Expert-level post. I may have reverse-engineered what @Strategy is doing with $STRC and $MSTR. This is not really a “preferred stock” story. It’s a synthetic internal yield curve for capital funding. The real spread is NOT: STRC yield vs SOFR The real spread is: MSTR market premium (mNAV) vs STRC funding cost. Strategy itself has effectively identified ~1.22x mNAV as an issuance floor. But once you layer in an 11.5% STRC funding cost, 1.22x is STILL negative carry. That means: (1.22 - 1.22) - 11.5% = -11.5% So the system only works if BTC/share growth (their “BTC Yield”) exceeds the funding drag. This is why the 10% BTC Yield (increase in ₿PS) target matters so much and is most likely a low number and easy for them to beat. It’s not a random KPI. It’s a reflexive sustainability threshold. The actual breakeven appears closer to ~1.33x mNAV: 1.33 - 1.22 ≈ 11.5% Below that, the curve is inverted. Above that, positive reflexive carry resumes. The heat map below is effectively a synthetic sovereign-style funding curve for Strategy. Red = destructive financing regime Orange = weak equilibrium Green = positive reflexive carry Dark green = convex accretion regime This is also why mNAV matters far more now than it did a year ago. Before STRC, mNAV was mostly a valuation metric. After STRC, mNAV became a funding spread.