Strategy just sold ~$1.16 billion of STRC today. Permanent capital in Bitcoin going to the balance sheet. ~14,155 Bitcoin acquired - all they have to do is pay 11.5%. For reference, Palantir just reported a net income of $871 million... for ONE QUARTER. Yes... Saylor just raised ~$250 million more in one trading session than Palantir's Q1 NET INCOME. Palantir trades at a 150 P/E ratio. Which growth story do you think the market is undervaluing?

THRIVE HOLDINGS AGREES TO TAKE ADT $ADT PRIVATE IN A $15.3 BILLION DEAL The permanent-capital holding company will pay $10 a share in cash, 45.6% above ADT's unaffected $6.87 close on Oct. 27, for an equity value near $7.6 billion, per the companies.

Today we announce Thrive Eternal, a permanent capital holding company that will be concentrated in a small number of assets that we can own and steward over many decades. Across Thrive Capital and Thrive Holdings, we are building and investing through a moment of exponential change; backing emerging technologies, the infrastructure that powers them, and the businesses they can transform. Increasingly, we see a fourth category. These are assets with qualities that cannot be replicated by technology. Iconic franchises and cultural institutions rooted in tradition, identity, and shared experience. In a world shaped by abundant intelligence where creation scales and distribution fragments, we believe they will matter even more. Thrive Eternal is built on the belief that the most enduring of these assets share common characteristics: they benefit from long-term stewardship, they compound through cultural resonance, and they are enhanced by technology rather than displaced by it. Our work at Thrive has always been informed and inspired by a deep appreciation for product, brand, and the ways in which consumers form lasting relationships with the things they love. We have been building towards this for a long time. Our first partnership is expected to be with the San Francisco Giants - an institution built on more than a century of shared identity and community, and among the most iconic sports franchises in America. We have reached an agreement, subject to league approval, to acquire an ownership stake. We feel privileged by the opportunity to be long-term partners to the Giants.

$15 billion raised, converted to Bitcoin, and held on balance sheets as permanent capital. Traditional capital markets still do not treat any of it as collateral. Two reasons named on tape. The first: "the rating agencies give it 0% capital credit" The second is a 1,250% risk weighting under Basel III, which is what keeps a bank from holding the asset directly. So the workaround is structural. The Bitcoin gets transformed. The balance sheet becomes the collateral, and the instruments issued against it are what institutions and retail can actually buy, with the market pricing that collateral in the open. Whether that is phase one of traditional finance accepting Bitcoin as collateral is the argument in the clip. Which gives first, the risk weighting or the capital credit? bitcoin:native $MSTR $ASST $STRC $SATA

🚨LEOPOLD’S FULL LETTER TO LPs DROPS! Leopold Aschenbrenner of Situational Awareness sent this to investors after the AI rout. Fund was down 67% in July (still +80% YTD). Came “closer to permanent capital impairment than is acceptable.” They executed a block trade of the public portfolio to strip out all leverage, closed every short, and now run a fully paid-for book with zero margin risk. Fund is not shut down or liquidated, still operating as a hybrid public-private vehicle. He takes full responsibility, says the scars will be “invaluable lessons,” and remains “very optimistic” as AI fundamentals accelerate while prices have cratered.

🚨 @LynAldenContact ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORANGE JUICE AND STRATEGY: "I wouldn't call it an anti-strategy. It's just a different model. Not a pure play like the pure Bitcoin treasuries." The thesis behind it: "We have a view that cashflow combined with a Bitcoin treasury strategy creates more permanent capital. Instead of having to constantly issue securities, you have more optional security on top of a more operational foundation."

I’ve commented on other people posts. I’ll synthesize what I believe. Fundamental risks are not the only risks but they are the most important risks unless you have a lot of leverage in which case, risk is risk and trying to pretend one matters and one doesn’t always ends the same way. If you have no leverage the only thing that can force permanent capital loss is your or your LPs tolerance for pain. If you have leverage your lender can trigger permanent capital loss. If you work at a platform you are being lent callable money, not managing capital, and you should manage money like the bank can take it back whenever they want. The best way to manage non fundamental risks is through a rigorous fundamental force ranking process that compares similar ideas to one another and limits exposure to similar things. Most fundamental research is very good but doesn’t go far enough in demanding absolute and relative return thresholds or in creatively comparing ideas to one another. There are generally high correlations between fundamental and non fundamental risks. If you limit your exposure to a fundamental risk (like no current profits) you will manage the non fundamental risk as well and naturally de risk the exposure and improve effective breadth. You can reduce the number of ideas which increases concentration and results in less non fundamental risk through the same process. You can reduce non fundamental risk through a proper fundamental process and outperform.

⚡️The early Bitcoin holder may be one of the cleanest wealth outcomes capitalism can produce. Think about what happened to the rare person who accumulated meaningful Bitcoin very early and actually held it. They did not need to build a 10,000-person company. They did not need customers. They did not need employees. They did not need a board. They did not need to manage LP money. They did not need to continually recreate the economic engine that made them wealthy. They made one extraordinarily consequential capital-allocation decision, survived years of uncertainty, and eventually the asset itself did almost all of the scaling. That is an incredible lifestyle outcome. A founder worth $100M may technically have the same net worth, but much of it can be trapped inside a company requiring their attention, carrying payroll, lawsuits, competition, customers, executives, financing, and constant strategic decisions. The early Bitcoin holder can have $100M sitting in an asset that requires almost no organizational complexity to own. Enormous wealth. Tiny operating surface area. That combination is rare. There is also something profound about how the wealth was created. They recognized a new category before the world agreed the category was real. The wealth came from carrying uncertainty. Bitcoin looked ridiculous. Then dangerous. Then speculative. Then legitimate. Then institutional. Every step upward removed uncertainty while also removing asymmetry. The earliest holders were compensated for occupying the period when the world could still plausibly say the entire thing was worthless. But survivorship bias here is enormous. Thousands of people also concentrated into things they believed were revolutionary and lost everything. Even among people who bought Bitcoin early, many sold at 2x, 5x, 10x, or 50x. Others lost keys. Others got destroyed by exchanges. Others overleveraged. Others simply could not psychologically carry an asset through repeated 70% to 90% drawdowns while everyone around them told them they were insane. So the extraordinary outcome required several things to happen together: see correctly very early, size enough for being right to matter, survive enormous volatility, preserve custody, and resist selling when the gain already looked life-changing. That is almost impossibly difficult in real time. The highest form of wealth creation may actually be finding a very small number of generational capital-allocation decisions rather than continually maximizing labor output. One Bitcoin-like decision can compress decades of economic effort into ownership of the right thing at the right moment. Afterward, the entire purpose of wealth can change. You no longer need to optimize for more work. You can optimize for autonomy. Time. Privacy. Research. Relationships. Travel. Building things because they matter to you rather than because they need to pay you. And compared with becoming a billionaire CEO whose phone can never truly be turned off, the anonymous person who quietly owns enormous permanent capital may have won a different and arguably more valuable game. The founder builds a machine powerful enough to create freedom later. The generational investor finds an asset powerful enough to make the machine unnecessary. That second outcome is incredibly rare. But when it happens, the lifestyle asymmetry is almost absurd.

Just got back from @consensus2026 Miami. Some unfiltered thoughts on the vibes: The industry has clearly grown up. The degens are gone, the allocators are wearing suits, and your @Uniswap booth has been replaced by a JP Morgan activation with 50 year old boomers. Cautiously optimistic with a distinctly institutional aftertaste. This was not a bull market conference. Key takeaways: 1) CLARITY Act has serious momentum. Everyone at the conference basically agrees it's getting done before summer. The urgency is real, people are done waiting. And the regulatory window feels genuinely unprecedented: CLARITY Act, GENIUS Act, a CFTC chair actively engaging with the industry, this combination has never existed simultaneously before. The institutional urgency you're seeing everywhere is directly correlated to this window feeling time-limited. Miss it and you're explaining to your board why you sat on your hands during the most favorable crypto regulatory environment in history. 2) Institutions are not dabbling anymore. They are ALL IN on tokenization and terrified of missing it. No one is debating whether blockchain rails are useful. The debate is now who gets the mandate. And quietly @coinbase , @krakenfx , @RobinhoodApp and @Bullish and others are being seen more as competitors than potential partners by a lot of these TradFi players. 3) TradFi M&A is going to keep ripping. @krakenfx just grabbed Reap for $600M. Visa, Mastercard, Swift etc they can't miss the train and they're willing to overpay for the ticket. 4) Crypto VC is consolidating fast. @a16z and @katie_haun just announced $2.2B and $1B funds respectively. Meanwhile the boutique VCs are either pivoting to AI or quietly closing shop. Same playbook is happenign as traditional VC, the big platforms eat everything and the small guys scramble. Seed and pre-seed is basically a ghost town right now. Late stage and pre-IPO is where the action is. 5) Investment themes were aggressively consensus (no pun intended): Stablecoins, tokenization, vertically integrated neo-banks, regulated or permissioned DeFi. Literally everyone is trying to be a tokenization platform. Issuance, management, settlement, curation, pick your lane, slap tokenization on it, try to raise money. 6) Building in crypto is genuinely hard now. Your competition isn't some scrappy new L1 or GMX, it's @tether , @Anchorage , and @Securitize. there are now many crypto businesses running 200M+ annual Rev with serious management teams and deep pockets. The barbarians are now the establishment. New entrants are going to have a very bad time. 7) Pure token-only plays have become extremely contrarian. Controversial take but I think the biggest returns will come from a handful of tokens that can credibly signal in a compliant way that the token remains the only value accruing asset going forward. 8) A lot of teams are in a genuinely weird spot on the token/equity dynamics. Decent products, decent teams, but a complete stakeholder clusterf*** that nobody can untangle. Many of these will simply not survive. 9) The agentic finance and agentic commerce crowd was loud. The actual substance was not. A lot of big claims, very little to show for it. Feels very early and mostly vibes. Color me skeptical for now. 10) @Bullish acquiring Equinity for $4.2B was the boldest move of the conference. @ThomasFarley and @BonannoDavid now have a full-stack RWA proposition: issuance, transfer agency, tokenization, exchange and settlement under one roof. Massive move. Very positive for the industry regardless of whether you think the price or the move were right. 11) @BitMNR and @fundstrat are apparently tired of winning and has decided to let your grandma keep her ETH... for now. The pace of accumulation is slowing. Tom, we await your next allocation with bated breath. 12) DeFi apps are moving up the stack and getting smarter about it. They don't want to be the commodity infrastructure layer getting squeezed by exchanges that own distribution. Some genuinely interesting announcements, @buffalu__ at @jito_sol launching JTX being the highlight. 13) Nobody at the conference was talking about retail coming back. The entire conversation was institutional. That's either a sign of maturity or a sign that the industry has quietly given up on mainstream consumer adoption for now and is betting the next cycle gets pulled by institutional flows rather than retail FOMO. Probably both. 14) The L1 debate is officially dead. Nobody and I mean nobody was arguing SOL vs ETH or pitching their shiny new L1. The crowd that used to religiously defend their chain of choice has either grown up, cashed out, or both. Institutions don't care about your consensus mechanism. They care about settlement finality, compliance rails and liquidity. The L1 wars were fun while they lasted. RIP. 15) DATs are a mess. Had some genuinely productive conversations with a few of them but let's be honest most are an absolute clusterf*** operationally and very few are running anything resembling a legitimate business. The structure is a disaster at the stakeholder level and the governance makes your average startup cap table look clean. That said, the permanent capital vehicle concept is still genuinely compelling and I think a handful of these will turn out to be absolute home runs. The model isn't broken, most of the teams just are. Bottom line: Consensus 2026 felt like the moment crypto stopped being a movement and started being an industry. Whether that's exciting or depressing probably depends on when you got in.