I think there is an argument for bitcoin treasury companies peppered ostensibly randomly throughout the economy and in different jurisdictions during a credit crunch. Unfortunately it only works if that bitcoin is held by companies that are more or less free of debt and other big liabilities like dividends.

Real estate may get hairy again and there might be a push to allow some big banks to go under as the collateral base of the debt they own sinks. I think there might be an argument in favour of bitcoin given the hindsight that our current model is broken, as in it has created a housing crisis and only worked for a brief window after the 2008 due to zero percent interest rates.

As pristine collateral banks might see bitcoin as an opportunity at the bottom of the credit cycle to issue some loans that then become over-collateralised in the recovery. In this context, viable businesses that need to borrow might need to borrow collateral from a treasury company in the same industry, which might get paid in shares of the borrowing company or with a percentage of the interest rate. Banks don't have expertise in industry, so they might partner with these treasury companies who provide both the collateral and the industrial expertise. Strategy would be one of those players who has in-house expertise in software, and there might be a lot of software companies desperate for loans but without collateral equivalent to bitcoin.

The other point is that institutions would have bought MSTR because they couldn't directly own bitcoin for PR reasons, even if they could technically buy the ETF, such as Vanguard and the Swiss National Bank. This would be justified if MSTR is going to at the same rate as Bitcoin, but obviously it hasn't, so demand is drying up.

That's the best case I can make. I think that Strategy's core software business has to start growing for this play to make any sense, otherwise it's just an elaborate ponzi scheme.