Just in case you didn’t know, the Terra network collapsed because of its flawed design. It used two tokens: UST (a stablecoin) and LUNA (a collateral token). UST was supposed to stay at $1 through a system where you could swap 1 UST for $1 worth of LUNA, but this only worked as long as people trusted it.

The real issue came from Anchor Protocol, which promised a massive 20% APY on UST deposits. This wasn’t sustainable as it depended on new money constantly flowing in. When people started losing confidence in UST, they pulled out, causing a "death spiral": UST lost its $1 peg, LUNA’s supply exploded, and both became worthless.

It looked promising but was built on a system that needed endless demand to survive, and when that demand dried up, it all collapsed.

This is similar to MicroStrategy’s approach with Bitcoin. The company not only relies heavily on Bitcoin as collateral for massive loans but also offers higher yields to its shareholders compared to what spot Bitcoin holders earn. This creates pressure to maintain Bitcoin's price high to support both its collateral value and its yield promises.

If Bitcoin's price drops significantly, the collateral value could fall, forcing MicroStrategy into margin calls or asset liquidation. This could trigger a feedback loop—similar to Terra’s "death spiral"—where declining confidence leads to further sell-offs and a potential collapse. Over-leveraging on a volatile asset combined with unsustainable yield promises is a risky strategy that could unravel if the market turns.

Perhaps i am completely wrong here BUT some things are not adding up!

I believe Bitcoin wasn't meant to be held this way and in the end, it will come down crashing and essentially reset.

anyways... what do i know 🤷‍♂️