Massive fumble BY THE REFEREES, the ball comes out of the QBs hand and lands in front of where the QB released it.
Thats an incomplete pass. Objectively if the ball comes out od the QBs hand forward, that’s a pass. Absurdity.
Put this in a textbook so the receivers know not to turn around into a dangerous situation. You have to put a lot of the blame from this play on the QB and receiver for:
1. Putting the receiver in a position to get blown up
2. Not protecting yourself as a receiver when the QB lays you out into a vulnerable position, and proceeding to turn around directly into the defender.
The offense is allowed to lead with their helmets, but the defense isn’t?
Just put flags on them. I’m sure that will be much better for the player and fans.
Alec retweeted
Replying to @cjogara
Players today on defense have to remember you're not allowed to play physical football anymore
Replying to @mikewmunz @monster_models
Pref buyers should do what best fits their risk profile.
STRD has a BTC rating of 4.5x
SATS has an estimated BTC rating of 1.4x
STRD has over 3x as much BTC backing it as SATS.
So BTC would need to fall nearly 80% for STRD to hit a 1x BTC rating. For SATS, it only needs to fall 30%.
That is a serious difference in risk and it heavily favors Strategy’s prefs. Is getting an extra 1.4% per year enough to justify the additional risk?
In my opinion, no. I’m bullish on BTC, but to not acknowledge the additional risk, or to look only at “tail risks” on the downside without considering run of the mills downside risk, is not analysis I support. A BTC drop of 30% is not out of the question and it would be a massive blow to all BTCTCs, but especially Strive, in this case.
Alec retweeted
Elon Musk reportedly invests $1 billion in the parent company of CNN and CBS News, gaining an ownership stake in both networks.
Alec retweeted
New in the Monster Model: BTC rating charts for @Strategy and @Strive!
A preferred equity's $BTC rating is the company's #Bitcoin NAV divided by everything that ranks at or above that preferred: net convertible debt plus the notional of each senior or pari passu preferred. A rating of 1.0 means the Bitcoin just barely covers those claims. Higher ratings mean more cushion. The higher the rating, the more credit-worthy the instrument.
The Monster Model displays these BTC ratings across two new charts:
→ Strategy: $STRF, $STRC, $STRE, $STRK and $STRD
→ Strive: $SATA and $SATS
Each chart contains recent history plus projections under whatever parameters you set. (For now, the charts are not part of the default set, so you'll need to add them manually via the chart picker.)
Along with the charts, the BTC ratings — which were previously computed within the Monster Model but not displayed — now use net convertible debt, meaning convertible debt minus USD assets, floored at zero. Previously, the formula counted the full convertible balance without considering USD. Note that once a company's cash covers its convertible notes, that debt no longer counts against the preferreds. (This mimics how Strategy calculates BTC rating.)
The new charts also exposed a display bug. The first time I opened the Strive chart, the y-axis, from bottom to top, read: 0 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 6.
Despite this head-scratching sequence, nothing was wrong with the model's numbers. Each chart splits its y-axis into a fixed number of evenly spaced ticks. That works fine for prices and dollar totals, but BTC ratings live in a narrow band, often between 1 and 6. Spread across that band, the ticks landed at 0, 0.7, 1.4, 2.1 and so on, and rounding them to whole numbers produced the repeats.
Showing a decimal on every label would have fixed it, but it made the axes busier and harder to read. That works on both linear and log scales. The log case needed its own handling, since the default log ladder includes values like 0.8 and 2.5.
Both rating charts use the new label format. The Strive chart reads 0 1 2 3 4 5 6. The Strategy chart opens on a log scale, because STRF's rating can climb into the thousands once net debt reaches zero, and its labels run 1 2 3 ... 10 20 ... 1,000.
Special thanks to @altols for inspiring the new charts! 🥳🧡
monstermodels.live
$MSTR $ASST
Any chance we get a ‘BTC rating’ metric added for SATA and SATS on the Strive website?
Or, if not, is there a reason it’s not provided?
@Werkman @PunterJeff
I have a hard time arguing that STRD is inferior to SATS when STRD effective rate is 14.36% compared to SATS 15.75% effective, as STRD has a BTC rating of 4.6x (strategy.com/STRD) compared to SATS at IDK probably significantly lower, but it doesn’t show BTC rating on the website Strive.com/SATS
All dips are a blessing. Managed to snag 7 more shares this week.
Shoutout @saylor, @phongle, and my Mom and Dad. Absolute legends, the lot of you. Next stop: transferring a full block to my permanent HODL account. ALLLLLL ABOARD


















