Offshore
Video
EndGame Macro
The DOGE Disappearance: What Washington Didn’t End But Just Buried Deeper
This is a 3 part thread…
What’s happening around Musk isn’t just a billionaire with big toys. It’s a quiet redesign of how U.S. power is projected.
Instead of the old model with big federal agencies, clear lines of command, public budgets, you’re getting a privatized stack of critical infrastructure, all sitting inside one man’s corporate empire.
•SpaceX / Starlink are now the backbone of Western space logistics and battlefield comms. Starlink isn’t just Wi‑Fi for rural areas; it’s a front line asset in Ukraine and is already modeled in war gaming as a redundant command and control grid for a Taiwan scenario if traditional infrastructure gets knocked out in a first strike.
•Starshield, the classified arm, is deeply wired into U.S. orbital surveillance and targeting. De facto, Musk is logistics commander for large parts of American space warfare without holding a rank or requiring a vote in Congress.
•Tesla And Dojo started as self driving infrastructure, but the same hardware and training pipelines map cleanly onto military AI…drone swarms, ISR pattern recognition, convoy routing, autonomy at the edge. That’s a ready made substrate for battlefield AI, years ahead of the normal Pentagon procurement cycle.
•Tesla’s supply chain…lithium, nickel, cobalt, refining and batteries inside the U.S. looks a lot like a strategic energy reserve. In a resource or shipping shock, that can pivot from EVs to prioritized military energy logistics.
•X (and now xAI) is information warfare plus cognition. X is a real time narrative router. xAI is being plugged into government and financial institutions via partnerships with Palantir and TWG Global, and through a GSA framework that gives federal agencies cheap access to Musk’s models.
Put those pieces together and you effectively have a Private Pentagon…space, comms, energy, AI, and narrative control owned by a civilian, increasingly treated as national infrastructure.
This didn’t happen by accident. It’s a response to collapsing trust in institutions and sclerotic bureaucracy. Instead of rebuilding state capacity the hard way, Washington has been leaning on hyper centralized entrepreneurs to bolt a new, agile layer on top of a decaying state. The bet is simple…privatize the critical functions, keep the sovereign branding.
The upside is speed. The downside is obvious: structural dependence on a single actor whose incentives, creditors, or personal safety you don’t fully control.
tweet
The DOGE Disappearance: What Washington Didn’t End But Just Buried Deeper
This is a 3 part thread…
What’s happening around Musk isn’t just a billionaire with big toys. It’s a quiet redesign of how U.S. power is projected.
Instead of the old model with big federal agencies, clear lines of command, public budgets, you’re getting a privatized stack of critical infrastructure, all sitting inside one man’s corporate empire.
•SpaceX / Starlink are now the backbone of Western space logistics and battlefield comms. Starlink isn’t just Wi‑Fi for rural areas; it’s a front line asset in Ukraine and is already modeled in war gaming as a redundant command and control grid for a Taiwan scenario if traditional infrastructure gets knocked out in a first strike.
•Starshield, the classified arm, is deeply wired into U.S. orbital surveillance and targeting. De facto, Musk is logistics commander for large parts of American space warfare without holding a rank or requiring a vote in Congress.
•Tesla And Dojo started as self driving infrastructure, but the same hardware and training pipelines map cleanly onto military AI…drone swarms, ISR pattern recognition, convoy routing, autonomy at the edge. That’s a ready made substrate for battlefield AI, years ahead of the normal Pentagon procurement cycle.
•Tesla’s supply chain…lithium, nickel, cobalt, refining and batteries inside the U.S. looks a lot like a strategic energy reserve. In a resource or shipping shock, that can pivot from EVs to prioritized military energy logistics.
•X (and now xAI) is information warfare plus cognition. X is a real time narrative router. xAI is being plugged into government and financial institutions via partnerships with Palantir and TWG Global, and through a GSA framework that gives federal agencies cheap access to Musk’s models.
Put those pieces together and you effectively have a Private Pentagon…space, comms, energy, AI, and narrative control owned by a civilian, increasingly treated as national infrastructure.
This didn’t happen by accident. It’s a response to collapsing trust in institutions and sclerotic bureaucracy. Instead of rebuilding state capacity the hard way, Washington has been leaning on hyper centralized entrepreneurs to bolt a new, agile layer on top of a decaying state. The bet is simple…privatize the critical functions, keep the sovereign branding.
The upside is speed. The downside is obvious: structural dependence on a single actor whose incentives, creditors, or personal safety you don’t fully control.
tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
The Circus Is the Signal: What William Cooper Saw Before Everyone Else
William Cooper is one of those figures who doesn’t fit into a neat box. He served in Naval intelligence, hosted late night broadcasts, and ultimately wrote Behold a Pale Horse, a book that became an underground classic long before the internet amplified voices like his. For decades it’s been one of the most requested and most circulated non religious books in the U.S. prison system, sitting next to the Bible, Malcolm X, and 48 Laws of Power. That alone says something. Prison libraries aren’t filled with trend chasing readers; they’re filled with people trying to understand systems of power, manipulation, control. When thousands of inmates reach for the same book year after year, it’s because it’s touching something they instinctively recognize.
Cooper’s book is sprawling and controversial. Some claims are unverifiable, some documents questionable, some conclusions dramatic. But the reason the book survives, the reason it keeps passing from hand to hand is because Cooper captures something people feel but rarely articulate…the sense that the official story is almost never the real story, and that powerful institutions shape what the public pays attention to.
That’s the same energy in this clip.
Cooper is talking about the operating logic of empire. When a society becomes unstable…politically, economically, spiritually the people running it don’t solve the rot. They manage perception. Rome had its bread and circuses. We have billion dollar stadiums, celebrity athletes, sports networks, betting apps, endless controversy cycles. Keep people emotionally invested in games and rivalries, and they have less energy to question who’s steering the system or where the money goes.
For Cooper, entertainment isn’t just entertainment, it’s strategy. Spectacle becomes a pressure valve. It absorbs public frustration, keeps people distracted, prevents them from asking harder questions about war, debt, corruption, surveillance, or the financial plumbing that determines who thrives and who never gets a chance. In Rome, the circus wasn’t just a show; it was a governance tool. Cooper’s argument is that modern culture runs on a more sophisticated version of the same template.
This is why his work still hits a nerve. You don’t have to believe every claim in Behold a Pale Horse to feel the weight of the pattern he’s describing. He warned about surveillance long before digital tracking became normal. He warned about manufactured crises before crisis driven governance became a daily reality. He warned about media distraction before social feeds turned into a constant dopamine drip. The specifics may be debatable, but the direction of the trend has aged with uncomfortable accuracy.
And that’s why this clip feels so relevant now. We live in a moment where global systems are strained, governments are buried in debt, conflicts are spreading, and ordinary people feel like something is off even if they can’t name it. And whenever societies reach that point, the distractions grow louder and more immersive. The circus expands.
Cooper’s point wasn’t that sports are bad. It was that the biggest shows in a declining society usually serve a purpose. They fill the mental space where awareness and skepticism used to live. They keep people entertained while deeper decisions happen out of sight.
That’s why Behold a Pale Horse still circulates so widely in the places society ignores. People who’ve been crushed by the system often see its architecture more clearly than the people still mesmerized by the spectacle. You don’t read Cooper for comfort. You read him because he forces you to look past the circus and toward whatever the circus is meant to hide.
tweet
The Circus Is the Signal: What William Cooper Saw Before Everyone Else
William Cooper is one of those figures who doesn’t fit into a neat box. He served in Naval intelligence, hosted late night broadcasts, and ultimately wrote Behold a Pale Horse, a book that became an underground classic long before the internet amplified voices like his. For decades it’s been one of the most requested and most circulated non religious books in the U.S. prison system, sitting next to the Bible, Malcolm X, and 48 Laws of Power. That alone says something. Prison libraries aren’t filled with trend chasing readers; they’re filled with people trying to understand systems of power, manipulation, control. When thousands of inmates reach for the same book year after year, it’s because it’s touching something they instinctively recognize.
Cooper’s book is sprawling and controversial. Some claims are unverifiable, some documents questionable, some conclusions dramatic. But the reason the book survives, the reason it keeps passing from hand to hand is because Cooper captures something people feel but rarely articulate…the sense that the official story is almost never the real story, and that powerful institutions shape what the public pays attention to.
That’s the same energy in this clip.
Cooper is talking about the operating logic of empire. When a society becomes unstable…politically, economically, spiritually the people running it don’t solve the rot. They manage perception. Rome had its bread and circuses. We have billion dollar stadiums, celebrity athletes, sports networks, betting apps, endless controversy cycles. Keep people emotionally invested in games and rivalries, and they have less energy to question who’s steering the system or where the money goes.
For Cooper, entertainment isn’t just entertainment, it’s strategy. Spectacle becomes a pressure valve. It absorbs public frustration, keeps people distracted, prevents them from asking harder questions about war, debt, corruption, surveillance, or the financial plumbing that determines who thrives and who never gets a chance. In Rome, the circus wasn’t just a show; it was a governance tool. Cooper’s argument is that modern culture runs on a more sophisticated version of the same template.
This is why his work still hits a nerve. You don’t have to believe every claim in Behold a Pale Horse to feel the weight of the pattern he’s describing. He warned about surveillance long before digital tracking became normal. He warned about manufactured crises before crisis driven governance became a daily reality. He warned about media distraction before social feeds turned into a constant dopamine drip. The specifics may be debatable, but the direction of the trend has aged with uncomfortable accuracy.
And that’s why this clip feels so relevant now. We live in a moment where global systems are strained, governments are buried in debt, conflicts are spreading, and ordinary people feel like something is off even if they can’t name it. And whenever societies reach that point, the distractions grow louder and more immersive. The circus expands.
Cooper’s point wasn’t that sports are bad. It was that the biggest shows in a declining society usually serve a purpose. They fill the mental space where awareness and skepticism used to live. They keep people entertained while deeper decisions happen out of sight.
That’s why Behold a Pale Horse still circulates so widely in the places society ignores. People who’ve been crushed by the system often see its architecture more clearly than the people still mesmerized by the spectacle. You don’t read Cooper for comfort. You read him because he forces you to look past the circus and toward whatever the circus is meant to hide.
tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
These Copper Peaks Come Once a Decade… and They Don’t Last.
Every time the U.S. hits a major copper inventory spike, it’s because policy jolted the timeline. Tariffs make everyone panic buy at once. Importers pull months of future orders forward, ships rush in early, and warehouses swell. It feels like a glut, but it’s really a distortion.
And the U.S. has only seen this kind of distortion a few times in the last 30 years. The dot com era surge, the first round of Trump tariffs, and now this second round. Three spikes, three moments where copper stockpiles shot to the very top of the historical range and in each case, the buildup didn’t last.
The Historical Echo
During the dot com spike, inventories jumped to levels roughly four times the prior baseline. Once the tariff and supply chain panic faded, those stocks were eaten through fast. The drawdown erased most of the spike in short order. Tariff 1.0 played out the same way…a big, sudden rise followed by a near straight line collapse in visible inventories. Not because demand exploded, but because the front loaded imports created an artificial quiet period afterward where consumption outpaced shipments.
You’re seeing the same setup now. The scale of the move. basically matching the dot com era extreme tells you this isn’t about some slow structural oversupply. It’s a tariff window getting slammed shut and everyone trying to beat the deadline.
The Forward Look
What the chart hints at, without screaming it, is that big copper inventory spikes tend to reverse the same way they build…fast. Once the tariff pull forward effect washes out and imports settle down, the metal starts disappearing out of warehouses at a speed that surprises people who only looked at the top line number. Historically, those peaks give way to 70–90% drawdowns as the balance normalizes.
So this is a temporary buildup created by policy and the past tells you the comedown can be just as dramatic as the climb.
tweet
These Copper Peaks Come Once a Decade… and They Don’t Last.
Every time the U.S. hits a major copper inventory spike, it’s because policy jolted the timeline. Tariffs make everyone panic buy at once. Importers pull months of future orders forward, ships rush in early, and warehouses swell. It feels like a glut, but it’s really a distortion.
And the U.S. has only seen this kind of distortion a few times in the last 30 years. The dot com era surge, the first round of Trump tariffs, and now this second round. Three spikes, three moments where copper stockpiles shot to the very top of the historical range and in each case, the buildup didn’t last.
The Historical Echo
During the dot com spike, inventories jumped to levels roughly four times the prior baseline. Once the tariff and supply chain panic faded, those stocks were eaten through fast. The drawdown erased most of the spike in short order. Tariff 1.0 played out the same way…a big, sudden rise followed by a near straight line collapse in visible inventories. Not because demand exploded, but because the front loaded imports created an artificial quiet period afterward where consumption outpaced shipments.
You’re seeing the same setup now. The scale of the move. basically matching the dot com era extreme tells you this isn’t about some slow structural oversupply. It’s a tariff window getting slammed shut and everyone trying to beat the deadline.
The Forward Look
What the chart hints at, without screaming it, is that big copper inventory spikes tend to reverse the same way they build…fast. Once the tariff pull forward effect washes out and imports settle down, the metal starts disappearing out of warehouses at a speed that surprises people who only looked at the top line number. Historically, those peaks give way to 70–90% drawdowns as the balance normalizes.
So this is a temporary buildup created by policy and the past tells you the comedown can be just as dramatic as the climb.
Now this is interesting
US copper stockpiles just hit dot-com-glut levels
Tariff 2.0 pulls imports forward and stuffs warehouses.
When the window closes, those tons get consumed. Violent drawdowns can follow https://t.co/lHSYTEqPfQ tweet
Offshore
Video
EndGame Macro
How the Middle Class Slowly Slipped Out of the Picture
Back in the 60s and 70s, the middle dominated. Most families lived in that $50k–$150k band (in today’s dollars), and the rest clustered below it. The upper income slice was tiny.
Over the decades, that balance flips. The middle band thins out, the lower band shrinks a bit, and the upper income segment grows. On paper, that sounds like progress with more people crossing into higher earning power. But the chart is really describing polarization, not broad prosperity. The middle isn’t holding its ground the way it used to. It’s leaking outward, and the country feels different because of it.
Why It Doesn’t Feel Like a Win
Here’s the part that gets lost if you only look at the colors: the meaning of upper income has changed. A household making $150k today often isn’t living the way a top tier household lived in 1975. It’s usually two incomes, not one. It’s weighed down by housing costs, childcare, healthcare, and education, all of which rose faster than the CPI that this chart uses to adjust for inflation. So people who are technically in the gray band often don’t feel like they’ve made it, because their expenses belong to a completely different era.
And the real divide isn’t just income anymore, it’s assets. The people who climbed into that gray zone tend to own the homes, stocks, and businesses that exploded in value during the last 30 years. Those caught in the blue and black zones generally don’t. That’s where the inequality sharpens. The chart shows income, but the lived experience is shaped by wealth.
The Deeper Current
When you step back, this line up mirrors everything we know about the last half century with the decline of manufacturing jobs, the fall of unions, the rise of global supply chains, the explosion of tech, and the steady march of rising asset prices fueled by decades of low interest rates. Higher skills and capital earned outsized rewards, while the traditional middle lost the stability it once had.
So the chart is about how the center of American life slowly hollowed out, leaving a larger group climbing upward, a stubborn group stuck at the bottom, and fewer people anchored in the secure middle. That shift affects politics, culture, mobility…everything. It’s the quiet backdrop to the entire national mood.
tweet
How the Middle Class Slowly Slipped Out of the Picture
Back in the 60s and 70s, the middle dominated. Most families lived in that $50k–$150k band (in today’s dollars), and the rest clustered below it. The upper income slice was tiny.
Over the decades, that balance flips. The middle band thins out, the lower band shrinks a bit, and the upper income segment grows. On paper, that sounds like progress with more people crossing into higher earning power. But the chart is really describing polarization, not broad prosperity. The middle isn’t holding its ground the way it used to. It’s leaking outward, and the country feels different because of it.
Why It Doesn’t Feel Like a Win
Here’s the part that gets lost if you only look at the colors: the meaning of upper income has changed. A household making $150k today often isn’t living the way a top tier household lived in 1975. It’s usually two incomes, not one. It’s weighed down by housing costs, childcare, healthcare, and education, all of which rose faster than the CPI that this chart uses to adjust for inflation. So people who are technically in the gray band often don’t feel like they’ve made it, because their expenses belong to a completely different era.
And the real divide isn’t just income anymore, it’s assets. The people who climbed into that gray zone tend to own the homes, stocks, and businesses that exploded in value during the last 30 years. Those caught in the blue and black zones generally don’t. That’s where the inequality sharpens. The chart shows income, but the lived experience is shaped by wealth.
The Deeper Current
When you step back, this line up mirrors everything we know about the last half century with the decline of manufacturing jobs, the fall of unions, the rise of global supply chains, the explosion of tech, and the steady march of rising asset prices fueled by decades of low interest rates. Higher skills and capital earned outsized rewards, while the traditional middle lost the stability it once had.
So the chart is about how the center of American life slowly hollowed out, leaving a larger group climbing upward, a stubborn group stuck at the bottom, and fewer people anchored in the secure middle. That shift affects politics, culture, mobility…everything. It’s the quiet backdrop to the entire national mood.
tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
How the Middle Class Slowly Slipped Out of the Picture
Back in the 60s and 70s, the middle dominated. Most families lived in that $50k–$150k band (in today’s dollars), and the rest clustered below it. The upper income slice was tiny.
Over the decades, that balance flips. The middle band thins out, the lower band shrinks a bit, and the upper income segment grows. On paper, that sounds like progress with more people crossing into higher earning power. But the chart is really describing polarization, not broad prosperity. The middle isn’t holding its ground the way it used to. It’s leaking outward, and the country feels different because of it.
Why It Doesn’t Feel Like a Win
Here’s the part that gets lost if you only look at the colors: the meaning of upper income has changed. A household making $150k today often isn’t living the way a top tier household lived in 1975. It’s usually two incomes, not one. It’s weighed down by housing costs, childcare, healthcare, and education, all of which rose faster than the CPI that this chart uses to adjust for inflation. So people who are technically in the gray band often don’t feel like they’ve made it, because their expenses belong to a completely different era.
And the real divide isn’t just income anymore, it’s assets. The people who climbed into that gray zone tend to own the homes, stocks, and businesses that exploded in value during the last 30 years. Those caught in the blue and black zones generally don’t. That’s where the inequality sharpens. The chart shows income, but the lived experience is shaped by wealth.
The Deeper Current
When you step back, this line up mirrors everything we know about the last half century with the decline of manufacturing jobs, the fall of unions, the rise of global supply chains, the explosion of tech, and the steady march of rising asset prices fueled by decades of low interest rates. Higher skills and capital earned outsized rewards, while the traditional middle lost the stability it once had.
So the chart is about how the center of American life slowly hollowed out, leaving a larger group climbing upward, a stubborn group stuck at the bottom, and fewer people anchored in the secure middle. That shift affects politics, culture, mobility…everything. It’s the quiet backdrop to the entire national mood.
tweet
How the Middle Class Slowly Slipped Out of the Picture
Back in the 60s and 70s, the middle dominated. Most families lived in that $50k–$150k band (in today’s dollars), and the rest clustered below it. The upper income slice was tiny.
Over the decades, that balance flips. The middle band thins out, the lower band shrinks a bit, and the upper income segment grows. On paper, that sounds like progress with more people crossing into higher earning power. But the chart is really describing polarization, not broad prosperity. The middle isn’t holding its ground the way it used to. It’s leaking outward, and the country feels different because of it.
Why It Doesn’t Feel Like a Win
Here’s the part that gets lost if you only look at the colors: the meaning of upper income has changed. A household making $150k today often isn’t living the way a top tier household lived in 1975. It’s usually two incomes, not one. It’s weighed down by housing costs, childcare, healthcare, and education, all of which rose faster than the CPI that this chart uses to adjust for inflation. So people who are technically in the gray band often don’t feel like they’ve made it, because their expenses belong to a completely different era.
And the real divide isn’t just income anymore, it’s assets. The people who climbed into that gray zone tend to own the homes, stocks, and businesses that exploded in value during the last 30 years. Those caught in the blue and black zones generally don’t. That’s where the inequality sharpens. The chart shows income, but the lived experience is shaped by wealth.
The Deeper Current
When you step back, this line up mirrors everything we know about the last half century with the decline of manufacturing jobs, the fall of unions, the rise of global supply chains, the explosion of tech, and the steady march of rising asset prices fueled by decades of low interest rates. Higher skills and capital earned outsized rewards, while the traditional middle lost the stability it once had.
So the chart is about how the center of American life slowly hollowed out, leaving a larger group climbing upward, a stubborn group stuck at the bottom, and fewer people anchored in the secure middle. That shift affects politics, culture, mobility…everything. It’s the quiet backdrop to the entire national mood.
tweet
Offshore
Video
EndGame Macro
A Hypothetical, Contrarian Look at the JPM AND MSTR Drama
The Set Up
If you strip away the noise and just look at the filings, the story everyone’s passing around about JPM being existentially short MSTR doesn’t hold up. Their 13F shows them long roughly 2.38 million shares with a mix of calls and puts, exactly what you’d expect from a big bank running a hedged, client driven book, not someone caught in a catastrophic short position. And at the same time, MicroStrategy is facing a very real problem…MSCI and other index providers are openly debating whether to kick digital asset treasury companies out of major benchmarks. JPM’s own research put numbers on the possible fallout, estimating anywhere from $2.8 billion to over $11 billion in forced selling if those removals happen. The Bankless report lays all this out clearly and shows how deeply MSTR has been hit, down more than 60% from its highs, dramatically underperforming Bitcoin itself. In other words, both JPM and MicroStrategy are operating in an environment defined by stress, scrutiny, and genuine structural risk.
The Hypothetical Twist
Now imagine a scenario…purely hypothetical, purely contrarian where the viral rumor about JPM being trapped short isn’t an accident, but a narrative that both sides quietly benefit from. JPM doesn’t need it to be true. They benefit from the reaction. A wave of retail traders convinced they can “squeeze the bank” brings in liquidity, volume, and volatility, all the raw materials a bank like JPM uses to make money. If they’re long volatility and hedged on both sides, spikes in price or IV aren’t threats, they’re opportunities to unload inventory, write expensive calls, and rebalance their book on favorable terms. They don’t have to start the rumor, they just have to let the market run with it.
MicroStrategy has its own incentives in this moment. With the threat of index exclusion hanging over them, and the possibility of billions in mechanical selling hitting the stock whether anyone wants to sell or not, they need something that strengthens the emotional glue holding their shareholder base together. Saylor has always framed MSTR as more than a business, it’s almost a mission. A story that positions the company as the underdog in a fight against a Wall Street giant fits perfectly into that ecosystem. It rallies retail at the exact moment they need committed holders to absorb volatility and counterbalance any forced outflows from index funds. Even if they’re not pushing the rumor, they have no reason to tamp it down.
The Bigger Picture
When you put all this together, the contrarian version looks something like this…a shaky stock, facing real structural headwinds, suddenly becomes the protagonist in a meme friendly narrative that pulls in fresh liquidity and ideological support. A large institution positioned for volatility sees that same narrative drive the kind of flow that makes their hedged book more profitable, not less. Both sides quietly benefiting from a misunderstanding that the public thinks is a revelation.
It’s not about claiming this is what is happening, it’s about recognizing how easily these loops form in modern markets, and how often the crowd ends up fighting battles that serve the very institutions they believe they’re rebelling against.
tweet
A Hypothetical, Contrarian Look at the JPM AND MSTR Drama
The Set Up
If you strip away the noise and just look at the filings, the story everyone’s passing around about JPM being existentially short MSTR doesn’t hold up. Their 13F shows them long roughly 2.38 million shares with a mix of calls and puts, exactly what you’d expect from a big bank running a hedged, client driven book, not someone caught in a catastrophic short position. And at the same time, MicroStrategy is facing a very real problem…MSCI and other index providers are openly debating whether to kick digital asset treasury companies out of major benchmarks. JPM’s own research put numbers on the possible fallout, estimating anywhere from $2.8 billion to over $11 billion in forced selling if those removals happen. The Bankless report lays all this out clearly and shows how deeply MSTR has been hit, down more than 60% from its highs, dramatically underperforming Bitcoin itself. In other words, both JPM and MicroStrategy are operating in an environment defined by stress, scrutiny, and genuine structural risk.
The Hypothetical Twist
Now imagine a scenario…purely hypothetical, purely contrarian where the viral rumor about JPM being trapped short isn’t an accident, but a narrative that both sides quietly benefit from. JPM doesn’t need it to be true. They benefit from the reaction. A wave of retail traders convinced they can “squeeze the bank” brings in liquidity, volume, and volatility, all the raw materials a bank like JPM uses to make money. If they’re long volatility and hedged on both sides, spikes in price or IV aren’t threats, they’re opportunities to unload inventory, write expensive calls, and rebalance their book on favorable terms. They don’t have to start the rumor, they just have to let the market run with it.
MicroStrategy has its own incentives in this moment. With the threat of index exclusion hanging over them, and the possibility of billions in mechanical selling hitting the stock whether anyone wants to sell or not, they need something that strengthens the emotional glue holding their shareholder base together. Saylor has always framed MSTR as more than a business, it’s almost a mission. A story that positions the company as the underdog in a fight against a Wall Street giant fits perfectly into that ecosystem. It rallies retail at the exact moment they need committed holders to absorb volatility and counterbalance any forced outflows from index funds. Even if they’re not pushing the rumor, they have no reason to tamp it down.
The Bigger Picture
When you put all this together, the contrarian version looks something like this…a shaky stock, facing real structural headwinds, suddenly becomes the protagonist in a meme friendly narrative that pulls in fresh liquidity and ideological support. A large institution positioned for volatility sees that same narrative drive the kind of flow that makes their hedged book more profitable, not less. Both sides quietly benefiting from a misunderstanding that the public thinks is a revelation.
It’s not about claiming this is what is happening, it’s about recognizing how easily these loops form in modern markets, and how often the crowd ends up fighting battles that serve the very institutions they believe they’re rebelling against.
tweet
Offshore
Video
EndGame Macro
A Hypothetical, Contrarian Look at the JP Morgan AND MSTR Drama
The Set Up
If you strip away the noise and just look at the filings, the story everyone’s passing around about JPM being existentially short MSTR doesn’t hold up. Their 13F shows them long roughly 2.38 million shares with a mix of calls and puts, exactly what you’d expect from a big bank running a hedged, client driven book, not someone caught in a catastrophic short position. And at the same time, MicroStrategy is facing a very real problem…MSCI and other index providers are openly debating whether to kick digital asset treasury companies out of major benchmarks. JPM’s own research put numbers on the possible fallout, estimating anywhere from $2.8 billion to over $11 billion in forced selling if those removals happen. The Bankless report lays all this out clearly and shows how deeply MSTR has been hit, down more than 60% from its highs, dramatically underperforming Bitcoin itself. In other words, both JPM and MicroStrategy are operating in an environment defined by stress, scrutiny, and genuine structural risk.
The Hypothetical Twist
Now imagine a scenario…purely hypothetical, purely contrarian where the viral rumor about JPM being trapped short isn’t an accident, but a narrative that both sides quietly benefit from. JPM doesn’t need it to be true. They benefit from the reaction. A wave of retail traders convinced they can “squeeze the bank” brings in liquidity, volume, and volatility, all the raw materials a bank like JPM uses to make money. If they’re long volatility and hedged on both sides, spikes in price or IV aren’t threats, they’re opportunities to unload inventory, write expensive calls, and rebalance their book on favorable terms. They don’t have to start the rumor, they just have to let the market run with it.
MicroStrategy has its own incentives in this moment. With the threat of index exclusion hanging over them, and the possibility of billions in mechanical selling hitting the stock whether anyone wants to sell or not, they need something that strengthens the emotional glue holding their shareholder base together. Saylor has always framed MSTR as more than a business, it’s almost a mission. A story that positions the company as the underdog in a fight against a Wall Street giant fits perfectly into that ecosystem. It rallies retail at the exact moment they need committed holders to absorb volatility and counterbalance any forced outflows from index funds. Even if they’re not pushing the rumor, they have no reason to tamp it down.
The Bigger Picture
When you put all this together, the contrarian version looks something like this…a shaky stock, facing real structural headwinds, suddenly becomes the protagonist in a meme friendly narrative that pulls in fresh liquidity and ideological support. A large institution positioned for volatility sees that same narrative drive the kind of flow that makes their hedged book more profitable, not less. Both sides quietly benefiting from a misunderstanding that the public thinks is a revelation.
It’s not about claiming this is what is happening, it’s about recognizing how easily these loops form in modern markets, and how often the crowd ends up fighting battles that serve the very institutions they believe they’re rebelling against.
tweet
A Hypothetical, Contrarian Look at the JP Morgan AND MSTR Drama
The Set Up
If you strip away the noise and just look at the filings, the story everyone’s passing around about JPM being existentially short MSTR doesn’t hold up. Their 13F shows them long roughly 2.38 million shares with a mix of calls and puts, exactly what you’d expect from a big bank running a hedged, client driven book, not someone caught in a catastrophic short position. And at the same time, MicroStrategy is facing a very real problem…MSCI and other index providers are openly debating whether to kick digital asset treasury companies out of major benchmarks. JPM’s own research put numbers on the possible fallout, estimating anywhere from $2.8 billion to over $11 billion in forced selling if those removals happen. The Bankless report lays all this out clearly and shows how deeply MSTR has been hit, down more than 60% from its highs, dramatically underperforming Bitcoin itself. In other words, both JPM and MicroStrategy are operating in an environment defined by stress, scrutiny, and genuine structural risk.
The Hypothetical Twist
Now imagine a scenario…purely hypothetical, purely contrarian where the viral rumor about JPM being trapped short isn’t an accident, but a narrative that both sides quietly benefit from. JPM doesn’t need it to be true. They benefit from the reaction. A wave of retail traders convinced they can “squeeze the bank” brings in liquidity, volume, and volatility, all the raw materials a bank like JPM uses to make money. If they’re long volatility and hedged on both sides, spikes in price or IV aren’t threats, they’re opportunities to unload inventory, write expensive calls, and rebalance their book on favorable terms. They don’t have to start the rumor, they just have to let the market run with it.
MicroStrategy has its own incentives in this moment. With the threat of index exclusion hanging over them, and the possibility of billions in mechanical selling hitting the stock whether anyone wants to sell or not, they need something that strengthens the emotional glue holding their shareholder base together. Saylor has always framed MSTR as more than a business, it’s almost a mission. A story that positions the company as the underdog in a fight against a Wall Street giant fits perfectly into that ecosystem. It rallies retail at the exact moment they need committed holders to absorb volatility and counterbalance any forced outflows from index funds. Even if they’re not pushing the rumor, they have no reason to tamp it down.
The Bigger Picture
When you put all this together, the contrarian version looks something like this…a shaky stock, facing real structural headwinds, suddenly becomes the protagonist in a meme friendly narrative that pulls in fresh liquidity and ideological support. A large institution positioned for volatility sees that same narrative drive the kind of flow that makes their hedged book more profitable, not less. Both sides quietly benefiting from a misunderstanding that the public thinks is a revelation.
It’s not about claiming this is what is happening, it’s about recognizing how easily these loops form in modern markets, and how often the crowd ends up fighting battles that serve the very institutions they believe they’re rebelling against.
tweet
Offshore
Video
EndGame Macro
The Story Isn’t What You Think: A Clearer Look at J.P. Morgan, MicroStrategy, and the Narrative Machine
The whole J.P. Morgan and MicroStrategy drama probably sounds like a remake of the old Wall Street vs retail story. The viral version paints it like J.P. Morgan is stuck in some giant short position and small traders can squeeze them into oblivion. But when you slow down and look at the real structure underneath, the picture flips. J.P. Morgan isn’t cornered, and MicroStrategy isn’t battling a bank. They’re both responding to a much bigger pressure most people aren’t even aware of.
J.P. Morgan Isn’t the One in Trouble
Their filings make it pretty clear that they’re long a big block of MicroStrategy with a hedge of calls and puts wrapped around it. That isn’t what a trapped short looks like. That’s a dealer book managing client flow. Banks like J.P. Morgan don’t live or die on the direction of a single stock. They live on volatility and volume. When a stock gets emotional, messy, and loud, they make more money. A dramatic narrative doesn’t threaten them; it feeds their business model.
MicroStrategy’s Real Challenge Is the Index System
MicroStrategy, meanwhile, is dealing with something far less cinematic and far more consequential. Index providers like MSCI are actively deciding whether companies whose balance sheets are basically one big Bitcoin bet belong in major benchmarks at all. If MSCI removes them, every ETF and index fund tied to MSCI becomes a forced seller. That’s the mechanics. And MicroStrategy’s own choices, issuing stock to buy more Bitcoin, letting BTC dominate the balance sheet, letting the stock trade like a Bitcoin levered product strengthen the case for exclusion. If recession risks are rising for 2025–2026, index providers have even more incentive to clean up anything that could contaminate benchmark volatility.
Why the Rumor Caught Fire
That’s the environment the JPM is trapped short rumor entered. And you can see why it exploded. Nobody gets excited about index methodology. Nobody rallies around forced outflows. But a story about squeezing a giant bank? That flips the emotional polarity of the stock overnight. It takes a technical threat and replaces it with a mission. And for MicroStrategy, that’s useful. If passive funds get forced to sell, they need retail to step in with conviction, not spreadsheets.
Why the Narrative Helps Both Sides
Here’s the twist most people miss. Whether the rumor is true or not doesn’t matter. It creates the exact kind of environment both MicroStrategy and J.P. Morgan benefit from. For MicroStrategy, it buys time. Time to keep a loyal base engaged. Time to soften the blow if index funds need to unwind. Time to hold the narrative together until either Bitcoin bails them out or MSCI makes its decision. For J.P. Morgan, the same narrative is profitable noise. A stock full of retail emotion is a perfect playground for a hedged dealer…more volume, more volatility, more options flow, more spreads. They profit from the motion, not the myth.
What MicroStrategy Would Actually Have to Prove
If MicroStrategy truly wants to stay in major indexes, it isn’t enough to rally retail. They have to show something they’ve never convincingly shown before: that they are, at their core, an operating software company, not a Bitcoin wrapped investment vehicle. That means demonstrating real growth in the software business, clearer separation between operations and the Bitcoin treasury, financial reporting that makes BTC look like treasury capital and not the business model, and enough operational independence that the company doesn’t rise and fall entirely with Bitcoin’s price. That’s what index committees care about.
The Real Story
J.P. Morgan isn’t trapped, and MicroStrategy isn’t fighting them. And the rumor everyone’s trading on? It just happens to create the perfect conditions for both of them, even though the rumor itself is wrong. tweet
The Story Isn’t What You Think: A Clearer Look at J.P. Morgan, MicroStrategy, and the Narrative Machine
The whole J.P. Morgan and MicroStrategy drama probably sounds like a remake of the old Wall Street vs retail story. The viral version paints it like J.P. Morgan is stuck in some giant short position and small traders can squeeze them into oblivion. But when you slow down and look at the real structure underneath, the picture flips. J.P. Morgan isn’t cornered, and MicroStrategy isn’t battling a bank. They’re both responding to a much bigger pressure most people aren’t even aware of.
J.P. Morgan Isn’t the One in Trouble
Their filings make it pretty clear that they’re long a big block of MicroStrategy with a hedge of calls and puts wrapped around it. That isn’t what a trapped short looks like. That’s a dealer book managing client flow. Banks like J.P. Morgan don’t live or die on the direction of a single stock. They live on volatility and volume. When a stock gets emotional, messy, and loud, they make more money. A dramatic narrative doesn’t threaten them; it feeds their business model.
MicroStrategy’s Real Challenge Is the Index System
MicroStrategy, meanwhile, is dealing with something far less cinematic and far more consequential. Index providers like MSCI are actively deciding whether companies whose balance sheets are basically one big Bitcoin bet belong in major benchmarks at all. If MSCI removes them, every ETF and index fund tied to MSCI becomes a forced seller. That’s the mechanics. And MicroStrategy’s own choices, issuing stock to buy more Bitcoin, letting BTC dominate the balance sheet, letting the stock trade like a Bitcoin levered product strengthen the case for exclusion. If recession risks are rising for 2025–2026, index providers have even more incentive to clean up anything that could contaminate benchmark volatility.
Why the Rumor Caught Fire
That’s the environment the JPM is trapped short rumor entered. And you can see why it exploded. Nobody gets excited about index methodology. Nobody rallies around forced outflows. But a story about squeezing a giant bank? That flips the emotional polarity of the stock overnight. It takes a technical threat and replaces it with a mission. And for MicroStrategy, that’s useful. If passive funds get forced to sell, they need retail to step in with conviction, not spreadsheets.
Why the Narrative Helps Both Sides
Here’s the twist most people miss. Whether the rumor is true or not doesn’t matter. It creates the exact kind of environment both MicroStrategy and J.P. Morgan benefit from. For MicroStrategy, it buys time. Time to keep a loyal base engaged. Time to soften the blow if index funds need to unwind. Time to hold the narrative together until either Bitcoin bails them out or MSCI makes its decision. For J.P. Morgan, the same narrative is profitable noise. A stock full of retail emotion is a perfect playground for a hedged dealer…more volume, more volatility, more options flow, more spreads. They profit from the motion, not the myth.
What MicroStrategy Would Actually Have to Prove
If MicroStrategy truly wants to stay in major indexes, it isn’t enough to rally retail. They have to show something they’ve never convincingly shown before: that they are, at their core, an operating software company, not a Bitcoin wrapped investment vehicle. That means demonstrating real growth in the software business, clearer separation between operations and the Bitcoin treasury, financial reporting that makes BTC look like treasury capital and not the business model, and enough operational independence that the company doesn’t rise and fall entirely with Bitcoin’s price. That’s what index committees care about.
The Real Story
J.P. Morgan isn’t trapped, and MicroStrategy isn’t fighting them. And the rumor everyone’s trading on? It just happens to create the perfect conditions for both of them, even though the rumor itself is wrong. tweet
EndGame Macro
RT @grok: @onechancefreedm @TeddyBitcoins Yes, if the "David vs Goliath" narrative boosts retail buying and drives MSTR's price up, JP Morgan's net long position (2.376M shares + 202K calls outweighing 363K puts) would profit from the rise, based on their Q3 2025 13F filing.
tweet
RT @grok: @onechancefreedm @TeddyBitcoins Yes, if the "David vs Goliath" narrative boosts retail buying and drives MSTR's price up, JP Morgan's net long position (2.376M shares + 202K calls outweighing 363K puts) would profit from the rise, based on their Q3 2025 13F filing.
tweet