Strategy’s Bitcoin Pivot, OpenUSD Launch, and Fidelity’s Role

Strategy, the corporate vehicle behind Michael Saylor’s long-running “Bitcoin treasury” approach, has moved further into real-world capital management. The company authorized up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin sales under a newly defined capital framework—an acknowledgment that even highly committed holders must plan for liquidity, shareholder payouts, and balance-sheet flexibility.

Meanwhile, the crypto industry’s business priorities are widening beyond price narratives: a new coalition is pushing a US dollar stablecoin designed to capture reserve yield, Fidelity is defending Bitcoin’s security model post-halving, and political spending is ramping up ahead of the 2026 US midterms.

Key takeaways

• Strategy authorized up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin sales to support dividends, cash reserves, and repurchases while maintaining its long-term Bitcoin exposure.
• Strategy raised its STRC preferred dividend rate to 12% and says it has built a dedicated cash reserve of $2.55 billion to cover about 17 months of payments.
• A group of over 140 firms—including Visa, Mastercard, Coinbase, Ripple, OKX, and Bybit—plans an “Open USD” stablecoin that is structured to return reserve earnings to users.
• Fidelity argues Bitcoin’s security is not solely dependent on block subsidies, citing higher daily miner revenue over time.
• Public Citizen reports crypto-linked political spending totaled about $189 million in the 2026 election cycle, with PACs again central to the industry’s influence.

Strategy formalizes Bitcoin monetization and funding priorities

Strategy has adopted a new capital plan that explicitly authorizes Bitcoin sales of up to $1.25 billion. According to Cointelegraph’s reporting, the “Digital Credit Capital Framework” is intended to fund shareholder dividends, reinforce cash reserves, and support stock repurchases while still aiming to preserve the company’s long-term Bitcoin strategy.

Under the framework, the annual dividend on Strategy’s STRC preferred stock rises from 11.5% to 12%. The plan also introduces a structured Bitcoin monetization program and expands capital-return mechanisms that include buybacks of preferred securities and MSTR shares.

Strategy also disclosed that its dedicated cash reserve has grown to $2.55 billion. The company says this level is sufficient to cover roughly 17 months of preferred dividends and interest payments, effectively reducing the need to sell Bitcoin on short notice.

Crucially for investors watching Strategy’s “never sell” messaging, the framework marks a shift from pure accumulation rhetoric to a defined approach for generating liquidity. Strategy previously disclosed its first-ever Bitcoin sale, including the offload of 32 BTC in June, and Cointelegraph notes that the company did not purchase Bitcoin in the prior week referenced in the article.

Strategy’s holdings were reported as unchanged at 847,363 BTC, indicating the recent change is about authorization and planning rather than immediate acceleration of liquidation.

Stablecoin competition heats up with reserve-yield design

The next phase of stablecoin competition appears to be less about simply pegging to the dollar and more about who captures the yield generated by reserves. More than 140 financial and crypto companies have joined to launch a new US dollar-backed stablecoin that is designed to let participants retain the yield from reserves.

Cointelegraph reports the project—Open USD (OUSD)—is backed by major payments players including Visa and Mastercard, as well as crypto firms such as Coinbase, Ripple, OKX, and Bybit. The coalition’s structure differentiates OUSD from traditional stablecoin models: supporters say businesses will be able to mint tokens without fees or volume limits while keeping the reserve earnings.

That model is positioned as a competitive alternative to incumbent issuers, specifically Tether’s USDt (USDT) and Circle’s USDC. If it performs as intended, the ability to keep reserve yield could reduce the effective cost of using stablecoins for businesses and encourage greater adoption—especially in payment and settlement workflows where stablecoin balances function like working capital.

Timing also matters. According to Cointelegraph, Open Standard plans to roll out OUSD later this year. The push arrives as US policy has moved in a more favorable direction following passage of the GENIUS Act, which Cointelegraph links as a key development in stablecoin regulation.

With the article citing a market already worth more than $300 billion and analysts expecting further growth through the rest of the decade, OUSD’s success will likely depend on execution—particularly around reserve management transparency, minting/burning mechanics, and the practical user experience for businesses seeking reserve yield.

Fidelity challenges the “halving weakens security” narrative

Bitcoin’s halving cycle tends to reignite a long-running debate: if block subsidies decline, do miners eventually lose enough economic incentive to keep the network secure? Fidelity Digital Assets is pushing back against that conclusion.

In a research report highlighted by Cointelegraph, Fidelity argues that Bitcoin’s long-term security is not dependent solely on block subsidies. The firm’s framing suggests that other incentives—such as transaction fees, broader market dynamics, and price appreciation—can sustain miner participation even as issuance declines.

Cointelegraph’s summary points to Fidelity research analyst Daniel Gray, who noted a sharp change in the scale of miner revenue over time. Fidelity claims that average daily miner revenue grew from $1.3 million during 2012–2016 to $40.2 million today, despite declining block rewards. The underlying message is that miner economics have evolved beyond the subsidy component.

The report lands as miners face additional pressure following the latest halving. As Cointelegraph notes, many publicly traded mining companies have sought diversification—pivoting into areas such as AI and high-performance computing—while Fidelity maintains that these shifts don’t undermine Bitcoin’s long-term security assumptions.

For readers, the practical question is what happens if transaction fee demand fails to offset subsidy declines. Fidelity’s argument addresses incentive structure, but the real test will come from observing miner revenue composition over time: how much comes from fees versus price-driven valuation, and whether that remains sufficient to sustain hashrate participation through future cycles.

Crypto political spending climbs ahead of 2026 midterms

The business side of crypto is also increasingly visible in US politics. According to a new report by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, crypto companies have contributed roughly $189 million to the 2026 election cycle so far—estimated at 37% of all corporate political spending during the period covered.

Cointelegraph reports that political action committees are again the main vehicle for the industry’s influence. Fairshake has spent more than $82 million this cycle, while the pro-Trump MAGA Inc. Super PAC—heavily backed by Crypto.com—has spent more than $56 million.

Public Citizen also said the strategy mirrors 2024 tactics by backing candidates from both major parties who align with the industry’s policy agenda. It further notes that crypto spending has already surpassed the roughly $170 million deployed during the 2024 election cycle, even with more than four months remaining before November’s elections.

For market participants, political spending is not just a headline metric. It can shape how regulators define stablecoins, exchange operations, custody standards, and market surveillance expectations—areas that directly affect compliance costs and product design.

What to watch next

Over the coming weeks, investors and builders should track three closely related developments: whether Strategy’s authorized Bitcoin sales translate into actual, more frequent monetization—or remain primarily a liquidity backstop; how OUSD’s reserve-yield mechanics perform against USDT and USDC in real usage; and whether Fidelity’s security thesis holds up in miner economics as fees and market incentives evolve through subsequent halving periods.