Jeff

This energy

😭

We all know how this ends…

Saylor's playbook: borrow against your balance sheet to buy more Bitcoin. His cost: ~9% (STRC, this week). Your cost on BSD: 0.1%. Same trade, 90x cheaper.

Strategy just bought 13,927 BTC. Funded entirely by issuing preferred stock. Read that again: they issued paper to acquire Bitcoin, because holding BTC is worth more than the cost of the paper. BSD does the same thing — without the Wall Street plumbing. Lock BTC, mint dollars, 0% interest rate, no shareholder dilution, no prospectus, no board approval. The institutional thesis and the DeFi thesis just converged. The only question left is how much middleman you want in between.

15% of all Bitcoin now sits on institutional balance sheets. 80% of institutional leaders view BTC as a core portfolio asset. Most of them still sell BTC to cover expenses. With BSD you can borrow dollars against your Bitcoin at 0% APY. Keep the stack. Fund the runway. The math is not complicated.

⚔️ Product comparison: BSD vs. Lava 🧮 Key Differences Collateral Locking Mechanism: Lava shifted in late 2025 from DLCs to a hybrid custodial model for Bitcoin collateral (via app updates and migrations), introducing significant counterparty and custody risks. BSD uses Stacks smart contracts to lock sBTC (1:1 Bitcoin-pegged) non-custodially on the Stacks Layer 2. Liquidation Process: Lava's liquidations rely on centralized infrastructure, oracles, and now custodial controls, amplifying centralization risks. BSD handles liquidations fully on-chain via decentralized oracles and smart contracts. Traditional Finance Integration: Lava emphasizes TradFi features, fiat ramps, and institutional/custodial elements (bolstered by its 2025 fundraising). BSD remains purely DeFi-native with no direct TradFi or custodial ties. ✅ Conclusion If you prioritize true non-custodial design, transparent on-chain processes, decentralized liquidations, and zero custody risk, BSD provides a far superior, Bitcoin-aligned DeFi experience on Stacks (with yield via stacking sBTC). If you accept hybrid custodial risks for easier TradFi/fiat access and institutional liquidity, Lava may still appeal—though recent changes highlight why many prefer fully decentralized options like BSD.

⚔️ Product comparison: BSD vs. Ledn 🧮 Key Differences Ledn is a CeFi lender that holds your Bitcoin in custody, while BSD is a smart contract–based lending protocol on Stacks that secures BTC via a decentralized network of validators. Ledn offers fixed-rate loans (around 10-12% APY plus additional fees), whereas BSD’s user‑set, variable rates tend to be significantly lower. Ledn’s conservative LTV is around 50%, while BSD achieves much higher efficiency (up to ~91% LTV). Ledn uses fixed loan terms with penalties for extension; BSD functions as a credit line, allowing flexible, fee‑free borrowing and repayment. Ledn distributes treasury‑backed stablecoins or cash, whereas BSD mints a synthetic asset native to Stacks. ✅ Conclusion If you value decentralized, non‑custodial collateral, lower borrowing costs, and flexible, credit lines, BSD is the superior choice. If you prefer traditional CeFi custodians with bank integration and regulated services, then Ledn may be your preferred option.

What is Zone21 up to? They publish a solid index of Bitcoin-backed loans. Clean layout, rates/LTV/custody all there. But... something's missing. The actual decentralized Bitcoin lenders (pure sBTC collateral, no custodians) that are orders of magnitude cheaper aren't on the list. 🤔 Their "DeFi" tab starts at ~7-14%. Meanwhile, real decentralized options on Stacks: 🥇 BSD @ 0% 🥈 Granite @ 1.96% 🥉 Zest @ 4.61% That's 10-100x cheaper on the low end. "Decentralized" feels more like a marketing sticker than a real filter. Makes you wonder about the incentives at play... BSD is still THE cheapest, most capital-efficient, most flexible Bitcoin-backed loan. Perpetual credit line, borrower-set rates, pure sBTC collateral, no counterparties, and effective rates negative with dual-stacking.

Cholesterol generally rises with age.

Welcome to 2026. While you were drinking champagne, our cracked devs confirmed that you can loop BSD to earn 22% APY on BTC. Thread👇

BSD can be looped to multiply Dual Stacking yields. In this demo I looped BSD → sBTC 5 times, resulting in ~22.5% APY on sBTC. Full details + calculator below 👇

Strategy holds 650,000 BTC, valued at ~$59B. They also have ~$689M in annual obligations, primarily interest on convertible notes and preferred dividends. So far Strategy has funded BTC buys via ATM equity, zero-coupon convertibles, perpetual preferreds. Zero-coupon convertibles could remain viable for the next two years but are somewhat dependent on BTC appreciation. But all discounted issuances dilute BTC-per-share: new shares below NAV cut BTC per existing share. Saylor should pivot to BTC loans. 20% of stack at 50% LTV unlocks ~$6B, covering 8-9 years of obligations, funds common dividends, enables dip buys. Tradeoffs exist. Loans encumber the Bitcoin. But long-term with the Strategy playbook, they face a fork: endless dilution or encumber the stack. Loans halt the dilution while preserving full upside on the unencumbered portion. Also the liquidity issue. CeFi/USDC DeFi hits spreads, scarcity premia, 5% T-bill costs—much worse than 0%. On-chain synthetics like BSD on Stacks fix that. Mint dollars against sBTC collateral, zero intrinsic cost, borrower-set rates, and the supply is only bound by BTC mcap. In theory, Saylor could lock 130k BTC into the BSD protocol and borrow 6B at 0% APY in the next 10 minutes. That scenario is far-fetched as they’re anti-defi and would opt for CeFi dollars. But other DATs can’t raise at 0% forever. One of them, and then all of them, will be forced to collateralize.

Don't worry @saylor i fixed it.

Thoughts on the Lava fiasco: Lava’s founder: “The main point of Lava is seeing collateral on-chain. It’s about non-rehypothecation, privacy, and non-custodial guarantees.” Five months later, Lava moved funds from self-custody to custody without user permission—or at least without clear communication. Many of those depositors explicitly picked Lava because that action was supposed to be impossible. Building in this area, it was always obvious that any real-world implementation of DLCs would include unilateral control over the oracle, which obviates the security assurances. It is security and decentralization theatre. Bitcoiners often distrust smart contracts more than DLCs, which is a reasonable instinct. But in this case, smart contracts are exactly what Lava users thought they were getting: transparent, real-time, on-chain, and tamper-proof assurances that no one can quietly rewrite the rules. There are several contracts on Stacks that actually offer these properties. BSD, for example, stores sBTC collateral in a smart-contract vault. Only the creator of the vault can add or remove collateral—no one else. The most invasive, Lava-like action the protocol could take would be to initiate a contract upgrade and migrate the collateral. But that process is fully transparent on-chain and comes with a two-day timelock, giving depositors ample time to exit. In short, smart-contract-based, on-chain systems like BSD lean on transparent rules because they deliver the assurances people actually want—visibility, predictability, and finality.