The Loudest Fight in Bitcoin Has 0% of the Hashrate.

By BitBrainers Editorial

If you spent any time in crypto feeds this weekend, you saw the war. Hashtags in display names, "power to the plebs," Michael Saylor and Adam Back wading in against it, accounts with six-figure followings declaring victory. The fight is over BIP-110, and judged purely by volume, it looks like the biggest thing happening to Bitcoin right now.

Then you look at the actual network, and the fight almost doesn't exist. That gap is the story.

What BIP-110 Actually Is

BIP-110, formally the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, is a proposed one-year change to Bitcoin's consensus rules that would cap how much arbitrary data a transaction can carry. Most new outputs would be limited to 34 bytes, OP_RETURN to 83 bytes, and data pushes to 256 bytes. The targets are Ordinals inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, Runes, and anything else that stores images or token data in block space. The rules would expire on their own after roughly a year.

It exists as a direct reaction to Bitcoin Core v30 removing the 80-byte OP_RETURN limit last October, a decision that split the community hard enough that Core's share of reachable nodes fell from around 98% to roughly 77%, with the stricter Bitcoin Knots client absorbing most of the difference. The proposal was published by a pseudonymous developer called Dathon Ohm, first circulated as BIP-444, and ships through Knots, not Core. Even the BIP editor who assigned it a number called it careless while publishing it anyway, because it met the repository's formal criteria.

One housekeeping note, because mainstream syndication is already garbling this: at least one widely republished article describes BIP-110 as a proposal to let miners vote on which valid block to accept. That is flatly wrong. It is a data-limit soft fork. If you see the miner-voting description, you are reading an outlet that did not check.

The Numbers The Hashtags Don't Mention

For BIP-110 to lock in, 55% of blocks in a single difficulty period need to signal support. That is 1,109 out of 2,016 blocks, and it is already a heavily discounted bar: traditional Bitcoin upgrades have used a 95% consensus standard.

Actual miner signaling has never risen above about 1% in any period since it began in March. In the current period it sits at zero. Not low. Zero.

No major mining pool has committed. Foundry USA, which controls about a third of network hashrate, has not moved. Antpool, at roughly 14%, has not moved. F2Pool refused outright. The signaling that does exist has come almost entirely from Ocean, the pool that mined the first supporting block on March 1.

Node numbers look better for supporters until you squint. Knots runs on somewhere between 8% and 23% of reachable nodes depending on the metric, but only an estimated 2% to 8% of listening nodes run software that can actually enforce BIP-110. Critics, including Jameson Lopp, point out that cheap Tor nodes make raw counts easy to inflate, and independent analysis suggests many BIP-110 nodes trace back to a small number of operators.

The Timeline Is Loud. The Data Is Quiet. We Read Both.

One weekly email separating what the feeds are shouting from what the network is actually doing.

Subscribe

Why The Big Names Picked This Weekend

The volume spiked now because the clock forces it. Enforcing nodes treat blocks 961,632 through 963,647 as a mandatory signaling window, which lands in early August, with activation projected around block 965,664 near September 1. This is the supporters' last stretch to build momentum, which is why the campaign is everywhere right now.

It is also why the heavyweights finally engaged. On Saturday, Michael Saylor posted that there are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam, arguing the proposal turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate currently valid, fee-paying transactions, and that the precedent is the real danger. Two days earlier he had posted fee data showing the network at 1 sat/vB, his evidence that Bitcoin has no spam problem worth a consensus change in the first place.

Adam Back's opposition cuts deeper, because he cannot be dismissed as a spam apologist. He invented Hashcash fighting spam three decades ago and has said Ordinals-style traffic has no place in the timechain. His position is that a consensus-level fix is worse than the disease: a quest to police other people that trades Bitcoin's credible neutrality for a filter that would not even filter well. His closing message to supporters was that they are free to fork away, but Bitcoin won't be joining them.

The supporters' case deserves a fair statement too, because it is not pure noise. Their argument is that a miner collects a fee once while every node stores the data forever, that filters at the policy level stopped working once Core removed them, and that Bitcoin's identity as money is worth defending at the consensus layer. Reasonable people hold that view. The network, so far, is not signing up for their remedy.

What Actually Matters In August

Whatever your politics on data in blocks, one practical fact survives the noise: enforcing nodes will start rejecting non-signaling blocks in early August. With signaling near zero, that does not change Bitcoin. It splits a small minority of nodes onto their own view of the chain while the rest of the network carries on.

But the transition window is not nothing. Core developer Jon Atack has publicly suggested pausing transfers around the mandatory signaling period, flagging the possibility of short reorgs, slower confirmations, and mempool divergence while the two node populations disagree. Supporters dispute the risk. The cheap insurance either way: avoid large or time-sensitive transactions in that window, and wait for extra confirmations if you can't.

The bigger takeaway is the one this whole episode keeps teaching. Follower counts, hashtags, and pile-ons measure tribal energy. Consensus is measured in signaled blocks, and right now those two numbers are off by orders of magnitude. When the discourse and the data disagree this badly, trust the data. It's the only participant that doesn't have an account.

---

Sources:
CoinDesk, Bitcoin's BIP-110 fork deadline nears with miner support at zero
Bitcoin.com News, Michael Saylor Declares Bitcoin Has 'No Spam Problem' as BIP-110 Debate Escalates
Cointelegraph, Solution worse than problem? Adam Back opposes BIP-110 Ordinals fix
Bitcoin.com News, Bitcoin Core Developer Warns Users to Pause BTC Transfers When BIP-110 Deadline Nears

This is market commentary, not financial advice. BitBrainers holds Bitcoin and other digital assets. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Do your own research.

— BitBrainers Editorial

The Ethereum Foundation Found a Real Bug. The Stat Everyone's Citing Isn't Theirs.

By BitBrainers Editorial

On July 9, the Ethereum Foundation's Protocol Security team published a report on an experiment: pointing coordinated AI agents at the code Ethereum's validators actually run. The agents found a real bug. It's the second part of that story that's more interesting than the bug itself.

What The Agents Actually Caught

The bug lives in libp2p's gossipsub, the peer-to-peer messaging layer Ethereum consensus clients use to talk to each other. Send one specially built message and a validator node crashes outright. No special access needed, no authentication, just a peer connection and the right payload.

It's now public as CVE-2026-34219, patched and credited to the Foundation's own team, fixed in libp2p-gossipsub v0.49.4. The flaw lived specifically in the Rust implementation, so clients built on a different language stack weren't exposed to this exact bug. That's Ethereum's client diversity doing its job: a language-specific flaw in one implementation doesn't automatically compromise every validator on the network.

Nikos Baxevanis, who wrote up the experiment, said finding the bug wasn't actually the surprising part.

The Part That Actually Surprised Them

In the team's own words, "the surprise was how little of the work went into finding them." Not the discovery. What came after it: telling the real bugs apart from ones that just looked real.

The team runs several agents in parallel against one codebase, each with a role. Recon turns a section of code into a specific, testable claim instead of a vague audit target. Hunting takes one hypothesis and tries to build something that actually reproduces the failure.

Gap-filling looks at what already got rejected and writes the next round of hypotheses, so the agents stop circling the same ground. Validation checks every surviving candidate independently and throws out duplicates. One rule overrides all four roles: nothing counts as a finding until it reproduces against the real, shipped code.

Three Ways The Agents Fooled Themselves

Most of what the agents flagged wasn't real, and the team was specific about how the false positives kept happening. The first is a panic that only shows up in a debug build, where extra safety checks exist that the shipped software never carries. Run it the way the code actually ships, and nothing breaks.

The second is a reproducer built on a value no real attacker could ever deliver, because every path an outside user actually controls rejects that value before it gets near the vulnerable code. The bug is real only against a function nothing reachable calls that way.

The third shows up in formal verification, where a mathematical proof technically passes but proves something trivial, or a weaker claim than the one that actually mattered. The proof is satisfied without ever constraining the behavior it was supposed to guarantee.

Most Crypto News Skips The Verification Step. We Don't.

One weekly email. The claims we checked, the ones that didn't hold up, and why.

Subscribe

The Number That Isn't Theirs

Here's where it gets interesting for anyone reading crypto press this week. The Foundation explicitly declined to publish its own acceptance rate. Baxevanis wrote that a number tied to one specific target would say more about that target than about the method, so he left it out.

The 86 percent figure now circulating across crypto outlets as if it's Ethereum's success rate actually belongs to Anthropic. It comes from a separate experiment, a property-based-testing agent run across the Python ecosystem, generating roughly a thousand candidate reports before ranking and expert review got the top tier down to that number. The Foundation cited it as a comparison point from another team's work, not as its own result.

That distinction matters more than it looks. One is Ethereum publishing an audited number about validator-critical code. The other is a stat about unrelated Python libraries getting repeated as if the Foundation said it about itself. Same instinct that makes us check a quote against its original source before it goes out here.

This Isn't The First Time

AI-assisted audits already have one real scalp this year. In May, security researcher Taylor Hornby used Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.8 in an audit that found a critical flaw in Zcash's Orchard privacy pool, a bug that had existed for roughly four years and could have let someone mint counterfeit ZEC without leaving an obvious trace on-chain. Zcash patched the immediate hole in a June 3 hard fork, but the deeper problem, no way to prove nothing was ever minted, needed a separate fix. That's Ironwood, formally NU6.3, set to activate July 28 and seal the old pool behind a checkpoint that would expose any counterfeit coins trying to move.

Cloudflare ran a frontier model against its own infrastructure with a similar setup and landed on the same conclusion the Ethereum team did: a narrow, well-scoped target beats scanning everything at once. Three different teams, three different codebases, and they converged on the same bottleneck without comparing notes first.

What Actually Changes From Here

The Foundation says disclosure practices are getting their own follow-up post, worth watching given how much of this space still runs on informal norms. It's also funding a dedicated grant round through its Ecosystem Support Program specifically for AI-assisted protocol security work, so this experiment is becoming a program, not a one-off.

The more immediate thing worth tracking is how fast client teams actually patch. A fixed vulnerability sitting in a GitHub advisory doesn't protect a validator that hasn't updated yet, and gossipsub touches every consensus client on the network. The bug getting fixed is only half the story. Patch adoption speed across the validator set is the other half, and it's the part that doesn't come with a press release.

---

Sources:
Ethereum Foundation Blog, The triage is the product: running AI agents against Ethereum's protocol code
Decrypt, Ethereum Foundation Turns AI Loose on ETH Network to Find Bugs Before Hackers Do
CoinDesk, AI found an Ethereum bug that could take validators offline, but humans had to prove it

This is market commentary, not financial advice. BitBrainers holds Bitcoin and other digital assets. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Do your own research.

307 Days on One Shelf. Bitcoin Keeps Coming Back to the Same $10,000 Band.

By BitBrainers Editorial

Bitcoin has now spent a cumulative 307 days inside the $60,000 to $70,000 band, per Glassnode, making it the third most traded $10,000 range in the asset's history. That count includes most of 2024, when price lived here for months before the run to $126K, plus the current stretch that began this winter. The only two longer ones were the 2018 bear market between $10,000 and $20,000, and the 2022 bear market between $20,000 and $30,000. The company this range keeps tells you what kind of market this is.

Ranges This Long Only Form in One Kind of Market

Both bands ahead of it on the list were bear market bottoms: 2018's $10-20K and 2022's $20-30K. Heavily traded ranges form where sellers have exhausted their urgency but buyers see no reason to chase, and the two sides grind against each other for months at a time.

That grind leaves a mark on the chain. Glassnode's cost-basis data shows roughly 6% of the entire circulating supply last changed hands between $58,000 and $64,000, the largest cluster of cost-basis levels in Bitcoin's history. Six percent of all Bitcoin now has its break-even point directly underneath the current price.

That cluster cuts both ways. It acts as support while holders defend their entry, and it becomes a wall of sellers eager to exit at break-even if price dips below it and later recovers. Worth saying plainly: the cluster's existence is also the bull case in miniature. Six percent of supply changing hands here means someone spent ten months buying everything that was sold, and that absorption is demand, not just risk.

The Line Running Through the Middle

The 200-week moving average sits near $62,873, almost exactly mid-range. Every major Bitcoin bear market has eventually found its floor around this line, and the few times price broke below it, the stay was brief.

So the range isn't random. Price keeps returning to and oscillating around the single most historically reliable long-term support in the asset's history, while half the market calls it a crash and the other half calls it a bottom.

Why This Range Isn't Quite Like the Other Two

There's a structural difference the record-chasing coverage skips. The 2018 and 2022 consolidations both formed after drawdowns of roughly 80% from the prior peak, at levels where nearly everyone who wanted out was already gone.

This range sits only about 50% below the October 2025 high of $126,198. The 2018 and 2022 ranges were exhaustion. This one is happening with far more of the market still holding positions from higher prices, which means far more potential supply overhead if price starts moving up.

CryptoQuant's Ki Young Ju put a related number on it this week: in 2011, $2.7 billion of inflows moved Bitcoin over 55,000%. Each cycle since has needed vastly more money for smaller gains. A $1.28 trillion asset doesn't get pushed out of a range by enthusiasm. It gets pushed out by flows, which is why the ETF numbers matter more than the pattern.

The most familiar range in Bitcoin. One email when it breaks.

We track the levels that matter, not the noise between them.

Subscribe

What the Market Is Actually Pricing

Prediction markets put numbers on the boredom. Polymarket traders give an 83% chance Bitcoin touches $65,000 at some point in July, but only 27% for $70,000, and a 46% chance of sliding back to $60,000 first.

Translated: the market expects the range to hold. High odds of tagging the nearby level, low odds of actually escaping the band, and nearly a coin flip on revisiting the bottom of it. The Fear & Greed index at 27 says sentiment agrees.

ETF flows tell the same undecided story. Thursday's $221.7 million inflow snapped a ten-day outflow streak, then Friday's $95 million outflow snapped the snap. Institutional money is doing exactly what price is doing: nothing, loudly.

The Part the Record Doesn't Tell You

Here is the honest limit of this statistic. The two longer consolidations resolved upward into new bull markets, which makes the pattern tempting to extrapolate. But two prior cases is not a base rate, it's a pair of anecdotes.

One honest note on the statistic itself: most coverage is reporting the 307 days as one continuous trap, and a glance at a weekly chart shows that's wrong, since price was above $100K as recently as November. It's cumulative time across visits. We made the broader argument about patterns and their marketing yesterday in Three Models Walk Into 2026, and it applies to this range too. History says long ranges near the 200-week average have resolved up. History also had a sample size that fits on one hand.

What has a mechanism rather than a pattern is liquidity. Our M2 deviation indicator flipped positive in June and has held there since, meaning global money supply is running ahead of Bitcoin's price while the range grinds on. If that deviation persists and the range still refuses to break upward by autumn, that tells you something real about how much the liquidity relationship has weakened.

---

The Levels That End This

Ranges this heavily traded don't resolve quietly. Below, the cost-basis cluster starts at $58,000, and losing it puts 6% of supply underwater at once. Above, $67,250 is the June high inside the band, and $70,000 is the ceiling that has held for ten months.

Until one of those gives way, every rally is a trade inside a box, and every dip is too. The cumulative count keeps climbing every week price stays here, and at this pace the band takes the number two spot from 2022 before the year is out. Whether that ends up being a bottom statistic or just a long pause depends entirely on which wall breaks first.

Sources:
CoinDesk: Bitcoin's $60,000-$70,000 range becomes third most traded range in history
TipRanks: Bitcoin's Price Is Trapped Right Now as One of History's Longest 307-Day Slumps Continues
Benzinga (via Yahoo Finance): Bitcoin Has Not Left the $60,000-$70,000 Range in 307 Days: What Is Happening?

This is market commentary, not financial advice. BitBrainers holds Bitcoin and other digital assets. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Do your own research.

Three Models Walk Into 2026. None of Them Survive Contact.

By BitBrainers Editorial

Right now, three popular frameworks are all looking at the same Bitcoin price near $64,500 and reaching three different verdicts. One says it's historically cheap. One says this whole year is a write-off. One says liquidity has already turned and price just hasn't noticed. They cannot all be load-bearing at the same time, and this year has been quietly stress-testing all three.

Verdict One: You Are in the Frozen Zone

The quantile model fits Bitcoin's entire price history into percentile bands along a logarithmic growth curve. On that curve, the low $60,000s sit near the 1st percentile, deep in the band the model labels "frozen." Historically, time spent down there marked accumulation phases: late 2015, the 2018 winter, the 2022 lows. The model's current readout puts fair value bands at $122K for the 33rd percentile and $354K for the 99th.

Its weakness is the thing that makes it look precise. The bands are a curve fitted to one asset's past, and this family of models has a habit of being quietly redrawn each time price escapes it. The original rainbow chart was recalibrated after 2021. Stock-to-flow was abandoned by most of its followers after 2022. A "risk score of 1%" means price is at an extreme of its own fitted history. It says nothing about the probability of going lower.

Verdict Two: This Year Was Cancelled in Advance

The four-year cycle template stacks Bitcoin's history into repeating columns: bear year, pre-bull year, two bull years. In that grid, 2026 lands in the red column with 2014, 2018 and 2022, and 2027 is scheduled as the recovery. Some versions of this chart go further and draw the 2026 candles as already falling, pasting the template forward in the same visual style as real data. A prediction, dressed as a pattern.

The sample size is three completed cycles. Three. Any pattern that has occurred three times can be a mechanism or a coincidence, and the only way to tell is to ask what drove it. The historical driver was a halving supply shock hitting a market dominated by retail flow. That is precisely the structure that has been dismantled over the past two years.

Models age. Mechanisms don't.

One email when something actually changes. No daily noise.

Subscribe

Verdict Three: Liquidity Already Turned

The third framework isn't a price pattern at all. Global M2 money supply, normalized against Bitcoin and lagged, has led major price moves with a delay that nobody agrees on but most estimates put between 70 and 110 days. On our chart, the M2 deviation flipped positive in June and has held there for six weeks: normalized M2 at 1.12 against normalized BTC at 1.02. Liquidity is running ahead of price.

We covered the mechanism and its unreliable lag in detail in Bitcoin Follows M2 With a Lag. Nobody Agrees on How Long. The short version: this one at least has a causal story. More dollars in the system eventually chase scarce assets. That is an economic mechanism, not a calendar superstition. It can still fail, but it fails for reasons you can examine, not because a four-year clock struck the wrong hour.

What 2026 Did to All Three

The year opened near $93,000. Under the cycle template, that number should not exist, a bear year is supposed to grind lower from the start, not open near highs. Then the Fed held, ETFs bled a record $4.5 billion in June, and price broke to a 21-month low near $58,200. Now the quantile model calls this level frozen and historically cheap, while the same June that crushed price is when the M2 deviation turned positive.

So the scorecard reads: the cycle template was wrong about January, the quantile model has been "cheap" since the mid $70,000s and bleeding the whole way down, and the liquidity signal is currently making a claim that won't be testable until autumn. Anyone telling you one of these frameworks called this year is grading on a curve.

The Participants Left, Not the Pattern

Here is the structural point underneath the chart drama. The cycle pattern was built on a specific market: halvings cutting new supply while demand came mostly from individuals reacting to price itself. That reflexive loop produced the boom-bust rhythm the templates memorized.

Today's marginal flow looks nothing like that. Spot ETFs move billions on allocation decisions made quarterly by committees. Corporate treasuries buy and sell against dividend schedules and debt covenants, as Strategy's new monetization framework just demonstrated. Miners increasingly earn from AI compute contracts that don't care what block rewards do. None of these participants know or care what year of the "cycle" it is. The pattern didn't break so much as its cast quit the show.

---

How to Actually Use This

A model earns attention in proportion to its mechanism, not its track record on three data points. The quantile bands are a useful way to see where price sits relative to its own history, nothing more. The four-year calendar deserves retirement honors and a quiet exit. The liquidity framework is the only one of the three making a falsifiable claim right now: if the positive M2 deviation persists and price hasn't followed within roughly a quarter, that model takes real damage too.

Our position hasn't changed since the M2 post. Watch the mechanism, hold it to a deadline, and treat every chart that fits the past perfectly as a description wearing a prediction costume. Three cycles is not a sample. It's an anecdote with better graphics.

This is market commentary, not financial advice. BitBrainers holds Bitcoin and other digital assets. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Do your own research.

When a Company "HODLs," Someone Else Decided That For Them

By BitBrainers Editorial

A person holding Bitcoin in self-custody answers to nobody about when to sell. A public company holding Bitcoin answers to a board, a dividend schedule, and an accounting standard. Strategy just gave the market a live look at the difference.

The Board Gave Itself Permission

On June 29, 2026, Strategy's board approved something it had never issued in nearly six years of buying Bitcoin: a standing authorization to sell it. The Digital Credit Capital Framework permits up to $1.25 billion in BTC sales, described as a monetization program rather than a liquidation, a permanent option on the table rather than an order.

The company still holds 843,775 BTC, the largest corporate Bitcoin position in the world, acquired at an average cost near $75,476 per coin. With Bitcoin trading in the low $60,000s, that position carries an unrealized loss of roughly $11 billion on paper.

The Bill That Doesn't Care What Bitcoin Does

The reason a "never sell" company built itself a selling mechanism has nothing to do with conviction. It has to do with STRC, Strategy's preferred stock, which now pays a 12% annual dividend as of July 1. That is a contractual cash obligation, and preferred shareholders don't care whether BTC is at 60K or 90K when the payment comes due.

Strategy's $2.55 billion USD reserve covers roughly 17 months of those obligations at current terms. When that runway shortens, or when raising fresh capital through stock or preferred issuance gets more expensive, the $1.25 billion authorization is the backstop. The market has also gotten less willing to pay a premium for MSTR relative to the Bitcoin it holds. That premium, the mNAV, has compressed from as high as 1.80x over the past year to around 1.11x now.

The mechanics behind the headlines, in your inbox.

No hopium, no price predictions. Just what's actually moving and why.

Subscribe

It's Already Happening, Just Not Through the Front Door

Strategy sold 3,588 BTC, about $216 million, between June 29 and July 5 to help fund that dividend payment. Per the company's own July 6 filing, that sale did not count against the $1.25 billion program at all.

VanEck's Matthew Sigel flagged the reason. The monetization program only caps sales used to rebuild the USD cash reserve specifically. Direct dividend-funding sales sit outside that number entirely. Strategy has more room to sell Bitcoin than the headline $1.25 billion figure suggests, and most of the market coverage hasn't caught up to that yet.

Strategy has technically sold before, once. In December 2022 it sold 704 BTC at $16,776 per coin, then repurchased 810 BTC two days later, a tax-loss harvesting move that banked a capital loss without reducing exposure. What makes June 29 different is that it isn't a one-off maneuver. It is permanent machinery for converting Bitcoin into cash whenever a fixed dividend needs funding.

The Bull Case Nobody's Wrong About

None of this means Strategy is in distress. The 3,588 coins sold amount to roughly 0.4% of the company's holdings, and the authorization itself has gone unused, with the company's own language stressing no obligation to sell exists. Sigel, who tracks the company closely, called it running "a hedge fund" trading its own capital stack, not a company in trouble, and said he's comfortable paying a low multiple for that structure.

A board building in optionality before it's forced to use it is closer to prudent governance than panic. The question this post cares about is narrower than bullish or bearish anyway: it's about who actually holds the decision to sell.

Where Individual HODL Diverges From Corporate HODL

A person holding Bitcoin in self-custody has no dividend clock, no board resolution, and no accounting rule forcing quarterly losses onto a public income statement. Strategy has all three. Under fair value accounting adopted in January 2025, every dollar Bitcoin drops shows up as a real loss on Strategy's books each quarter, whether or not a single coin gets sold.

That rule already showed its teeth this year. For the quarter ended June 30, 2026, Strategy reported an $8.32 billion loss on its digital asset holdings, a number that ran straight through the income statement regardless of whether a single coin traded hands. The market felt that loss before Strategy sold anything to address it.

An accounting rule, a board vote, and a preferred shareholder's dividend claim can all move Strategy's Bitcoin before the CEO forms an opinion on price. "HODL" as an individual ethos assumes the holder controls the decision. For a leveraged corporate treasury, that control is shared with people who were never asked whether they believe in Bitcoin. They just wanted their coupon paid.

Related on BitBrainers: Fear and Greed Says Buy. MVRV Says Not Yet. Long-Term Holders Aren't Waiting.

---

The Level That Actually Decides This

The scenario worth watching isn't whether Strategy sells more Bitcoin this month. It's whether BTC recovers back above that $75,476 average cost basis, because that line matters more than any headline dollar figure. Above it, this entire framework becomes a governance formality nobody remembers by next year. Below it for long enough, the $1.25 billion program stops being a backstop and starts looking like a schedule.

Sources:
Seeking Alpha: Strategy's Bitcoin sale raises fresh questions as $1.25B monetization plan remains unused
crypto.news: VanEck says Strategy's $135M BTC sale left $1.25B plan intact
CoinGecko: Strategy Bitcoin Treasuries: MSTR.US BTC Holdings Chart
Yahoo Finance: MicroStrategy Stops Just Hoarding Bitcoin, Now It Will Manage It Like Smart Money

[FLAG: insert your standard disclosure boilerplate here, not stored, so not invented]

— BitBrainers Editorial