It’s not a priority, said Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, but Strategy (MSTR) could buy back its own shares if they become cheap enough.

The comments during a Monday Q&A follow a rough stretch for Strategy’s common shareholders. MSTR is down about 38% this year and 73% year-over-year, driven in large part by bitcoin’s BTC$64,308.57 decline, as well as by the consistent issuance of common stock to fund more bitcoin purchases, build cash reserves, pay dividends, and repurchase preferred stock.

“If MSTR is trading at a very, very deep discount to NAV, then probably you would see us do something like that,” Saylor said.

For now, though, Strategy is focused on its preferred stock business, especially STRC.

CEO Phong Le also defended Strategy’s practice of selling new MSTR shares. While some investors worry that issuing more stock dilutes existing shareholders, Le argued that selling shares can help when MSTR trades above the value of the assets backing each share, and Strategy uses the proceeds to buy bitcoin. In that situation, he said, the amount of bitcoin backing each MSTR share can increase.

The recent drop in STRC has also changed how Strategy manages its money.

Trump argues that presidential immunity applies

Ethereum price rose nearly 2% on Aug. 17 as ETH reclaimed $1,900, while improving daily momentum and nearby short-liquidation clusters put the $2,000 level back in focus.

Ethereum price moves back above $1,900

According to data from crypto.news, Ethereum (ETH) price traded at $1,912 at press time, up 1.95% on the day after moving between an intraday low of $1,872 and a high of $1,915. Buyers entered near the session low and carried ETH through the psychological $1,900 level.

The recovery extended a consolidation phase that has developed since ETH rebounded from its late-June low near $1,530. Price has since formed a series of higher lows, although repeated selling around $1,930–$1,960 has prevented a wider breakout.

ETH’s daily candle closed above several closely watched averages. The 20-day simple moving average stood at $1,889, while the 100-day and 50-day averages were positioned at $1,869 and $1,845, respectively. Holding above those lines would preserve the improving short-term structure.

The daily relative strength index rose to 56.5, above its signal average of 53. An RSI above 50 shows that buying momentum has strengthened, but the reading remains well below overbought territory.

Longer-term pressure has not disappeared. Ethereum remains below its declining 200-day moving average at $2,009, making the area around $2,000–$2,010 a more important test than the initial move through $1,900.

Tom Lee watches Ethereum’s daily cloud

Fundstrat co-founder and BitMine chairman Tom Lee reposted an analysis from MacroCRG that placed ETH about 3.5% below its daily Ichimoku Cloud. The analyst described a move above that layer as a legitimate breakout because Ethereum has not traded decisively above it since Oct. 9, 2025.

“Would be good to see,” Lee wrote in response.

The original technical assessment came from MacroCRG rather than Lee. His comment only expressed support for the prospect of a breakout and did not include a price forecast.

At ETH’s current price, a 3.5% advance would take the token close to $1,980. The calculation places the cloud breakout area just below the $2,000 psychological barrier and the 200-day moving average visible near $2,009 on the supplied daily chart.

A daily move into that region would therefore confront three forms of resistance within a narrow range: the Ichimoku Cloud, the $2,000 round-number level, and the 200-day average. ETH would need to hold above the zone, rather than briefly trade through it, to establish a stronger daily reversal.

Liquidation clusters build on both sides of ETH

The one-week CoinGlass liquidation heatmap shows the closest concentrated leverage above Ethereum around $1,925. A stronger pool appears between roughly $1,945 and $1,950, with additional liquidity extending toward $1,960.

A move through $1,925 could force some bearish positions to close, adding market purchases to the existing demand. Clearing the larger $1,945–$1,950 band could then accelerate a test of the upper-$1,900 region.

The map also shows a major cluster around $1,910, but ETH had already moved through much of that area by the end of the chart. Remaining overhead liquidity near $1,925 now represents the closest possible target.

Downside exposure is concentrated near $1,860, with a wider and denser band between approximately $1,835 and $1,855. If ETH loses $1,870, the lower pools could draw the price toward that region and trigger long liquidations.

Liquidation heatmaps identify areas where leveraged positions may face forced closure, but they do not determine which zone price will reach first.

Analysts identify $1,870 as the key downside level

Analyst Michaël van de Poppe said Ethereum’s daily chart was improving as the asset continued to form higher highs and higher lows. Based on that construction, he considered an upside break more likely than an immediate loss of support.

Van de Poppe nevertheless warned that ETH could fall quickly if it loses $1,870 because substantial long-side liquidity sits below the market. He identified $1,700 as a possible downside target before a rebound if that breakdown occurs.

His bullish scenario requires a clear move through $2,000. Van de Poppe said ETH may not spend much time near that level once it breaks, potentially producing a sharp advance similar to moves observed earlier in 2025.

The analyst identified $2,200 as a possible temporary stopping point before a broader run toward $2,800. Those targets remain conditional on Ethereum first breaking and holding above $2,000.

$2,000 remains the deciding level for Ethereum

The immediate market structure favors buyers while ETH remains above its cluster of daily moving averages. Support sits at $1,889, followed by $1,870 and the $1,845–$1,860 region shown across the daily chart and liquidation map.

On the upside, bulls first need to clear leveraged resistance near $1,925 and $1,950. The larger technical decision would come around $1,980–$2,010, where MacroCRG’s cloud estimate, the psychological $2,000 mark, and the 200-day average converge.

US-listed spot Ethereum exchange-traded funds recorded a modest net outflow of $2.26 million during the Aug. 10–14 trading week, according to SoSoValue data. BlackRock’s ETHA posted $16.39 million in weekly withdrawals, indicating that the latest price recovery has yet to receive clear support from US ETF demand.

A daily close above $2,010 would improve Ethereum’s longer-term structure and open the path toward the levels cited by van de Poppe. Failure to hold $1,870 would weaken the setup and expose the liquidation-heavy zone below $1,860.

Bitcoin treasury company Strategy diluted shareholders of MSTR, the company’s common stock, by $333.7 million last week and bought no bitcoin (BTC). Instead, the company redirected about 40% of the proceeds to repurchase STRC for its preferred shareholders, 16% as STRC dividends, and kept the rest for itself as cash.

Strategy disclosed the transactions in an SEC filing this morning. It was the company’s fourth straight week of diluting MSTR shareholders with $0 BTC purchases.

In fact, Strategy has not increased its BTC holdings since June 21, 2026. It owns 6,916 fewer BTC today than it did two months ago. 

As a reward for patiently enduring founder Michael Saylor’s shareholder dilution program, MSTR shareholders have lost 16% of their investment since the company reported its last BTC purchase.

In fact, since the July 2025 debut of STRC on the Nasdaq, the price of MSTR has declined 75%.

The STRC rollercoaster from $100 to $71.25 to $95

Strategy has raised roughly $16.3 billion by diluting MSTR since it launched STRC, a dividend-paying preferred share that is supposed to trade near $100 yet has actually traded as low as $71.25 on the Nasdaq.

As STRC collapsed earlier this year, the company started to stack USD instead of BTC — an effort to assure investors that it would pay STRC dividends. It also resorted to direct buybacks of STRC after amassing cash didn’t do the trick. 

Still, STRC languishes, trading below $95 today.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury has launched a formal rulemaking process for the payment-stablecoin framework established by the GENIUS Act, opening the proposal to public comment as regulators move toward a planned start date in January 2027.

In a notice released on Monday, Treasury said it is seeking input from market participants and other stakeholders ahead of the GENIUS Act’s implementation. Under the law’s timeline, stablecoin rules were set to take effect 120 days after agencies finalize the regulations, or 18 months after the bill was signed in July 2025—placing the effective date at Jan. 18, 2027, absent changes to the scheduling.

Key takeaways

• Treasury is proposing GENIUS-related rules and will accept public comments for 60 days after the notice appears in the Federal Register.
• GENIUS would generally require entities to have a federal or state license before issuing a “payment stablecoin” in the U.S.
• The law’s implementation is still expected for Jan. 18, 2027, but multiple agencies have reportedly missed earlier internal timing targets.
• Treasury’s proposed process is part of a broader 2026 rulemaking effort involving agencies such as the OCC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve.

Treasury opens GENIUS rulemaking to public comment

According to the Treasury Department, the notice of proposed rulemaking is intended to help establish regulatory certainty for businesses that want to build payment stablecoin products in the United States. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the department welcomes feedback from stakeholders as it works to “provide the regulatory certainty businesses need to innovate and grow in America.”

The proposal matters because GENIUS is designed to move stablecoin oversight from a patchwork of approaches toward a clearer legal structure. Once the law takes effect, Treasury said, an entity generally would not be able to “issue a payment stablecoin” in the U.S. without a related federal or state license.

Public input is a key part of the process. Treasury stated that comments will be open for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register, giving industry participants, financial institutions, and other interested parties a defined window to weigh in on how the framework should operate in practice.

Inter-agency rulemaking is underway, but deadlines slipped

Treasury’s proposal follows similar steps by other U.S. agencies. In 2026, multiple regulators—including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Federal Reserve Board—have reportedly issued their own notices of proposed rules related to implementing GENIUS.

However, the timing has become a focal point for observers. The report accompanying the Treasury notice says agencies missed a 120-day deadline in July to finalize regulations before January, raising the possibility that GENIUS could become effective without fully settled guidance.

This creates a practical problem for businesses trying to plan for compliance and product launches: even if the statute is scheduled to take effect in January 2027, companies may still be operating amid transitional uncertainty about the exact requirements they will need to meet.

For readers looking for additional background on the broader stablecoin rulemaking environment, earlier coverage noted how the OCC has advanced proposals aimed at resolving parts of the long-running debate over stablecoin yield and related practices. That context is reflected in the agency-by-agency approach to GENIUS implementation.

What GENIUS changes for payment stablecoin issuers

At the core of the framework is a licensing requirement that is meant to formalize who can issue payment stablecoins and under what authorization. Treasury’s notice indicates that once GENIUS is active, entities generally need a federal or state license before they can issue a “payment stablecoin” in the United States.

For investors and traders, this type of licensing can influence expectations around which stablecoins are likely to gain institutional support. For builders, it can affect how they structure reserves, partner with regulated institutions, and design compliance operations—especially if the market previously relied on regulatory uncertainty rather than clear authorization pathways.

It also raises an operational question that market participants will be watching: how quickly regulators will translate the proposed framework into final, implementable rules. Treasury’s comment period is designed to narrow that uncertainty, but the overall effectiveness timeline leaves limited margin for delays.

Cross-Atlantic coordination and competitive pressure

The U.S. rulemaking effort also intersects with international developments. In July, the UK-US Financial Regulatory Working Group met in London to discuss cooperation between U.S. and UK financial regulators, including implementation steps for GENIUS.

While the UK has taken steps to address stablecoin regulation, the pending rollout of GENIUS is leading some within the crypto industry to argue that the UK could be at risk of falling behind the U.S. in establishing a comprehensive, operational framework.

That perceived asymmetry matters because it can affect where stablecoin-related partnerships and compliance strategies form first. If the U.S. moves more decisively toward a standardized licensing approach, businesses may prioritize compliance-ready pathways there—at least until the UK’s own framework becomes equally concrete.

As Treasury’s proposed rules move through the comment period and toward finalization, the most important thing to watch will be whether agencies can converge on final requirements in time to reduce transitional risk before Jan. 18, 2027. If the broader suite of GENIUS regulations remains incomplete, market participants will likely press regulators for clarity on licensing timelines, compliance expectations, and how existing operations should adapt.