Published 10 Jun 2026, 14:16 UTC · fetched 14 Oct 2026, 10:57 UTC
K A L E O
@CryptoKaleo
In reply to · 10 Jun 2026, 14:06 UTC · context given to the AI
@CryptoKaleo The first warning was when they reneged on 2.5x mnav issuance guidance. https://t.co/MNLE3llaYWWas a huge red-flag in hindsight, but I justified it as defensible enough to the BTC Yield narrative that I wrote it off. I just think I was also so disillusioned by the growth in AI / tech / commodities, etc. over the last year it made me look for any way possible to justify my bullish bias in Bitcoin that it *had* to eventually catch up. Embarrassing to say especially with how vocally and obnoxiously bullish I've been through the majority of the last 8 months of bleeding in the market. Still incredibly bullish on the industry and think it recovers stronger from this mess, because despite the post 2020 btc maximalists on the timeline, Bitcoin != MSTR, and it's success isn't dependent on one arrogant deranged figurehead at the top.View original on X ↗
Deterministic: the same prices and policy always give the same result
r = 62657.76 / 62146.06 − 1 = +0.82%d × r = +0.82% (neutral only if the price is unchanged) → correctOnly the end-of-horizon price counts. A brief move followed by a reversal is not a success. Read the methodology
Uses only text available at publication time
Think the interpretation or outcome is wrong? Sign in with X to request a correction, so reviewers know who is asking.
Sign in to request a correction