If "leveraged exposure" is just a metaphor for increased exposure through pooling, it feels potentially misleading

As it stands, $LSTR seems more like a way to pool funds to buy and stake $LEO:$0.07, supporting its price through consistent demand. This benefits the $LEO:$0.07 ecosystem as a whole, but it’s less clear what unique value $LSTR provides to individual token holders. If the goal is to support $LEO:$0.07, that’s fine—but it’s not quite the same as being an investment vehicle.

These questions and many of the others are answered throughout our Blogs & Threads. I would also highly recommend reading up on Microstrategy (MSTR) if you're curious about the longer term roadmap for LSTR.

Our initial raise is intended to buy as much $LEO as possible off the market and stake it in the @leostrategy account.

From there, we have IRL investors who are willing to use that staked LEO as collateral to give us low interest, no liquidation loans to buy more LEO. These investors have high conviction in the future success of LEO, so they are willing to earn a nice interest rate and have no concerns about their ability to be paid back on the loans in the future as LEO continues to outperform the rest of the crypto market.

These are similar to long-dated bonds - again, how we pull from the Microstrategy playbook.

Simply put, we will buy LEO. Then we will use that as collateral to buy more LEO. Our earnings from curation, posting, creator subs, referrals, etc. will all be used to buy and stake more LEO.

The LEO we compound in the @leostrategy account is what backs the LSTR token.

You cannot redeem MSTR stock for BTC. However, the price of MSTR is backed by BTC. The very same mechanism applies to LSTR.