Strive I watched this move several times. After issuing new shares, they immediately used $81.5 million to buy $BTC . On paper, their BTC holdings look even thicker, suggesting they’re continuing to pile on. But once you factor in the newly issued shares, the BTC per share only increases by about 1.4% compared with the last round. That figure actually says a lot. The stock price reflects the equity that shareholders hold. Issuing shares to buy coins is essentially diluting existing shareholders in exchange for a new position. If the per-share amount from that trade only rises by this small margin, then the appeal of the whole maneuver is clearly much weaker than before. From what I’ve observed over the past couple of years, the market’s pricing logic for companies hoarding BTC has changed. In the early days, simply announcing a purchase was enough to earn a premium. Now, investors care much more about what money you use to buy, and how much the BTC content per share increases after you buy. The underlying logic of BTC hasn’t changed; what has changed is the financial game around it. This time, Strive looks more like they’re using shareholders’ money to chase an asset that has already surged a lot. Diminishing marginal returns are right there in the numbers. I don’t think this is a bullish signal. On the contrary, it suggests the era of simply issuing shares and buying BTC is nearing its end. If you want to keep playing, you’ll need real cash flow—not repeated rounds of dilution. For ordinary holders, it’s enough to take this kind of news as information. Whether a company buys and whether BTC is worth holding are two different questions.