This article is from:Viktor

Translated by｜Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina); Translator｜Azuma (@azuma_eth)

In the past two weeks, we have seen a significant increase in the trading volume of STRC, and the product's popularity on social media platforms like X continues to rise. Therefore, I believe it is a good time to write an article about Strategy and its new structure. This is my fourth article on Strategy and the Bitcoin treasury model:

• The first article introduces the Strategy playbook, where I clarify some common misunderstandings about the model.
• The second article explains the "full-stack treasury company" model and the mechanism that supports its NAV premium.
• The third article introduces the playbook for preferred shares, which is a brand new model that Strategy will launch in 2025 and is the company's current main strategy.

In this article, we will focus on STRC. It has now become the most prominent preferred stock product from MSTR and is currently a core focus for Michael Saylor (the founder of Strategy) and his management team.

TL; DR

1. STRC is a yield-bearing instrument backed by Strategy's Bitcoin treasury, with a dynamic dividend yield adjusted to keep the price close to par (100 USD). Currently, you can earn an annualized return of 11.5% on a relatively stable and risk-transparent instrument (paid monthly).
2. STRC essentially represents a way for Strategy to convert yield demand into structural buying pressure for BTC. As long as Strategy runs the ATM issuance mechanism for both STRC and MSTR (and mNAV > 1), this structure can expand dramatically without increasing the leverage level of MSTR. This means Strategy can absorb hundreds of millions of dollars (or even more) in new demand for STRC while maintaining a leverage ratio of about 33% and unchanged credit risk.
3. With the common stock ATM mechanism maintaining leverage, every dollar issued in STRC corresponds to approximately three dollars of BTC added to the treasury. Rough estimates suggest that when STRC has a daily trading volume around par (100 USD), it could bring in 100 to 150 million USD in BTC purchases.
4. Strategy effectively divides BTC's risk exposure into two distinct risk tranches: STRC holders gain relatively stable, low-volatility returns, while MSTR shareholders take on the residual upside potential and volatility of BTC. As Lavoisier said, "Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed; everything is merely transformed."
5. The design goal of the entire structure is to increase the number of Bitcoins corresponding to each share over time. Ultimately, this will benefit MSTR common stock shareholders since it means that MSTR's performance, in theory, will mechanically outperform BTC.
6. A short-term pullback of 5%–10% in STRC is possible, but as long as the market remains confident in this structure, the price will typically revert back to par through arbitrage trading.
7. The real risk is not a sudden collapse, but a long-term bear market for BTC, which could gradually put pressure on the entire structure over time. Even in the (very unlikely) worst-case scenario, due to dollar reserves and Strategy's flexibility in adjusting dividend rates, the process would be very slow.
8. If Strategy were to eventually collapse, it likely would not occur in a dramatic and violent manner like Luna/UST, but would more likely present itself as a slow and prolonged deterioration.
9. If you are bullish on BTC but bearish on MSTR and STRC, that logic is actually difficult to substantiate. Based on Strategy’s current risk profile (which may change in the future), if BTC does not "die" first, it is virtually impossible for Strategy to die first.

What is STRC and how does it work?

First, let me briefly review the concept of preferred shares: in simple terms, they are financial instruments similar to debt, but legally remain corporate equity. This means that these preferred shares never need to be "repaid," and Strategy cannot default on them.

In the capital structure, preferred shares are repaid before MSTR common stocks, meaning that in the event of bankruptcy, preferred shareholders will receive payment before common shareholders do.

So far, Strategy has issued five types of preferred shares (STRF, STRC, STRK, STRE, STRD), which I introduced individually in the last article. Here are the main characteristics of STRC (also known as Stretch):

• It belongs to the "short-duration high-yield credit" category.
• Strategy aims to keep STRC's price as close to 100 USD (i.e., "par") as possible, ideally fluctuating within a 1% range between 99–100 USD.
• STRC pays floating dividends monthly; the current dividend yield is 11.5%.
• If STRC's trading price is significantly below par, Strategy can increase the monthly dividend rate to make the product more attractive, increasing demand until the price returns close to par.
• If STRC's price is above 100 USD, Saylor can issue and sell new STRC shares at 100 USD through the ATM (at-the-market) issuance plan. This effectively creates a price ceiling around 100 USD.
• If Saylor does not wish to issue shares through the ATM, the company has another option—to redeem STRC at 101 USD, meaning that market participants have little incentive to purchase STRC above this price.
• Like other preferred shares from Strategy, STRC is a perpetual preferred stock, which means it has no maturity date or repayment obligation.

Odaily note: All data for STRC can be found on Strategy.com. The following screenshot is from March 13, 2026, which was the ex-dividend day, hence STRC's price was below par.

How does Strategy utilize ATM to control leverage?

Although Strategy's preferred shares are not legally considered debt, they can be viewed as a method of introducing leverage to the balance sheet. Strategy distinguishes between leverage ratio and amplification ratio—where the leverage ratio only calculates the ratio of "convertible bonds / BTC reserves"; the amplification ratio considers the ratio of "convertible bonds + preferred shares / BTC reserves."

In fact, the amplification ratio is the true measure of Strategy's leverage level. This means that every time Saylor issues and sells new STRC, Strategy’s leverage increases. If Saylor wishes to reduce the company's leverage level, the tool available to him is the common stock ATM issuance mechanism—by issuing new MSTR shares and using the proceeds to purchase BTC, he can expand the company's size while reducing leverage.

This logic is easy to understand: Suppose a company holds 10 billion USD of BTC and has 3 billion USD of debt, with a market cap of 12 billion USD, its leverage ratio would be: 3 billion USD of debt / 10 billion USD of BTC = 30%.

Suppose the company additionally issues 2 billion USD of new stock and uses those funds to buy 2 billion USD of BTC. With the BTC price unchanged, the company's market cap now becomes 14 billion USD, the value of the BTC treasury becomes 12 billion USD, but the nominal amount of debt remains unchanged; thus, the new leverage ratio would be: 3 billion USD of debt / 12 billion USD of BTC = 25%.

This example clearly illustrates that by utilizing ordinary stock's ATM issuance, the company can both increase its size (from a market cap of 12 billion → 14 billion) and simultaneously reduce its leverage (30% → 25%).

Is Strategy using STRC to aggressively buy BTC?

How STRC demand translates into BTC purchases

As I mentioned earlier, Saylor will only sell STRC at a price of 100 USD and will not sell it below that price.

This means that when the price is below 100 USD, all trading volumes are merely exchanges of STRC shares among past, present, and new holders. When the price reaches 100 USD, part of the volume still corresponds to regular STRC shares transactions (as some are willing to sell at 100 USD), but the remaining volume corresponds to Saylor issuing new shares and selling them to meet "excess demand" at 100 USD.

Last week, the ratio of STRC's weekly trading volume to the week's ATM issuance size was about 40%. I will use this figure in the examples below, but it is clearly not a fixed rule; in some cases, this ratio may also be 25% or 60%.

When STRC trades near par, with a daily trading volume of 100 million USD, the situation is approximately as follows—Saylor can issue 40% of this amount through STRC's ATM issuance plan, meaning issuing and selling 40 million USD of new STRC shares. He would then immediately use this 40 million USD to purchase BTC.

Odaily note: The ATM will activate when STRC's price reaches 100 USD.

However, selling STRC will raise the company's leverage level (as it is a debt-like instrument), and Saylor certainly wants to keep leverage stable. Currently, Strategy's leverage level is about 33%, and I believe he wishes to maintain it around this figure. This means that for every additional 1 USD of debt, 3 USD of BTC reserves must be correspondingly added. In the previous example, if Saylor adds 40 million USD of "debt" through STRC and purchases 40 million USD of BTC, he would still need to increase his BTC reserves by an additional 80 million USD. How could he do that?

The answer lies in the previously explained—using the common stock MSTR's ATM issuance mechanism. Thus, Saylor would issue and sell 80 million USD of new MSTR stock and immediately use the proceeds to buy 80 million USD of BTC.

So the conclusion is, by this rough calculation, a daily trading volume of 100 million USD for STRC would correspond to approximately 40 million USD of new STRC issuance and about 120 million USD of BTC purchases. By leveraging STRC, Strategy has found a way to convert the demand for stable yields into buying pressure for BTC.

What happens if STRC demand explodes? Will Saylor be forced to push leverage to the limit?

I would also like you to note another point: according to the model I just described, Strategy can fully enlarge STRC's market cap by three times (in other words, increase STRC's debt by about 8 billion USD based on the current 4 billion USD market cap), and it won’t increase the company's leverage (thus credit risk).

Saylor has all the necessary tools to scale STRC to any extent that meets market demand while keeping the leverage level stable at 33%.

Clearly, this would increase the nominal scale of the company’s debt and the amount of dividends to be paid, but these metrics would also grow in line with the BTC treasury size, meaning Strategy would not bear any additional risks related to the BTC price.

What are the real limitations of this strategy?

The model of simultaneously operating both STRC and MSTR ATM mechanisms described above requires meeting two conditions.

The first condition is obvious: STRC's trading price must be at 100 USD. When this occurs, it essentially means that STRC's demand exceeds its current market cap, prompting Saylor to issue new shares to meet the excess demand.

The second condition is one I have not mentioned before—that mNAV must exceed 1x in order to utilize the common stock ATM mechanism. I explained in another article that Strategy's core goal is always to increase the amount of Bitcoin per share (bitcoin-per-share, bps) over the long term. When they sell MSTR stock and buy BTC at mNAV over 1x, this is accretive from a bps perspective; the higher the mNAV, the more apparent the accretive effect of such actions; when mNAV equals 1x, this action is neutral; but when mNAV is below 1x, using the proceeds from selling MSTR to buy BTC would be dilutive from a bps perspective, hence they would avoid doing so.

You may have noticed that in the previous section, I mentioned that using MSTR's ATM mechanism could both expand the company's size and reduce leverage. However, if mNAV exceeds 1x, then using the common stock ATM also has the added benefit of improving the bps ratio.

By the way, this mNAV indicator is actually displayed directly on the front page of Strategy.com. They use the most diluted mNAV as a benchmark, which is the correct approach. Currently, this figure is around 1.2x, and I believe it has been at least 1x since 2026.

So what happens if there is a situation where—due to overwhelming demand for STRC, Saylor has to issue new STRC shares, but mNAV is below 1x at that point? Does this mean he cannot use the MSTR ATM to maintain stable leverage, thus being forced to increase leverage?

First, I believe this scenario is unlikely because the stable trading of STRC at 100 USD itself indicates that investors have confidence in the overall structure, so MSTR's mNAV should also theoretically remain above 1x. Furthermore, this assumption neglects that they have another tool to control STRC demand—lowering the dividend rate.

Dividend yield issue, can 11.5% be sustained?

First, let me remind you that STRC had a yield of 9% at its launch. The dividend yield is an adjustable tool used to simultaneously match STRC's demand and ensure its price remains near par.

Strategy's current guidance is: if STRC's monthly VWAP (volume-weighted average price) is between 95–99 USD, they will raise the dividend yield by 25 basis points (bps); if the monthly VWAP is below 95 USD, they will raise it by 50 basis points; and if the monthly VWAP is above 101 USD, they will lower the dividend yield.

So far, what they have done, in essence, is gradually raise STRC's dividend yield from 9% to 11.5%, aiming to reach a balanced state where STRC fluctuates around 100 USD in daily trading. This week has been STRC's most successful week to date, as it not only continuously traded near par but also had very large trading volumes (around 300-400 million USD daily, compared to an average trading volume just slightly above 100 million USD previously).

Odaily note: STRC's price chart since its launch.

The demand for STRC fundamentally depends on several variables:

• Credit risk: What is Strategy's current leverage ratio? In other words, how much BTC is backing STRC? This directly depends on the BTC price—if BTC falls, with other conditions unchanged, the leverage ratio will increase, credit risk will rise, and demand for STRC will decrease (i.e., STRC prices will fall).
• Yield: What is the current dividend rate paid by STRC? The higher the yield, the greater the demand for STRC.
• Awareness: How many people are aware of STRC's existence? This is a very important factor in the initial months or years after the product is launched, as it is fundamentally a variable that only rises, significantly impacting STRC's demand under other unchanged conditions.
• Confidence: How many people, after seeing STRC has been trading for months and continuously paying dividends, are willing to invest? This is a specific factor because the variations in confidence can be substantial—if STRC trades within a narrow range close to 100 USD for an extended period, more and more individuals will consider it safe; however, if we suddenly see a drop of 10% in one day, that trust could vanish quickly.

Since STRC's launch, we have seen that: credit risk has increased (as BTC has fallen 45% from its historical peak), while yield has increased, awareness has risen, and confidence has grown. One factor negatively impacted demand while the other three positively influenced it, and we are now finally in an "ideal" state: STRC remains stable around 100 USD.

When the BTC price is about 68,000 USD, an 11.5% yield is the necessary dividend level to bring STRC's price back to par. For a product traded for less than eight months, this seems like a relatively positive signal to me. Saylor expects a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20–30% for BTC over the next 20 years. As I explained in another article, under this assumption, issuing debt at an 11.5% rate to purchase an asset with an annual growth rate of 25% is entirely reasonable. Theoretically, you could even pay a higher interest rate and profit from the interest cost arbitrage between debt and the expected annual return on BTC.

In my opinion, the most likely development path is that STRC demand will continue to grow, while Strategy gradually lowers the dividend rate back to 10% (or even below this level over the long term) to control demand while reducing the company's interest costs.

What happens if everyone wants to sell?

In this case, STRC's price would plummet! But in fact, we have already seen a few similar situations with this product: in August 2025, STRC dropped from 98 USD to 92 USD (a decrease of 6%); during the market sell-off in November 2025, STRC fell from 100 USD to 89 USD (a decrease of 11%); and this February, it again dropped from 100 USD to 93 USD (a decrease of 7%).

It should be noted that Saylor's clear goal is to keep STRC consistently within a narrow range around 100 USD, and STRC has become the core focus of Strategy. Therefore, if STRC's average price falls below 99 USD within a month, Strategy will increase the dividend rate to bring demand back to a level that supports the 100 USD price. As long as market participants have confidence in Strategy's ability to maintain this mechanism, there will always be buyers coming in at lower prices who wish to profit from "returning to par arbitrage trading."

In the short term, due to holder panic, prices may indeed drop 10%. But if you have confidence in this structure established by Strategy, prices usually return to near par within days or weeks—as we have seen in the past.

Why won't the dividend yield rise indefinitely?

Let's assume STRC fails to return to par, which means that Strategy must continually raise the dividend yield... Since the dividend yield does not formally have an upper limit, does this scenario resemble a "death spiral"? Not exactly.

First, you need to understand that the so-called dividend "guidance" is not legally binding on Saylor to take any action. Ultimately, the company retains complete autonomy regarding dividend rates; they can stop increasing them even if the average price is below 99 USD.

If Strategy expects BTC to grow by 20–30% annually, they likely have an acceptable "maximum dividend yield," possibly around 15%. Once this level is reached, they may ignore STRC's trading price and stop continuing to raise the dividend yield.

Remember that the dividend yield can be adjusted monthly. If you expect BTC to recover after a bear market, then a higher dividend yield does not need to be maintained indefinitely. As the BTC price rises again, STRC's credit risk will improve, mechanically increasing the demand for STRC and pushing its price back toward par. At that point, Strategy can start lowering the dividend yield again. In the long run, even if during a period of pressure the dividend yield briefly rises to 13%, STRC’s yield is likely to eventually settle back to a level around 8%.

In the next section, I will outline a worst-case scenario: what happens if BTC enters a long-term bear market and Saylor is forced to continue raising the dividend yield.

Understanding risk

After reading through the entire article, it seems that nothing may go wrong, but there is no free lunch in this world. So, as a holder of STRC, what risks am I actually taking on?

Let me state clearly that I believe the current market incorrectly prices the risks of STRC; under a reasonably bullish assumption about BTC prices, its risk-reward ratio is quite attractive. Note that I am not saying you can obtain high returns with zero risk; risks do exist and are always related to the performance of BTC.

I believe there is a mismatch between people's expectations for BTC's future price movements and their perceptions of STRC's risks. Simply put, if you observe the expectations of crypto-native investors for BTC over the next few years, 95% of them expect scenarios that would not materially affect STRC. In other words, within their own BTC expectations framework, they believe they can achieve a "low-risk" yield of over 10%. But we still need to discuss these risks specifically.

Risk one: Asymmetric downside risk and upside reward

The structure of STRC implies that if you purchase at 100 USD, your upside potential is limited to the annual dividend yield (currently 11.5%), while your downside could reach 0–10% within days—based on historical price performance.

This means that if STRC drops 6% in a week, you effectively incur a temporary loss equivalent to half a year’s dividend income. If you need to exit your position quickly, this could become a problem.

If your goal is to hold STRC for the long term, then this is less significant. As long as you believe it will ultimately return to 100 USD, you should be able to exit your position without a discount. And let me remind you, STRC's dividends have a return-of-capital nature, meaning holders do not pay taxes on dividends, so they do not have a strong short-term trading motivation.

Risk two: STRC and BTC decline simultaneously

STRC's credit risk is directly related to the BTC price, so you may have noticed that STRC's pullbacks usually occur when BTC suffers significant sell-offs. This means that your “stable, yield-generating asset allocation” may incur losses at the very moments you are most vulnerable as a crypto bull.

Odaily note: Major declines in IBIT (BlackRock Bitcoin ETF) usually accompany declines in STRC.

Risk three: STRC trading at a discount long-term

People's trust in STRC returning to par is based on two factors: one is its actual credit risk, and the second is the risk perception formed by historical price trends. However, the second factor could work in reverse: if everyone thinks a 5% pullback will be swiftly bought back, but suddenly that isn't the case, what will happen?

If so, those who bought in during a 5% pullback might choose to exit their positions, leading to further price drops and potentially triggering new emotional sell-offs, resulting in even larger declines. We can imagine a scenario where STRC falls by 15% and cannot rebound within a few days, which might gradually erode the accumulated confidence and result in greater selling pressure.

In this case, what could prevent this vicious cycle? The answer is still the price of BTC. Saylor's entire strategy ultimately rests on the expectation that BTC can achieve returns above 20% over the next ten years.

Risk four (worst expectation): The fundamental risk always lies in BTC's performance

The worst-case scenario for STRC is what I just described, but at the same time, BTC fails to regain strength during a long-term bear market. Given the many variables involved, it is hard to predict precisely what would happen in this situation, but it might generally be like this: STRC would continue to trade below par, prompting Saylor to raise the dividend yield monthly, attempting to bring its price back to 100 USD.

At some point, the dividend yield will become unreasonably high, so he would stop raising the dividend yield, instead maintaining it at a certain level. This means he would not follow the previous "guidance"—that is, raising the dividend yield if the monthly VWAP falls below 99 USD. Remember, this is just guidance, and nothing forces him to comply.

Not following this guidance would further weaken market confidence in STRC, causing it to continue trading at a significant discount, perhaps 40% off with a 15% dividend yield, meaning an effective yield of 25%.

The trading price of MSTR would also fall below 1x mNAV, meaning the company would be unable to help pay dividends by selling MSTR stock. Strategy would rely entirely on its dollar reserves to pay dividends, and currently, their reserves can cover dividend payments for 28 months (approximately 2 years and 4 months). As these 28 months draw closer to their end, all associated assets may face greater pressure, and BTC, MSTR, and STRC will have more reasons to continue declining.

Once dollar reserves are depleted, Strategy will have to gradually sell BTC. Currently, annual dividend spending is about 1 billion USD; if this figure increases to 2 billion USD, Strategy must sell around 200 million USD of BTC monthly to maintain dividend payments. Alternatively, they may choose to stop paying dividends, in which case the values of preferred stock, STRC, and MSTR would all further decline, with the company having little to do until BTC prices recover.

This outlines the worst-case scenario. As you can see, Strategy's dollar reserves provide a significant buffer against a long-term bear market because, theoretically, Strategy can do nothing and rely solely on reserves to pay dividends for over two years without being forced to take action.

Currently, we are in the mid-phase of a BTC bear market, with prices around 70,000 USD (down about 45% from the peak), yet STRC is still trading near par (with a 11.5% dividend yield) and mNAV at 1.2x. Considering that I do not think BTC will experience a two-year bear market (the 2022 bear market lasted about a year from peak to trough), and that Strategy has not even begun to tap into dollar reserves, I believe that under the current leverage levels, Strategy's overall structure is quite safe and robust.

Risk five (long-term concern): Strategy's model is too effective

As I mentioned yesterday on X, as a BTC bull, the biggest risk associated with Strategy is—it may be too successful.

"The biggest bear logic for Strategy is essentially that this strategy is working too well. If it succeeds, they will keep accumulating their BTC holdings. But ultimately, they will grow too large and pollute the originally 'pure' narrative of BTC. In fact, that situation is already occurring."

In fact, Strategy already holds about 3.5% of the total supply of BTC. This may negatively impact future BTC demand as it could begin to undermine BTC’s narrative as a purely decentralized asset. Furthermore, the narrative surrounding STRC and its high yield "Digital Credit" has sparked some negative reactions within the crypto community, which could also indirectly affect BTC demand.

As I have explained throughout this article, the amount of BTC held by Strategy will only continue to increase. The only scenario that could potentially invalidate this situation is if BTC experiences at least two years of painful cycles. Even then, a longer period of sluggish conditions would be required for Strategy’s BTC reserves to decrease due to dividend payments.

I can understand why some are uneasy about Strategy's role in the BTC ecosystem. But in my opinion, if this alone is enough to turn you bearish on BTC's long-term prospects, then you may not have been particularly bullish on BTC in the first place. From my perspective, this isn't particularly alarming. Indeed, Strategy is a single entity holding 3.5% of BTC’s supply, but ultimately, Strategy and its BTC reserves belong to its shareholders.

How significantly different is this from BlackRock representing IBIT shareholders holding a similar scale of BTC? Certainly, they are not completely the same, as IBIT does not carry bankruptcy risks. However, in my view, they are somewhat similar—they both represent the financialization of BTC, and this trend itself is also inevitable.

I do not believe that Strategy and STRC pose systemic risks to BTC, but I do understand the potential negative impact they may have on BTC's narrative. In any case, this article is primarily aimed at helping everyone understand STRC and the structure of Strategy. After that, you can decide for yourself whether to be more bullish or bearish on it.

Is STRC the new UST?

In recent social media discussions, the comparison of STRC with Luna/UST/Anchor has been mentioned too frequently, so I think it is worth discussing separately. In fact, these two are fundamentally different in many respects.

Odaily Note: Price chart of LUNA before the crash.

UST is a stablecoin, so maintaining an anchor at 1 USD is crucial; whereas STRC is preferred stock, ideally trading within a 1% range close to 100 USD, but it can absolutely drop a few percentage points. This has happened and will happen again, and this by itself is not necessarily a problem.

UST is backed by LUNA, whose value to some extent depends on UST's success. When UST drops below the pegged price, users can redeem UST for newly minted LUNA. This increases selling pressure on LUNA, thereby undermining confidence in the system and further increasing selling pressure on UST. The result is a reflexive death spiral, knocking the values of UST and LUNA down to nearly zero within days. STRC does not have this reflexive mechanism; a drop in STRC's price does not trigger mandatory issuance, redemption, or dilution of other assets within the system, nor does it affect BTC.

Anchor offers yields of 18%–20% for UST, which is not only significantly higher than STRC's current yield of about 11.5%, but is also largely subsidy-driven and structurally unsustainable. The source of STRC's yield is relatively straightforward: Strategy expects BTC to have an annualized return exceeding 20% over the next ten years, with STRC holders receiving the initial approximately 11.5% (or the prevailing dividend yield) while MSTR shareholders bear the remainder of the upside potential and volatility.

We are also clearly aware of how Strategy can continue to pay dividends. If mNAV is above 1x, they can issue MSTR stock through the ATM; if mNAV is below 1x, they can rely on dollar reserves (currently sufficient to cover two years of dividend payments). If reserves are exhausted, they can ultimately either sell BTC derivatives or directly sell BTC in the treasury. In contrast, with UST and Anchor, it's essentially just—"bro trust me, I’ll keep shelling out money."

The impact of price declines on these two systems also differs completely. When UST loses its peg, confidence crumbles rapidly, and the market quickly assumes the system could go to zero; for STRC, the lower the price, the higher the effective yield, which may actually attract new buyers. For example, in a completely pessimistic scenario, if STRC trades at 50 USD with a dividend yield of 12%, then its actual yield would be around 24%.

Finally, the time dynamics of both are completely different. Luna/UST is an extremely fragile system that could collapse within days following a loss of confidence. For STRC, even the worst-case scenarios described earlier would unfold much more slowly (a very slow decline), potentially taking years—unless you assume BTC suddenly drops catastrophically by 90% within months.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。