Hello, everyone, and good evening. I'm Shirish Jajodia, Corporate Treasurer and Head of Investor Relations at Strategy. I will be your moderator for Strategy's 2025 Fourth Quarter Earnings Webinar. We will start the call with a 60-minute presentation starting with Andrew Kang, followed by Phong Le and then Michael Saylor. This will be followed by a 30-minute interactive Q&A session with four Wall Street equity analysts and four Bitcoin analysts. Before we proceed, I will read the safe harbor statement. Some of the information we provide in this presentation regarding our future expectations, plans and prospects may constitute forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to various important factors, including fluctuations in the price of Bitcoin. And the risk factors discussed in our current report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 6, 2025, and under the caption Risk Factors in Strategy's quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on November 3, 2025. And the risks described in other filings that Strategy may make with the SEC from time to time. We assume no obligations to update these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of today. With that, I would like to turn the call over to Andrew Kang, the CFO of Strategy.

Thank you, Shirish, and thank you, everyone, for joining our call today. I'll start by touching on a few of our highlights for Q4 as well as for the full year 2025. We closed the year with 713,502 Bitcoin on our balance sheet, which represented approximately 3.4% of all Bitcoin that will ever exist. This reflects continued discipline around Bitcoin accumulation through the fourth quarter and further reinforces our position as the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin in the world. Also during 2025, we successfully raised over $25 billion of total capital, funding growth across our treasury strategy and expanding our product ecosystem. We now have five listed preferred equity securities, which has broadened investor access across yield, duration and risk profiles. Our execution throughout the year puts us in a position to enter 2026 with a stronger balance sheet, more access to liquidity and upside when hopefully Bitcoin price rallies soon. Next slide. 2025 overall was a very important year with several strategic corporate events that I think strengthened our foundation as the world's leading Bitcoin treasury company. We adopted fair value accounting at the beginning of the year, which provided greater investor and market transparency of our Bitcoin holdings, which are now, as you know, marked to market each quarter. Second, Treasury and IRS guidance confirmed that unrealized Bitcoin gains would not be subject to additional corporate alternative minimum tax. We also received the first-ever credit rating for a Bitcoin treasury company, which marked an important step, I think, in institutional recognition and setting the foundation for future progress. And lastly, in Q4, we established a $2.25 billion cash reserve, which provides over 2.5 years of dividend coverage. This is an important enhancement to our overall risk management framework and supports our ability to meet our interest and…

Thanks, Andrew. First, just want to acknowledge. I understand the market conditions for today's call is challenging. And the fact that we have thousands of people watching this, as a testament to your intellect, your curiosity and for many of you, your conviction. So thanks, everyone, for joining us today. I also want to share, look, some of you bought Bitcoin or MSTR in the last year. This is your first downturn. My advice is to hold on. Remember the fundamentals that cause you to buy Bitcoin. It's because Bitcoin is the digital transformation of capital or maybe it's because it's the hardest and most ethical form of money or because you believe in a non-sovereign censor-resistant store of value. None of these fundamentals have changed. They didn't change in the last year. They haven't changed in the last 18 years. For the MicroStrategy shareholders and the Strategy shareholders now, remember the fundamentals of why you bought into MSTR common, because we are levered and amplified Bitcoin, we're built to outperform Bitcoin over the long run. It could be because you see us as digital innovators. We invented the enterprise business intelligence software space in the 1990s, and we invented digital treasury companies in 2020. Or it's because you believe in the management team that's here today. None of that's changed in the last year. And for those of you who have been with us on this journey since 2020, you've seen other periods of Bitcoin and MSTR downturns, and you held on and you were rewarded for your conviction. So thank you. And perhaps I ask that you share your wisdom and your confidence with those who are newer to the community. X is a great place to do this, in person is a great place to do this,…

Thank you, Phong. I'm delighted to have you join us today. Why don't we go to the next slide? All of our strategy is based upon looking at the fundamentals and taking a 10-year view. And so when you consider the fundamentals of digital capital, you have to start with the most important regulator in the entire world. And that is the President of the United States. We have a Bitcoin President, and he's intent upon making America the Bitcoin superpower, the crypto capital of the world and the leader in digital assets. I don't think you can underestimate the importance of having support for the industry and digital capital at the very top of the political structure. Now equally important, if we look at the cabinet that's been put in place on the next slide, you see the entire government has now embraced Bitcoin. When I say embraced Bitcoin, what I mean is 18 months ago, there was one person in the government that had an awareness of it and was skeptical to neutral or grudgingly accepting of it. And everyone else in government was either negatively inclined or they were ignorant of it. And now there are 12 individuals I'd want to highlight here. J.D. Vance, the Vice President; Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary; Paul Atkins, the Head of the SEC; #4, Kevin Warsh, who is just -- who is the Fed Chair Nominee, who is -- who understands digital assets, understands the use case of Bitcoin. This is a tremendous move forward for us, a big fundamental shift that now you can look at the Head of the SEC, the Head of the Treasury and the Head of the Fed as all-appreciating the pivotal role of digital assets and the growth of the country. And the economy,…

Thank you, Michael. We are now going to proceed to the interactive live Q&A section of our webinar. I would like to welcome all our Q&A guests and invite them to come on video. We look forward to hearing your questions. [Operator Instructions] So for the first question, I would like to invite Lance Vitanza, our research analyst from TD.

My question is, since the beginning of the year, I can count 3 weeks over which your Bitcoin acquisitions have generated negative -- slightly negative, but negative Bitcoin yield. Now I'm all in favor of buying Bitcoin even when times are tough, but shouldn't the goal be to increase Bitcoin per share at all times rather than just increasing the total amount of Bitcoin that you own? And maybe if you could just talk about the strategy or the thinking that went into those 3 particular weeks and what that could mean going forward?

Yes, we agree with you. We -- those -- we don't aim to reproduce those weeks. The times that we've actually done dilutive transactions on a Bitcoin per share basis were -- if you go back to the crypto winter when we had to recapitalize some toxic debt on our balance sheet, we took out debt either it was like asset-backed loans or senior debt that had EBITDA covenants that we felt were crippling the company's growth prospects. And so we didn't do it enthusiastically, but we did it because over the 10-year time frame, we knew we needed to remove those toxic elements to our balance sheet. If you look at these 3 weeks, when we took actions that were somewhat dilutive, they all were generally associated with building up the U.S. dollar reserve. And we did that in response to analysis and feedback from the market and some reflexive concerns that we wouldn't be able to pay the dividend if the equity capital markets closed us. So we wanted to get ahead of that and address the credit quality. So the reason we did it, the short answer is we do it to improve the creditworthiness of the company. And if we felt that there was a credit problem, we would do it. Right now, we feel that we've built the U.S. dollar reserve to the level where we don't have a credit problem. We're good for the next few years. We don't have any of those other forms of debt, the senior debt or the asset-backed lending. So the balance sheet is in much better shape today. Going forward, we wouldn't electively or programmatically issue equity to buy Bitcoin if it was going to decrease Bitcoin per share, right? We're -- we don't think that's a good idea. We would only take those actions when we feel like it's essential to defend the credit of the company because if people lose confidence in the credit, then that will ripple into losing confidence in the equity and then losing confidence in the business model in general. So it's a practical consideration. But I don't think we expect to see anything of that magnitude going forward because the first USD 2.25 billion of U.S. dollar reserve was a big move.

And just if I could just get a follow-up question regarding that $2.5 billion cash reserve, could you -- in theory, could you use that -- if you chose, could you use that to redeem the $1 billion of converts that are putable in September of '27?

Yes, we could. We can use it for any corporate purpose. We can use it to pay dividends. We could use it to meet a credit obligation. We could use it to pay interest on a loan. We could use it for whatever.

Great. Thank you. For the next question, I would like to invite Tom Lee from Fundstrat and Bitmine.

Really useful presentation. I took a ton of notes. But I wanted to ask you a 2-part question. I apologize, it's 2 parts. On Slide 53, you talked about quantum vulnerability of Bitcoin. And I apologize, and it's getting a little nerdy, but I know a lot of people have questions about quantum vulnerability because -- of course, Bitcoin could upgrade its network. But I know there's 3 types of wallets that remain quantum vulnerable. One is Satoshi because he used a paid to public key, a really old wallet. And then anyone who's sent Bitcoin reveals their public key. And then as you know, the taproot wallets actually are somewhat quantum vulnerable. So I think that's like 25% or 30% of all Bitcoin wallets out there. So the part one question is, you -- I know MicroStrategy is a security expert. You have so much experience in security. Could you give us some idea of how Bitcoin and the core developers might think about addressing the quantum vulnerable wallets. But the second part is, that's really a small part of the story because there's 4.4 million -- there's only 4.4 million wallets that have even $10,000 worth of Bitcoin, which means what -- whereas there's almost 1 billion accounts globally that have $10,000 of stocks, bonds or cash, meaning the world hasn't really adopted Bitcoin yet. And so as you think about the rest of this year, could you give us like what you think are some milestones or road maps that further drive Bitcoin adoption, which in turn help the price of Bitcoin.

So with regard to the first, the quantum question, I don't think it's appropriate for us to advocate a particular solution or a particular approach nor a particular time frame. I think that our role is to support all of the various communities and facilitate the evolution of consensus about what should be done, how it should be done, when it should be done. And I think that if you accelerate those and pressurize those processes, you end up solving a bunch of problems that don't exist in a way that maybe are iatrogenic. So we don't have a particular set of policy points that we wish to advocate right now, nor do I think it's really responsible or appropriate for us to do that. I think that, that will be emergent exactly what should be done. By the way, it's not clear anything should be done ever. It's quite possible we'll actually pop out -- you remember, the world was going to end in climate change, death 26 years ago when 26 years went by and none of those things happened, we were going to -- Bitcoin was going to boil the ocean and use all the energy on earth as late as 2018, and that never happened. So it's possible that whatever happens in the quantum domain will actually improve the security of the Bitcoin network inadvertently before we have to even discuss a protocol change. So I don't think there's any particular policies to be advocating right now other than to support all the various communities and facilitate consensus at the right time to do the right things. The second topic is really what are the catalysts for Bitcoin price to improve. Look, I think the fundamental catalysts are regulatory support. We have a very -- we…

For the next question, I would like to invite Pete Christiansen from Citi.

Michael, I want to talk about events of the last week. On Friday, the President presented his nominee for next Fed Chair, which exacerbated volatility across a number of asset classes, including Bitcoin. The good news is Kevin Warsh is on the tape noting that Bitcoin is the new gold. So that's good. But I guess my question is, how would strategy's capital allocation framework or possibly if it would change, if the next Fed share is perceived to be less independent, perhaps maybe more tolerant of fiscal dominance, that may raise Bitcoin prices short term. But longer term, it may introduce increased rate volatility, which may be a challenge on the funding side. I'm just curious if you have any perspectives on how that might change the capital allocation framework for strategy.

We try to be very reactive to market signals. So for example, when our equity trades weak, we don't sell it. When our credit instruments are trading weak when the cost of credit is too high, we don't sell them. The most obvious is STRC, if it trades below 100, we don't sell it. So in periods where the marketplace loses confidence in our particular credit instruments, we simply wait. And in periods when the NAV of the equity explodes to 3 or 3.5, we might sell $1 billion a day, right? So when the capital markets are enthusiastic about either the equity or the credit, we react to them. And it's above our pay grade to set financial policy. It's even above our pay grade to interpret like the financial policy, like sometimes the macro economy has one set of numbers, and you would think that's good for Bitcoin, but it's bad for Bitcoin. Or another time, you would say, well, if they do this, that should be good for us and it's not good for us. And in other times, it's the opposite. I think the nice thing about our business is we have the option to do nothing. And we have a set of disciplined capital markets programs. They've moved from being discrete where it's like, well, we got to do a deal this quarter. What's the deal we're going to do in Q3? And we've moved from discrete 144A capital markets programs to continuous ATM type programs. And with the ATMs, if the market thinks that the cost of capital on an instrument like STRF should be 11%, well, we just don't want to sell it. We think it ought to go to 8%. So when the market takes STRF to $140 or whatever the price…

I would like to invite [ Lynn Alden ] from [ Lynn Alden Investment Strategy ].

Given the popularity of STRC, my question is focused on that. The company established that USD reserve, which I think shored up the confidence of these products and make them more attractive. Right now, the USD reserve is on the website, 30 months of coverage compared to the dividends of the preferreds. The other preferreds are fixed dividends. STRC is a variable dividend, which introduces some degree of uncertainty around how many months of coverage there are for the total amount of dividends payable. Do you have any kind of views on what you think is an appropriate minimum reserve relative to months of dividend coverage? Or do you have a kind of a maximum that you'd be willing to pay on a dividend for STRC? And then a related question is, we are seeing some kind of early financial products that are out in the market that are looking to potentially leverage STRC given the goal of low volatility and high yield. Are you monitoring the space for leverage build on top of that as it could contribute to spikes of volatility should there be an issue in the market? And do you have any -- are you -- would you encourage that kind of thing? Or would you dissuade leverage from building on top of that increasingly kind of a popular product?

I can start, [ Lynn ]. Thanks for the question. First, we said that we target 2 to 3 years of dividend coverage with the U.S. dollar reserve. So we wouldn't want it to go below 2 years. I think 3 years would be pretty high. And as far as whether we think there's a cap to the Stretch rate, we're pretty early on, and we're sort of trying to understand what happens every single month at the end of the month, and that's why we have our guidance that we have, right? Instead of $11.25, could we take it to 12 potentially? But it's going to be a function of how do we keep the price within a tight range right around that $100 and also a function of what happens to interest rates in general. But I don't think we have a cap right now. We're just going to have to see how this instrument plays out over time. So that's the answer on Stretch overall. And your second question, remind me?

The second question was around we're seeing kind of early products potentially looking to lever it up for other customers. Do you perceive issues in that? Are you monitoring it? Would you encourage or dissuade that type of activity?

I think any time people create products on top of Stretch, right? There are some products that we've seen like buck that have been issued that are -- they're not levered products, but they're actually reducing the volatility down to about 0, and they're actually showing daily accruals as opposed to monthly accruals. So I think those are positive. I think the extent people are going to build levered products, one, we can't really -- we're not going to stop them. And I think leverage adds liquidity, adds a certain extent, interest in Stretch. And we'll see how it plays out over time. But I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

Okay. So we can move on to the next question. For that, I would like to invite Mark Palmer from Benchmark.

A couple of questions. First of all, we have seen over the last year, a tremendous number of new digital asset treasury companies formed. Many of them focused on accumulating Bitcoin, others on accumulating other crypto tokens. What is your take on how this industry is likely to evolve in terms of the number of players, whether there's going to be a shakeout, if there is a shakeout, will there be consolidation? And most importantly, what could this all mean for strategy as it unfolds? Are there opportunities for the company to take advantage of that dynamic?

I think every business has to have an operating model that works, that adds value if it's going to grow and prosper. So one model is just to provide Bitcoin exposure if people in the country in question can't get it any other way. There are a lot of people in the U.K. that bought our stock for 4 years because they just couldn't buy Bitcoin any other way. So if there's a value proposition in Brazil or in France or wherever, then maybe just you can be a simple Bitcoin holder. I think another value proposition is issue digital credit, and you can see that Stryve and MetapPinet have both pursued digital credit. If you're good at it, by the way, you can do digital credit and not be good at it, right? If you take on debt, you can't pay back, right? And that doesn't help the company, that hurts the company. But if you're good at digital credit, that could be another case. 1/3 would be anything that uses capital, right? So if these companies -- if they want to generate Bitcoin yield, they're going to have to find some way to generate a benefit from the capital, right? You could underwrite insurance, you could support trading or derivatives trading by posting it as collateral. You can engage in derivatives trading, right? You could literally become a public company with a lot of capital that trades in a digital derivatives market, posting your Bitcoin as the collateral to take the trade and sell the volatility. It's a different business model. What do I think? I think there's thousands of companies that get launched. Many don't succeed. Some will fail. Some get launched doing one thing and then they evolve into something different. like look at our company,…

For the next question, I would like to invite Larry Lepard from Equity Management Associates.

Yes. Thanks for having me on, guys. First off, 2 great things in my view, came out of the call. One, the whole guidance on the STRC rate. I mean that's brilliant. I really love it, and it's going to help people like me who are buying STRC as kind of a solid retirement type of asset to understand where it's going. And I have a question related to that, but I'd like to put it to the end. The second thing that I thought was really important was the notion that we're going to upgrade -- we're going to upgrade and play a leadership role in the technical direction of Bitcoin. I think that's fabulous and a great way of addressing all the f around Quantum, which I think is probably scared off a few of the bigger institutions who are looking at it and kind of saying, hey, who controls this whole thing. Just back to first principles, I want to just kind of run through how I look at this and see if you, as a management team agree I'm a value investor. I look for asymmetry. And in my view, right now, MicroStrategy is the most asymmetric value investment in the world, and most people don't understand it. And it's kind of stunning to me. My partner, David Foley and I, we did a model. We've done several models, and we've looked at it and said, if Bitcoin stays at $50,000 for 4 or 5 years, you can't break this company. It's unbreakable. I mean the dilution -- we calculate the dilution would maybe be 15% or 20%. So the downside case here in our view is really covered as a result of the fact that the debt is unsecured and the interest rate on it…

Go ahead, Phong.

I can start, Larry, and we agree with all your points. I think there's a significant misunderstanding of the leverage on the balance sheet and how we're going to service our convertible debt over time and these ideas that if Bitcoin price goes below our cost basis, that becomes an issue. And as I stated, Bitcoin needs to go down to $8,000 a coin and sit there for 5 years up until 2032 before we really have a problem being able to satisfy the convertible note. So thank you for pointing that out. On the rate on Stretch, right, right now, technically, the bottom of the rate would be SOFR, but we think of the fact that we get capital from Stretch. We put it into Bitcoin and Bitcoin is going to go up on average 30% a year. So anything that we pay less than, call it, 20% is accretive to our shareholders. So I don't think it's something where you should sit there and think that we're going to drive it down to SOFR, right? If Stretch price goes to $100 and sits at $100, we might take it down a couple of percentage points. But I don't think -- and obviously, it depends on where SOFR goes, but I don't think it's something that someone should think we're going to pull the rug out from under folks and drive it down to 1.

Yes. I think stating that publicly to people who are buying Stretch would be important just so people understand. And if you were to say something along the lines of we're not going to let it go below 7 or something because it's going to get to be really popular at some point in time. And those of us who are buying it are buying it with multi-decade time frames, right?

Yes. Another point to make is we can't lower the rate more than 25 basis points a month. So we're always going to be very incremental. And we would only lower the rate when -- in such a way that we thought it would stay in that zone of 99 to 101. Like we want to keep it target at 100. So you might 5 years from now find out that the rational credit spreads that the market assigns us are 300 basis points instead of 600 and that people would like to buy this thing at 400 basis points over SOFR, maybe. But we would very gradually get there and we would still expect STRC to be trading around 100. And so we're not looking to do anything that is jarring to the price. We want the price to be stable. As a practical matter, the reason that we would lower the dividend rate would be we had such an avalanche of demand. We had too much demand and people want to buy infinite, and we don't want to sell infinite because we'll drive the BTC rating of STRC down. right? Like if hypothetically, someone said, I want to buy $100 billion of STRC tomorrow, you can see how we don't want to sell it, right? Because then that's reflective and that would undermine the credit quality and that would increase the volatility and that kind of works against everything. So luckily for us, and practically, that's not going to happen, right? Like they say it's good that we have time because otherwise, everything would take place at the same time, right, all at once, all at once. We don't want stuff to happen all at once. So it will happen progressively. We'll be very thoughtful about it. Our…

For the next question, can we have Andrew Harte from BTIG.

So it'd be great to hear some examples of some of the doors that have been open since strategy got a credit rating. Back in the fall, I think it's opened -- potentially open doors to pension funds, insurance companies and other really large institutional investors. And Michael, before we got on this webcast, you said something like times today that we're seeing with Bitcoin is when people are looking for insight and leadership. So I guess who better to ask, right, what is your expectation for conversations with these new potential investors with these really large pools of capital? If you could also shed some light on how the conversations to date since you've gotten that credit rating have evolved.

Sorry, go ahead, Andrew.

I was going to start, and Phong, please jump in. Look, Andrew, thank you for the question. I think the process with the rating agencies was an excellent process I think we've noted that we've had a credit rating in the past. It was more based on the legacy business. This is the first time a Bitcoin treasury company with a framework specific to that was rated by a major credit agency. I think overall, the reaction has been what we had expected, right? Like there is now a public profile that investors can look to. It is opening up, I think, interest. I think it's still early though, right? I think a lot of us that have been in these types of markets know that the credit rating agencies take time to develop. I think we noted earlier in the presentation that we believe we've made strides since the launch of the -- relaunch of the rating that we'll continue to make progress I think there's more to do in that sense. And there -- it's sort of created a little bit of a floor, so to speak, because everything we do here will be incrementally increasing the capital base. It will increase our ability to strengthen our balance sheet. And so I think in the long run, it may be -- it may take longer than it would take a near-term action. But I think that there's possible upside. I think that will continue to drive more large institutional demand. And to answer your question, I think the reaction from the investor base has been net positive. And certainly, the cash reserve has added on to that as well.

Mike, do you want to cover the second question around just general Bitcoin?

Just restate the question again.

I was wondering how the conversations you've had with these really large -- very large investors have come along. And then before we got on, you said times like this is when people are looking for insight and leadership. And so as you continue to have those conversations with people that are new to Bitcoin, what do you tell them in a day like today?

I think we've got an unprecedented number of invitations to financial conferences and meetings with investors in general. And I think that the amount of interest in this topic explodes. And when the volatility explodes, the engagement explodes. What I would tell them is the same. We've kind of said for a while, Bitcoin's capital investment, your time horizon needs to be minimal 4 years. I would actually say, look at the moving -- the simple moving 200-week average, the 200-week simple moving average or the 4-year average, and I would invest like with a 4-year DCA dollar cost averaging type approach if you're going to invest in Bitcoin. And you really want to have the intent to hold the product -- hold the asset for a decade. And if you can't stomach -- if you can't wait a decade with no cash flow and if you can't stand the volatility, then I would say you ought to buy the credit. If you believe in digital assets or digital capital, you believe in Bitcoin, but you can't stand to wait for a decade and take the vol, you should buy the credit and just take the 11% tax deferred with much, much less volatility and with someone else stomaching, the pain for you. And so I think it's kind of simple, right? You either don't believe in Bitcoin at all and then you don't want the credit or the capital or you believe in Bitcoin as a maxi and you want the equity because you want 2x Bitcoin or you want Bitcoin as sovereign and censorship resistant long-term store value to give you great grandkids who may be living in a country you're going to live in right now and you want to self-custody, then you buy the Bitcoin. Or you just think all this stuff looks really good, but you need the money back in September. then you think about the credit, right? And specifically the treasury credit because the other credit instruments are too complicated. So I would say we're really, at this point, pitching the credit, treasury credit as the first step in a Bitcoin journey for a traditional or conventional investor who believes in digital assets. And we're pitching to a lot of people, like we're talking to a lot, right? So there's a lot of conversations. And if anything, right, the volatility right here is the kind of the reason why you might want to have a product like STRC. If you wonder what's the justification? Well, just look at the 2 charts next to each other and you figure out why you might want the credit instrument.

Great. And for the last question here, I would like to invite Dan Hillery from Buck.

So my question is as follows: The de-equitization of the convertible notes has seemed to be a bit of a headwind for the cost of capital across all the preferred equities. And if MSCR continues to trade below the convertible note conversion price, how many months before the put date would you guys consider refinancing or retiring the converts at a discount in order to lower the cost of capital across all the digital credit instruments?

Dan, we went through this in 2022 during Bitcoin winter and our converts were at some point in time trading at $35 each and...

You mean $0.35 or $0.40 on the dollar, $0.35 on the dollar.

$0.35 on the dollar, and we had considered whether it made sense to call -- to buy some of those back, and it never really made a lot of sense, especially if you live in a world where you think Bitcoin price is going to go up. So the converts aren't really this big overhang for us. And as I mentioned, you need Bitcoin price to go down to $8,000 and sit there for 5, 6 years before it really becomes a problem. So it's not really something that we think about a lot of whether we're going to buy back any of the converts or if we're going to do something early with them right now.

I would say a year before we have a put event or a year before we have a redemption event, we certainly look at it and we look at the statistical likelihood of anything. And then we evaluate whether or not it makes sense to refinance or hedge or mitigate anything. And if we were to do it, we would want to do it 6 months before the event took place. So -- but right now, we're still far out of that window, and it's not clear there's any event. The last time I looked at one of our puts. It was -- the one that was coming due earliest, the bond was already above par, and so there is no risk to it. So when we get to a -- certainly, when you're more than 1 year out, it's all hypothetical worrying about something that's unlikely to ever happen. When you get to 1 year out, you have to consider whether there's a risk. And then we're certainly not going to wait until 1 month before we deal with the risk. We wouldn't wait until the last few weeks or the last few months. We would probably do it with a few quarters buffer at the latest, which means we start thinking about a year before.

Great. Thank you, everyone. This concludes the Q&A portion of the webinar. I would like to thank all the guests for the questions and all the attendees for tuning in live. We had over 3,000 people join us live on Zoom webinar, over 4,000 people on YouTube live stream and over 180,000 views on X live stream. So this should be one of the most viewed earnings call in our history. So I appreciate all your interest in curiosity, and thank you. I would like to now turn the call over to Phong for final closing remarks.

Look, I want to echo everyone's thoughts. Thank you for the analysts for joining us. Thank you for everybody for dialing into the call and listening, and thanks for those who are joining us online. I invite you all to join us in Las Vegas, February 25 at Strategy World and Bitcoin Corporations. And if we don't see you there, we'll see you again in 3 months at our next earnings call. Thanks.