"STRC" which Strategy is heavily promoting, is not an innovative product that emerged from a breakthrough idea. Rather, it appears to be a product that emerged because the company's existing funding methods were no longer sufficient. They tried this. They tried that. But the capital did not come in at the pace they needed. And eventually, STRC was the result. Today, Strategy funding structure is far more diversified than it was in the past. If that diversification is working as intended, capital should be flowing through multiple channels. But the actual data tells a different story. Institutional capital is leaving. Holdings of convertible notes (NOTE) are declining, and institutional holdings of STRK are also falling. Meanwhile, liquidity is becoming increasingly concentrated in STRC. The problem is that STRC is not primarily supported by institutional capital. It is largely driven by retail oriented liquidity that is highly sensitive to dividend yields and short-term returns. When you look at Strategy recent actions and especially Saylor's you see constant explanations, justifications, and attempts to reinforce the narrative. I do not believe this is a healthy direction. In fact, I believe the current structure contains significantly greater downside risk than the market currently recognizes.(mignolet)