I have a theory recently.
From US gov perspective, BTC is actually a threat to USD dominance and potentially US treasury demand.
Thus, US gov actually wants a volatile BTC market that is not very trustworthy.
How to do that?
BTC is designed to be decentralized, and there is no one single entity to tackle down.
MicroStrategy is the answer.
Well many people would be confused. Isn’t MicroStrategy one of the biggest buyers of BTC?
Sure.
But that is designed to be the case, as MicroStrategy needs to be influential in the first place.
However, MicroStrategy needs to add volatility and reduce credibility of BTC.
How to do that?
MicroStrategy added leverage to the game and used dividend tools like STRC.
BTC holders don’t have any obligation. But MicroStrategy now has dividend obligations, supported by a zero-yield asset.
In short, MicroStrategy adds a lot of risk to the system and makes BTC more like a Ponzi game.
That is exactly the goal of US gov.
Maybe that’s why Saylor and Trump are close.