and the movements of these early holders can have a huge impact on the market. For instance, recently with Ethereum, an early investor from the ICO period (when ETH was only $6) has been continuously selling about 100,000 ETH since November 7. It's worth noting that the total buying pressure brought by the approval of the Ethereum ETF is only in the hundreds of thousands. The sell-off by this one whale has offset a significant portion of the growth momentum brought by the ETF.

For MicroStrategy, these Bitcoin ancient whales are the biggest potential adversaries.

Suppose these whales determine that $100,000 is the peak and place dense orders in the $95,000-$98,000 range; it would be difficult for MicroStrategy alone to break through this price level. Unlike the Luna Foundation's absolute control over Luna, MicroStrategy is just one of many market participants. While borrowing billions of dollars to buy Bitcoin can indeed push up its price, if the ancient whales do not agree with this strategy and choose to continue selling, the situation would be very different.

This could disrupt MicroStrategy's "spiral upward" model: borrowing money to buy coins → driving up stock prices → borrowing more money to buy more coins → stock prices continue to rise. Once this cycle is broken, MicroStrategy would face pressure. Although currently, due to costs being over $50,000, the pressure is not significant, if this operation continues, the pressure will gradually increase.

However, we now have many monitoring tools to track the movements of these ancient whales' addresses and observe whether early Bitcoins are suddenly transferred to exchanges. This information can help predict subsequent trends. If these ancient whales cooperate, MicroStrategy's strategy should be able to continue.

Deep Tide TechFlow: In this cycle, MicroStrategy seems to have replicated the script of Grayscale from the previous cycle, when the market was bad, and everyone expected Grayscale to act as a savior to buy coins. Now, similarly, when the market is down, everyone is waiting for MicroStrategy's announcements, hoping they will buy Bitcoin to lift prices.

However, there is a clear difference between MicroStrategy and Grayscale: Grayscale's clients also want to cash out and have to sell coins; whereas MicroStrategy seems to be able to make money without selling Bitcoin, as they can directly monetize through issuing stocks.

But will there come a time when MicroStrategy sells its held Bitcoins? If that really happens, it would be a huge blow to market confidence. Do you think MicroStrategy will sell coins? Under what circumstances would they sell?

When Will MicroStrategy Sell Coins?

Todd:

That's right; if MicroStrategy starts selling coins, it would be a massive blow to market confidence.

Just now, we happened to mention Grayscale, and I want to talk about the three major contributors to this Bitcoin bull market.

Previously, when Bitcoin fell to $16,000, everyone knows the reasons: on one hand, FTX collapsed, 3AC went bankrupt, and on the other hand, the U.S. kept raising interest rates, driving Bitcoin down to $16,000.

From $16,000 to over $30,000, the biggest contributor during this time was actually Grayscale, because on one hand, the SEC did not allow them to redeem, and many people simply could not hold on and sold at a discount. On the other hand, they were constantly in litigation with the SEC, and eventually, the much-disliked Gensler (the SEC chairman) reluctantly agreed to allow the ETF to be issued because they lost the lawsuit.

From over $30,000 to over $60,000, we must thank the ETF, as companies like BlackRock and Fidelity have extensive sales networks spread across every corner of the globe. With their push, many people began to buy Bitcoin through ETFs, bringing institutional market funds in.

From over $60,000 to over $90,000, the most important contributor was actually MicroStrategy. When Bitcoin reached over $60,000, it needed a driving force, and that driving force was provided by MicroStrategy.

I call this the four-stage rocket theory. Just like a rocket, the first stage drops off, and then the second stage continues the relay; this is the three major contributors to Bitcoin's rise from $16,000 to $96,000: Grayscale, ETFs, and MicroStrategy.

The first three stages have been completed, and there is still a fourth stage to come, which is what we expect when Trump comes in to truly promote initiatives like the FIT21 plan, establishing a Bitcoin strategic reserve for the U.S. Not only the U.S., but we can also see Poland, Suriname, and Middle Eastern countries are all working on their own Bitcoin strategic reserve bills, which will be the fourth stage rocket.

From this perspective, MicroStrategy is currently in the middle position of the four-stage rocket, and relatively speaking, its risk is still quite controllable.

Deep Tide TechFlow: So in your view, there is still a long way to go before they sell coins.

Todd:

By continuously following Michael Saylor's interviews, I believe his faith in Bitcoin is about 90%. He has a mature theoretical system, and since 2021, many of his predictions have gradually come true, including national strategic reserves and adoption by publicly traded companies. In the future, we may even see tech giants like Microsoft establishing Bitcoin reserves.

In the short term, MicroStrategy has no motivation to sell coins. At least until 2027, they can manage their debts through issuing stocks or borrowing. More likely, since the creditors subscribed at a lower stock price, they may prefer to hold stocks rather than demand repayment.

Why do I say Saylor is 90% and not 100% loyal? The key lies in a detail: when Bitcoin was around $16,000, MicroStrategy sold about 700-800 Bitcoins for tax planning reasons. Although they bought them back shortly after, this behavior of making trades to avoid taxes reveals that he still has a 10% speculative mindset.

A true HODLER should not engage in any trading. Once someone has experience with trading, it indicates that they still have speculative attributes at their core. Therefore, do not expect MicroStrategy to hold coins for 25 or 50 years; as long as they have engaged in trading, they will likely attempt it again in the future, as it is human nature. So, Saylor has 90% faith and 10% speculation, which means that one day in the future, he will sell Bitcoin, but we should not expect to see that in the coming years.

Deep Tide TechFlow: More and more publicly traded companies are looking to replicate MicroStrategy's strategy. For example, the Japanese listed real estate company Metaplant and the Hong Kong-listed company Boyaa Interactive are incorporating Bitcoin into their balance sheets. Do you think MicroStrategy's approach will be replicated by more and more publicly traded companies in the future? And do these companies that replicate it still have investment value?

Todd:

First, let me clarify that this is not financial advice. I have also made some projections regarding this matter. Since MicroStrategy's recent gamble has been hugely successful, many companies, including Marathon, want to emulate MicroStrategy's strategy, and I think that's okay.

Why? Because according to the four-stage rocket theory, the first three stages have been completed. Although MicroStrategy has been building its position since the first stage and has achieved maximum returns, if later entrants truly foresee that countries will begin to compete for control of cyberspace, or further down the line, when AI rules the world, AI may prefer cryptocurrencies controlled by computing power over fiat currencies.

Regardless of which distant legend ultimately comes true, those entering as the third-stage rocket can still achieve considerable returns.

While it is difficult for other companies to reach this scale, I believe this strategy is fundamentally sound; it is essentially a strategy of buying Bitcoin long through off-exchange leverage. As long as off-exchange creditors are willing to lend money, because they receive low-volatility returns while these companies bear high volatility, this model is currently viable.

However, these companies that are emulating MicroStrategy have entered at different times, and timing is more important for those entering later, as it directly determines the return level of the strategy. I suggest that these publicly traded companies need to think carefully and complete their Bitcoin reserve layout at the right position.

Deep Tide TechFlow: Finally, let's talk about Michael Saylor. I recently listened to some podcasts interviewing him, where he mentioned that he spent 1,000 hours studying Bitcoin-related theories and successfully brainwashed himself into becoming a Bitcoin maximalist, or a fervent religious believer. How do you evaluate this person?

Todd:

Michael Saylor is a top graduate from MIT, and he was very successful at a young age, having sold several startups successfully. Ultimately, MicroStrategy was able to realize a floating profit of $250 million, which is quite remarkable.

An interesting point in studying his life is that he wrote a book in 2012 about the wave of mobile internet, predicting the rise of mobile internet when smartphones were just starting to become popular in 2012 and 2013, indicating his accurate judgment.

He earned two degrees at MIT: aerospace engineering and the history of science. This combination of majors is quite unique and seems almost tailor-made for him. The history of science combines the humanities and sciences, studying how science develops breakthrough innovations, which is very helpful for him in judging future technological trends.

In interviews, he often cites the views of scientists like Newton and Einstein. Both from his academic background and from his book on the mobile internet wave, it is evident that he has a clear personal judgment about future technological trends, and these judgments have been validated. His speech is logically clear, and his viewpoints are articulated well. Having someone like him as an important figure in the Bitcoin community is very beneficial for the spread of Bitcoin.

One of his most famous videos has 10 million views on YouTube, where he explains for three to four hours why he chose Bitcoin. His core argument is that the current economic system is constantly printing money; while the official inflation rate is 2%, the actual rate is at least over 7%, because economists have been adjusting the composition of the inflation basket. This is his fundamental belief for investing in Bitcoin.

This theory is hard to refute because, no matter where you are in the world, governments and central banks are indeed continuously printing money, and this anxiety is widespread. In countries like Argentina, currency devaluation can reach dozens of times. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has a clear cap of 21 million, which will never change.

Two unchanging facts: governments will continue to print money, and Bitcoin's total supply is fixed. This makes Bitcoin a very robust asset against inflation. Michael Saylor holding such a belief will help him go further on the path of Bitcoin investment.

No Ethereum Version of MicroStrategy

Deep Tide TechFlow: This year, Ethereum has shown some weakness, and people often mock Ethereum by comparing it to the strength of Bitcoin and Solana. Do you think there will be an Ethereum version of Michael Saylor or MicroStrategy in the future?

Todd:

This is purely a prediction, and I think it is quite difficult. The reason is that the emergence of MicroStrategy and Saylor has its specific background, which Ethereum does not possess.

The narrative of Bitcoin has been eternal since its inception. From the moment Satoshi Nakamoto wrote the news about the Treasury Secretary preparing to bail out banks into the genesis block, it established its positioning as a counter to fiat currency inflation and a true store of value.

In Saylor's words, fiat currency is just money, while Bitcoin is capital; these are completely different concepts.

In contrast, Ethereum's positioning is to continuously provide blockchain services using the most advanced technology. From our experience operating an Ethereum mining pool, Ethereum is constantly evolving: transitioning from PoW to PoS to address energy issues, to the recent Beacon Chain strategy proposed at Devcon in Bangkok, which plans to ZK-ify the entire chain. This shows that Ethereum is on a completely different development path from Bitcoin.

For large funds, they prefer predictable and stable investment targets rather than continuously changing projects.

Saylor has mentioned that Satoshi Nakamoto's anonymity is very appealing, which aligns with the typical N-type personality traits in MBTI. Vitalik's continuous activity in Ethereum, while proposing many good ideas, may cause some investors to hesitate. As the saying goes in "Let the Bullets Fly," "You are not that important to me." Large funds require certainty in their investments and do not want projects to suddenly change direction.

Therefore, an Ethereum version of MicroStrategy may be difficult to emerge, but the possibility of a small-scale version cannot be ruled out. Especially considering that Ethereum currently has a lower market value, it does not require the massive capital investment that Bitcoin does. There has always been an investment logic in the market that "Bitcoin is too expensive; we need to find cheaper targets," and Ethereum may become the first choice for such investors.

Deep Tide TechFlow: I completely agree with the discussion about the narrative of Bitcoin. The charm of Bitcoin lies in its simplicity; it does not require technical delivery and cannot be falsified. It is like a perfect closed loop, with each crisis reinforcing rather than weakening its value proposition. In the crypto world, we see too many grand visions and complex technical solutions, but what ultimately stands the test of time is the simplest Bitcoin, which does not need marketing, roadmaps, or technical commitments. In a world full of uncertainty, the most precious thing is certainty, and that is Bitcoin's greatest charm.

Finally, thank you, Todd.

Todd:

In conclusion, I quote Saylor: Bitcoin will win, but not everyone will win with it.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。