Is Strategy going to sell Bitcoin for compensation after being sued collectively? Bro, stop joking!! Although a bit tired, I really enjoy constructive discussions and thank the judge for their seriousness. I will continue to popularize science. Additionally, the initial settlement amount was not $600 million, but that's not important. The key should be why MSTR was sued collectively back then, and will similar situations occur again now? MSTR did suffer a major securities lawsuit in 2000, and the core of that round was not the stock price drop that made investors unhappy, but rather the financial report issues. This is the most fundamental issue!! Financial report!! Financial report!! Financial report!! MicroStrategy announced at the time that it would restate its financial data for 1998 and 1999, with the issue mainly focused on the recognition of software contract revenue. The company recognized some revenue that should not have been recognized in advance, resulting in an overestimation of previously disclosed revenue and profits. As soon as the financial report was restated, the market immediately reacted, and the stock price plummeted by more than 60% in one day, causing huge losses for investors and naturally leading to a class action lawsuit. The logic is simple. The company used to tell the market that it had made so much money, had such high income, and had such good growth, and the market gave a valuation based on this story. As a result, it was later discovered that the financial report needed to be restated, and the revenue and profit were not as good as before, and even some profits turned into losses. Investors naturally believed that they saw the wrong financial report when buying, and the losses came from the company's erroneous disclosure. By the way, I previously reported on a company that wanted to short Nvidia and gave a similar statement, saying that Nvidia actually has business in China, but only obtained it through intermediaries, so reopening business with China will not help Nvidia's financial report. Report address: https://(x.com)/HyrexNi/status/2054673554336346168? s=20 Returning to the main topic, in the 2000 MSTR lawsuit, the financial report was a formal disclosure document, revenue recognition was an accounting issue, restatement was the company's own acknowledgement that previous statements needed to be modified, and the stock price crash and restatement time were also highly similar. The narrative is very clear, the company disclosed problems, the market re priced, and investors lost money. But this is not the same as the controversy currently facing STRC or Strategy. If someone wants to sue Strategy or STRC now, the core is likely not financial fraud, but misleading marketing and risk disclosure. For example, has Saylor or Strategy portrayed STRC too much as a stable income product, convinced investors that it is a low-risk tool suitable for high interest retirement accounts, or downplayed the relationship between STRC and Bitcoin, MSTR financing windows, and the uncertainty of preferred stock dividends. There is room for litigation in this direction, but it is much more difficult than in 2000. Because the official documents of STRC already include a significant amount of risk, dividends need to be announced by the board of directors before payment can be made. Cash dividends are not guaranteed, and Strategy only intends to make STRC close to $100 in trading through dividend yield adjustments. This goal may fail, and the company can also change this intention. As long as these contents are written in black and white in the document, Strategy's defense line will be much thicker than the revenue restatement case back then. So will we be sued collectively now? I think it's just possible. The US market is like this, as long as the product scale is large enough, the investor losses are obvious enough, and the company's rhetoric is aggressive enough, the plaintiff law firm will definitely find an angle. MSTR currently has class action lawsuits surrounding Bitcoin treasury strategy, volatility risk, non GAAP indicators, and related accounting impacts, and it is not surprising that there will be another round around STRC in the future. But will it replicate the situation in 2000? Not necessarily!! If only STRC falls below 100, or investors feel that they have lost money after buying high-yield preferred stocks, this is not enough. It is normal for preferred stocks to trade at a discount, and it is also normal for high dividend products to drop in price. The plaintiff needs to prove that Strategy has specific and significant misleading information, such as explicitly stating that it is guaranteed to break even, low-risk, suitable for stable interest collection in retirement accounts, and that the price must be maintained around 100, or internally knowing that the target customers and risks do not match, but changing to a safer version externally. If the plaintiff can obtain such evidence, it is indeed possible, but the problem is as mentioned earlier, Strategy has clearly written down all the risk points in black and white, and even admitted that it may not issue dividends to the party involved!!! So relying solely on "STRC fell", "Saylor's optimism", and "investors lost money" makes it difficult to establish fraud. Securities litigation in the United States cannot be won by losing money, especially in products like STRC that have already disclosed many risks in documents. The threshold that plaintiffs need to cross is not low. So my judgment is that there may be a probability of Strategy and STRC being sued collectively, but this is different now than in 2000. In 2000, there were hard issues with financial statements and revenue recognition, and now it is more likely to be a dispute between marketing narrative and risk disclosure. That is to say, the settlement in 2000 was due to a real mistake, but there is currently no sign of it, so it is not a class action lawsuit that will result in compensation. This is completely wrong!!!