More than 160 publicly traded companies have now adopted bitcoin as their core treasury strategy, collectively holding nearly 1 million BTC, or approximately 4% of the circulating supply. What started as a bold, corporate-led experiment has turned into a global strategy playbook: raise capital, buy Bitcoin, and provide partial exposure to Bitcoin stocks through a listed vehicle. These stocks trade not on earnings or cash flow, but on their ability to generate bitcoins per share, and most companies have achieved market capitalizations above net asset value, or as it is now called (“mNAV”) multiples greater than one. The question is no longer whether the BTC treasury model can be implemented, but what’s next in terms of risks and opportunities?
The first era — from narrative to replication
The first chapter of Bitcoin Cash Companies was defined by storytelling and replication. Michael Saylor’s (née MicroStrategy) strategy showed that raising equity at a premium to NAV, converting it to BTC, and never selling could turn a software company into a $100 billion proxy for Bitcoin.
From Metaplanet in Tokyo, to US healthcare company Semler Scientific, to Smarter Web Company in London, the model has spread. But premium multiples might not be enough for storytelling and BTC holdings alone. For this model to survive its adolescence, companies may need to justify net asset value multiples greater than one in a more sustainable manner.
The next levers for Bitcoin treasury companies
First lever: yield as an advantage
Just as REITs went from being proprietary to being a yield machine, Bitcoin cash companies will need to show that they can generate additional Bitcoin per share rather than just sitting on their stack.
This could come from BTC-backed loans, Lightning infrastructure, or new financial products that could monetize balance sheet holdings. For example, locking BTC into payment channels in Lightning allows the BTC holder to charge a fee for providing this liquidity, potentially providing a yield. However, all return strategies involve risks that must be considered and managed, for example credit and counterparty risk. Without an efficiency engine, dilution could eventually catch up and the mNAV could compress toward one.
Second lever: leverage (risk-weighted)
The winners of the last bear market were not those with the largest balance sheets, but those who structured their capital to survive a forced liquidation. Some BTC treasury companies are currently considering the relative value of pledging their BTC as collateral in BTC-backed loans, which will be lent in USD. This USD can then be deployed as the company sees fit, such as to earn yield or purchase more Bitcoin. However, this type of activity requires rigorous risk management as well as cash flow and scenario modeling. Leverage amplifies the reflexive flywheel, but it requires discipline: leverage only at a premium, never against firm guarantees, and keep maturities long enough to follow the cycles.
Third lever: complementary economic models
The third lever consists of proposing complementary economic models, or the “pickaxes” of the Bitcoin economy. Some Bitcoin treasury companies are already getting into infrastructure plays: data centers, AI decentralized computing, Bitcoin native software or business services.
This dual model can transform them from pure NAV arbitrage to platforms with operating cash flow. This could make them not only Bitcoin proxies, but also stock growth stories. There are parallels with the companies of the Internet era that have today become gigantic providers of technological infrastructure, often themselves sitting on significant cash reserves: Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook et al.
Towards professionalization and institutionalization
The reflective phase of the Bitcoin treasury model is coming to an end. As the flywheel slows, companies are professionalizing their Bitcoin treasury strategies: designing capital stacks for resilience, perhaps generating a return in Bitcoin without diluting per-share exposure, and developing lines of business that connect them to a broader digital asset infrastructure.
Those that succeed can justify persistent premiums above NAV, institutionalize their shareholder base, and become the bitcoin equivalents of REITs, tech giants, or energy majors. There is a risk that those that remain static will eventually become useless, or even trade on stock markets as closed-end funds with no growth.
The next game – beyond buying Bitcoin
The next play probably isn’t about buying Bitcoin; this playbook is already written. It’s about building the financial architecture to keep mNAV above one, cycle after cycle.
The companies that crack the code won’t just be proxies for Bitcoin. They could constitute the fairness layer of a new monetary system.
This article is provided for informational purposes only and reflects the opinions of the author at the time of writing. It does not constitute financial advice, investment research or an inducement to engage in any investment activity. References to Bitcoin, corporate strategies or listed companies are for illustration purposes only.
Greenengage & Co. Limited is not authorized by the Financial Conduct Authority to provide regulated investment, crypto trading or lending services. This content is for informational purposes and is primarily intended for an institutional and professional audience and is not designed for retail investors.
Cryptoassets and related investments are high risk. You could lose all the money you invest. These products are not protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) or the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
