There is a serious plague spreading through the Bitcoin treasury sector, and it’s the fiatisation of Bitcoin. Saylor and his cohort have managed to convince an alarming number of people who call themselves Bitcoiners that wrapping Bitcoin in perpetual issuance, ever-expanding financial claims, debt-fuelled yield and increasingly complex financial engineering somehow represents the future of Bitcoin. Digital credit is being sold as the natural evolution of Bitcoin, when much of what is being built is simply a recreation of the fiat financial system around the very asset we came to escape it. Think about the irony. These models depend entirely on Bitcoin’s scarcity, monetary properties and long-term appreciation, yet their financial architecture increasingly contradicts the very principles that give Bitcoin its value. They accumulate a scarce, finite asset while continuously creating new financial claims against it, introducing leverage, dilution and layers of financial liabilities. Bitcoin’s supply remains finite, but the financial claims built around it can expand indefinitely. They’re monetising Bitcoin’s monetary properties while importing the very fiat-minded, value-eroding financial mechanics that Bitcoin was designed to help us escape. This isn’t Bitcoin adoption, it’s the fiatisation of Bitcoin. Digital credit built on perpetual financial engineering doesn't strengthen Bitcoin. It turns Bitcoin into collateral for an increasingly fragile, fiat-style system of financial claims, undermines the monetary principles that make it valuable and threatens to drag the entire treasury sector down with it. This isn't evolution, it’s a cancer. But the real virus spreading this cancer is the “influencers” relentlessly promoting these structures as the future of Bitcoin. Whether through ignorance, gullibility or financial self-interest, they're helping legitimise a financial system that fundamentally contradicts the principles Bitcoin was built upon. The future should be about building natively on Bitcoin. Creating productive infrastructure, increasing its monetary utility, contributing to network growth and generating genuine Bitcoin-denominated cash flow and profitability. Ultimately, developing sustainable Bitcoin-native credit backed by actual economic activity, not an endless expansion of financial claims. We came to Bitcoin to escape the fiat financial system, not to recreate it around Bitcoin and undermine the very value proposition that makes it revolutionary. Somewhere along the way, far too many people stopped asking how we could build on Bitcoin and started asking how we could fiatise it. They’ve completely lost sight of why they came to Bitcoin in the first place. I challenge any of these “influencers” to explain exactly how I’m wrong here.

There is a serious plague spreading through the Bitcoin treasury sector, and it’s the fiatisation of Bitcoin. Saylor and his cohort have managed to convince an alarming number of people who call themselves Bitcoiners that wrapping Bitcoin in perpetual issuance, ever-expanding financial claims, debt-fuelled yield and increasingly complex financial engineering somehow represents the future of Bitcoin. Digital credit is being sold as the natural evolution of Bitcoin, when much of what is being built is simply a recreation of the fiat financial system around the very asset we came to escape it. Think about the irony. These models depend entirely on Bitcoin’s scarcity, monetary properties and long-term appreciation, yet their financial architecture increasingly contradicts the very principles that give Bitcoin its value. They accumulate a scarce, finite asset while continuously creating new financial claims against it, introducing leverage, dilution and layers of financial liabilities. Bitcoin’s supply remains finite, but the financial claims built around it can expand indefinitely. They’re monetising Bitcoin’s monetary properties while importing the very fiat-minded, value-eroding financial mechanics that Bitcoin was designed to help us escape. This isn’t Bitcoin adoption, it’s the fiatisation of Bitcoin. Digital credit built on perpetual financial engineering doesn't strengthen Bitcoin. It turns Bitcoin into collateral for an increasingly fragile, fiat-style system of financial claims, undermines the monetary principles that make it valuable and threatens to drag the entire treasury sector down with it. This isn't evolution, it’s a cancer. But the real virus spreading this cancer is the “influencers” relentlessly promoting these structures as the future of Bitcoin. Whether through ignorance, gullibility or financial self-interest, they're helping legitimise a financial system that fundamentally contradicts the principles Bitcoin was built upon. The future should be about building natively on Bitcoin. Creating productive infrastructure, increasing its monetary utility, contributing to network growth and generating genuine Bitcoin-denominated cash flow and profitability. Ultimately, developing sustainable Bitcoin-native credit backed by actual economic activity, not an endless expansion of financial claims. We came to Bitcoin to escape the fiat financial system, not to recreate it around Bitcoin and undermine the very value proposition that makes it revolutionary. Somewhere along the way, far too many people stopped asking how we could build on Bitcoin and started asking how we could fiatise it. They’ve completely lost sight of why they came to Bitcoin in the first place. I challenge any of these “influencers” to explain exactly how I’m wrong here.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present ZynxBTC. Now pretending he saved his followers by calling out Metaplanet’s management, after spending the past year as the stock’s number one pumper, declaring it his biggest position at ¥875 and walking his followers straight to the slaughterhouse. Then selling in the ¥200s and gaslighting anyone who doesn’t applaud his heroic efforts. LMAO. The hypocrisy, delusion and manipulation are breathtaking. Grifter doesn’t even begin to cover it. Don’t forget to subscribe for £200 a month to access this level of alpha. 😂 Look at these screenshots. 🤡

Ladies and gentlemen, I present ZynxBTC. Now pretending he saved his followers by calling out Metaplanet’s management, after spending the past year as the stock’s number one pumper, declaring it his biggest position at ¥875 and walking his followers straight to the slaughterhouse. Then selling in the ¥200s and gaslighting anyone who doesn’t applaud his heroic efforts. LMAO. The hypocrisy, delusion and manipulation are breathtaking. Grifter doesn’t even begin to cover it. Don’t forget to subscribe for £200 a month to access this level of alpha. 😂 Look at these screenshots. 🤡

BREAKING: After $2.04B in buybacks and shareholder dilution, $STRC FINALLY hit its advertised $100 target. First time in 174 days. 😂 A product supposedly designed to trade at par managed it in just 35 of its first 278 trading sessions. A spectacular 12.59% hit rate. Yet apparently this is the financial innovation destined to revolutionise a $100T credit market and become the backbone of Bitcoin’s bull run. The circus is in full swing. 🤡

BREAKING: After $2.04B in buybacks and shareholder dilution, $STRC FINALLY hit its advertised $100 target. First time in 174 days. 😂 A product supposedly designed to trade at par managed it in just 35 of its first 278 trading sessions. A spectacular 12.59% hit rate. Yet apparently this is the financial innovation destined to revolutionise a $100T credit market and become the backbone of Bitcoin’s bull run. The circus is in full swing. 🤡

@VivekGRamaswamy co-founded @strive ( $ASST), still owns 4.6% of the shares, holds 62% of the high-vote Class B stock, and controls at least 40% of total shareholder voting power. But apparently, he’s ‘just a shareholder’. 😅

@VivekGRamaswamy co-founded @strive ( $ASST), still owns 4.6% of the shares, holds 62% of the high-vote Class B stock, and controls at least 40% of total shareholder voting power. But apparently, he’s ‘just a shareholder’. 😅

Less than a month after listing, $SWC is already having to buyback its ‘Digital Credit’ product $MORE. I wonder who could’ve predicted this and why. 🙋🏻 Digital Credit is a cancer to Bitcoin and to this sector. These models and their narratives are at peak delusion, which is what happens right before it all falls apart. You can see it in their data, performance, marketing, etc. Bitcoin always exposes models that attempt to distort and undermine its principles. Tick tock.

Less than a month after listing, $SWC is already having to buyback its ‘Digital Credit’ product $MORE. I wonder who could’ve predicted this and why. 🙋🏻 Digital Credit is a cancer to Bitcoin and to this sector. These models and their narratives are at peak delusion, which is what happens right before it all falls apart. You can see it in their data, performance, marketing, etc. Bitcoin always exposes models that attempt to distort and undermine its principles. Tick tock.

Even worse, ZynxBTC spent the past year relentlessly pumping $MPJPY, calling 875 yen a no-brainer and the best opportunity in capital markets, only to sell at 260 yen at a supposed 50% loss (cap). He then had the audacity to tell followers they should be grateful he finally called out management, after spending the previous year praising it. Provably the worst capital allocation in this space, yet somehow treated as an ‘expert’. Tells you everything about the state of this sector. Don’t forget to subscribe to Zynx for £200/month to access all that alpha! Yes, he’s actually charging that… He quietly removed his previous fund, Sovereign 21 ( after his calls reportedly fell 70–80%, began deleting the associated posts, and recently removed Falconedge Advisor from his bio. Zynx is a perfect representation of everything wrong with this sector: the deception, grifting, gaslighting and fundamental lack of understanding of Bitcoin and capital markets. He hides behind an anonymous account, blocks anyone who exposes him and avoids accountability for his calls. I was calling him out last year, while everyone else was praising him, because I actually understand these models. I’ll continue to do so. I can only imagine how much money his followers have lost following his calls. The ultimate grifter and larper, promoting everything that’s wrong with this sector.

Even worse, ZynxBTC spent the past year relentlessly pumping $MPJPY, calling 875 yen a no-brainer and the best opportunity in capital markets, only to sell at 260 yen at a supposed 50% loss (cap). He then had the audacity to tell followers they should be grateful he finally called out management, after spending the previous year praising it. Provably the worst capital allocation in this space, yet somehow treated as an ‘expert’. Tells you everything about the state of this sector. Don’t forget to subscribe to Zynx for £200/month to access all that alpha! Yes, he’s actually charging that… He quietly removed his previous fund, Sovereign 21 ( after his calls reportedly fell 70–80%, began deleting the associated posts, and recently removed Falconedge Advisor from his bio. Zynx is a perfect representation of everything wrong with this sector: the deception, grifting, gaslighting and fundamental lack of understanding of Bitcoin and capital markets. He hides behind an anonymous account, blocks anyone who exposes him and avoids accountability for his calls. I was calling him out last year, while everyone else was praising him, because I actually understand these models. I’ll continue to do so. I can only imagine how much money his followers have lost following his calls. The ultimate grifter and larper, promoting everything that’s wrong with this sector.

This is hard to watch. Borrowing against your home to chase a variable, non-guaranteed dividend from an unsecured, uncollateralised, perpetual preferred equity instrument is peak delusion. STRC isn’t Bitcoin-backed. Read the fine print or ask @Grok. Neither the dividend nor your principal is guaranteed. This is what Saylor’s deceptive marketing does: packages financial engineering and perpetual issuance as safe, predictable income, then buries the caveats in tiny print at the last second of his AI-slop adverts. And $ASST’s True North podcast is endorsing this… while the @SECGov continues to turn a blind eye…

This is hard to watch. Borrowing against your home to chase a variable, non-guaranteed dividend from an unsecured, uncollateralised, perpetual preferred equity instrument is peak delusion. STRC isn’t Bitcoin-backed. Read the fine print or ask @Grok. Neither the dividend nor your principal is guaranteed. This is what Saylor’s deceptive marketing does: packages financial engineering and perpetual issuance as safe, predictable income, then buries the caveats in tiny print at the last second of his AI-slop adverts. And $ASST’s True North podcast is endorsing this… while the @SECGov continues to turn a blind eye…

The more a financial engineering scheme scales, the more complex it must become to justify itself. What begins as a relatively simple Bitcoin accumulation strategy gradually evolves into an increasingly elaborate system of perpetual issuance, preferred securities, leverage, yield products and buybacks, all designed to sustain the premium and keep the machine running. But complexity cannot eliminate the underlying constraint. As the model scales, the law of diminishing BPS returns takes hold. Each additional dollar of capital becomes less effective at increasing Bitcoin per share. Dilution compounds, financing costs rise, and the premium becomes increasingly difficult to justify. Without an operating business generating cash flow to organically grow its Bitcoin per share, the model becomes increasingly reliant on financial engineering and favourable capital markets to sustain its growth. Eventually, the complexity of the structure begins to reveal the weakness of the underlying economics. Here’s the irony: Bitcoin was designed to offer an alternative to a monetary system built on expanding claims and perpetual dilution. Yet Treasury 1.0 takes an asset designed to solve the failures of fiat money and wraps it in the very financial engineering, perpetual issuance and dilution that created those failures in the first place. The financialisation of Bitcoin is inevitable. But there is a fundamental difference between financialising Bitcoin through fiat-based mechanisms and building financial infrastructure that is native to Bitcoin itself. This is precisely the distinction @shoneanstey makes between Treasury 1.0 (existing models) and Treasury 2.0 (the necessary evolution of those models). I’ll link his Treasury 2.0 whitepaper in the comments, alongside what I believe will ultimately emerge as the Treasury 3.0 model. Treasury 1.0 is a financial engineering model built around accumulating Bitcoin, with growth dependent on perpetual issuance. Treasury 2.0 evolves this into a Bitcoin-native operating model that generates cash flow in sats, creates genuine economic value and is not dependent on perpetual issuance to sustain itself. It combines Bitcoin accumulation with productive economic activity, while contributing directly to Bitcoin’s monetary use case, utility, adoption and the continued growth of its network. One perpetuates the existing system of expanding claims and monetary dilution. The other uses Bitcoin as the foundation for a new financial system, where capital formation, credit and cash flow can be built around an asset that does not need to be diluted to sustain itself. The objective should be to build on Bitcoin, not recreate the fiat system around it.

The more a financial engineering scheme scales, the more complex it must become to justify itself. What begins as a relatively simple Bitcoin accumulation strategy gradually evolves into an increasingly elaborate system of perpetual issuance, preferred securities, leverage, yield products and buybacks, all designed to sustain the premium and keep the machine running. But complexity cannot eliminate the underlying constraint. As the model scales, the law of diminishing BPS returns takes hold. Each additional dollar of capital becomes less effective at increasing Bitcoin per share. Dilution compounds, financing costs rise, and the premium becomes increasingly difficult to justify. Without an operating business generating cash flow to organically grow its Bitcoin per share, the model becomes increasingly reliant on financial engineering and favourable capital markets to sustain its growth. Eventually, the complexity of the structure begins to reveal the weakness of the underlying economics. Here’s the irony: Bitcoin was designed to offer an alternative to a monetary system built on expanding claims and perpetual dilution. Yet Treasury 1.0 takes an asset designed to solve the failures of fiat money and wraps it in the very financial engineering, perpetual issuance and dilution that created those failures in the first place. The financialisation of Bitcoin is inevitable. But there is a fundamental difference between financialising Bitcoin through fiat-based mechanisms and building financial infrastructure that is native to Bitcoin itself. This is precisely the distinction @shoneanstey makes between Treasury 1.0 (existing models) and Treasury 2.0 (the necessary evolution of those models). I’ll link his Treasury 2.0 whitepaper in the comments, alongside what I believe will ultimately emerge as the Treasury 3.0 model. Treasury 1.0 is a financial engineering model built around accumulating Bitcoin, with growth dependent on perpetual issuance. Treasury 2.0 evolves this into a Bitcoin-native operating model that generates cash flow in sats, creates genuine economic value and is not dependent on perpetual issuance to sustain itself. It combines Bitcoin accumulation with productive economic activity, while contributing directly to Bitcoin’s monetary use case, utility, adoption and the continued growth of its network. One perpetuates the existing system of expanding claims and monetary dilution. The other uses Bitcoin as the foundation for a new financial system, where capital formation, credit and cash flow can be built around an asset that does not need to be diluted to sustain itself. The objective should be to build on Bitcoin, not recreate the fiat system around it.

What if I told you $ASST has now hit its structural ceiling via $SATA and $SATS, just as all of retail has piled into it? It will quickly go from the most hyped BTCTC to one of the most disappointing going forward. Or I’m wrong, and all of retail wins…lol Bookmark this.