Bitcoin is no longer just a grassroots monetary revolution. It’s in the process of moving from the periphery of finance into its centre. The rise of Bitcoin treasury companies is a major force behind this shift. These are firms that accumulate bitcoin not as a side bet, but as a core balance sheet holding. In doing so, they provide access to capital markets, offer yield-bearing instruments, and reshape how companies think about monetary preservation.Read More:
Public companies can access large pools of capital through stock and debt issuance. They can then deploy that capital into bitcoin. Retail investors, pension funds, and even many hedge funds cannot hold bitcoin directly—but they can buy shares in public companies. This is not a technicality. It’s a structural end-run around the gatekeepers of capital. While a retirement fund can’t buy spot bitcoin, it can buy shares in a firm like MicroStrategy. That dynamic turns treasury companies into Trojan horses—pulling bitcoin exposure into portfolios that would otherwise be prohibited from touching it. The treasury model gained serious traction in August 2020, when MicroStrategy ($MSTR) allocated $250 million of its reserves to bitcoin. CEO Michael Saylor framed the move as a rational response to fiat debasement and falling real yields. The firm continued raising capital through debt and equity issuance to expand its position, ultimately acquiring over 650,000 BTC. Other public companies followed. Tahini’s began stacking bitcoin a mere days after MicroStrategy. Tesla ($TSLA) added $1.5 billion in bitcoin to its treasury in early 2021. Square ($SQ), now Block, also made an allocation, citing long-term purchasing power as the key motivation. These high-profile moves signaled that bitcoin was gaining legitimacy as a treasury reserve among large-cap firms. To support institutional adoption, MicroStrategy, in partnership with BTC Inc launched Bitcoin for Corporations, an annual event aimed at guiding CFOs, legal teams, and boards through the process of integrating bitcoin into treasury strategy. The event helped normalize bitcoin discussions inside traditional corporate structures. A major barrier to adoption—accounting treatment—began to shift in 2023. The FASB approved new rules allowing companies to report bitcoin holdings at fair market value. This replaced the outdated impairment model and removed one of the most cited objections among public company CFOs. The change went into effect in 2025. Read more: The Origin Story of Bitcoin Treasury Companies MicroStrategy ($MSTR) is the most established treasury company in the market. It has redefined its corporate identity around bitcoin accumulation and capital efficiency. The company has raised billions through convertible notes and direct equity issuance, with proceeds allocated to bitcoin. Shareholders now view the firm as a long-term access vehicle to bitcoin’s monetary appreciation. MetaPlanet ($3350.T) is a Japanese firm that executes a similar game plan to Strategy. Operating within Japan’s distinct regulatory environment, it adapts the treasury playbook to fit regional constraints. MetaPlanet illustrates how treasury adoption can be localized without losing strategic focus. Smarter Web Company ($MCP), based in the UAE, blends infrastructure development with bitcoin accumulation. Its jurisdiction allows more flexibility in treasury construction, enabling a hybrid model that integrates operational revenue with bitcoin reserves. Nakamoto Holdings ($NAKA), a subsidiary of KindlyMD, has built a vertically integrated treasury strategy that includes internal capital management and structured products. The firm was profiled by Steven Lubka as an example of how smaller organizations can implement bitcoin treasury models with institutional rigor. For a real-time view of corporate holdings and their relative size, see the Bitcoin Treasury Tracker chart on BitcoinMagazinePro.com. The success of a bitcoin treasury company depends on more than just the size of its holdings. Investors should evaluate how efficiently the company acquires bitcoin, whether it increases bitcoin per share over time, and how effectively it monetizes its position. A key metric is mNAV, or multiple of net asset value. This measures the company’s market capitalization relative to its bitcoin holdings. A high mNAV suggests that the market values not just the bitcoin, but also the company’s capital efficiency, access, and ability to grow its holdings faster than the open market. Companies that compound bitcoin holdings through accretive financing deserve to trade at a premium. This premium reflects future expectations of value creation. However, poorly managed firms can destroy per-share bitcoin by issuing too much equity or overpaying for marginal gains. Evaluating treasury companies requires examining their capital structure, acquisition timing, product issuance, and accounting treatment. More info: How To Measure The Success Of A Bitcoin Treasury Company Bitcoin treasury companies operate within a set of structural risks that are distinct from simple asset volatility. These risks are operational, regulatory, reputational and political. There’s also a fifth opposing risk, which is the risk of not holding or having exposure to bitcoin at all. Managing a bitcoin treasury introduces technical and procedural risks. Custody is not a service you can outsource without trust tradeoffs, and self-custody requires enterprise-grade key management practices. Multisignature configurations, geographic key separation, internal access controls, and incident recovery protocols must be implemented with precision. Any compromise in key security, whether from internal error or external attack, can result in unrecoverable losses. For companies holding hundreds of millions or billions in bitcoin, this becomes a single point of existential failure. Bitcoin exists outside the traditional financial system, and many jurisdictions still lack a clear legal framework for its treatment. Treasury companies must navigate unclear tax rules, evolving securities classifications, cross-border restrictions, and ambiguous corporate governance expectations. Regulatory risk is amplified for public companies, which face additional scrutiny from auditors, exchanges, and shareholders. In many regions, bitcoin remains classified as a speculative asset, limiting how it can be reported or deployed within treasury operations. Corporate media, ESG pressure groups, and risk-averse investors typically view bitcoin adoption as speculative or irresponsible, especially during periods of price drawdown. Even competent treasury execution can be framed as reckless if narrative conditions turn. Leadership teams must be prepared to defend the strategy publicly and educate stakeholders who may not yet grasp the long-term monetary thesis. One of the most insidious risks facing treasury companies is the growing institutional pushback from legacy finance. In 2025, MSCI, BlackRock, and Goldman Sachs’ Datonomy index excluded MicroStrategy and Coinbase from digital asset classifications, despite bitcoin representing a majority of their balance sheet exposure. These companies were strategically removed because their alignment with bitcoin poses a structural threat to the existing banking order. Their inclusion in major indexes would legitimize bitcoin as a competing monetary system and weaken the financial establishment’s control over capital allocation. This index engineering reduces investor access and protects legacy institutions. It is designed to suppress entities that store capital in an asset that cannot be debased, seized, or rehypothecated. A more widespread risk facing corporate treasuries is the cost of continuing to rely on fiat-based strategies. Inflation erodes capital over time by reducing purchasing power. Treasury strategies that depend on short-term government bonds or bank deposits are exposed to monetary policy decisions that guarantee devaluation over time. Choosing to avoid bitcoin leads to long-term capital deterioration and the progressive weakening of the balance sheet. For companies that operate in inflation-prone environments or that sit on large fiat reserves, this becomes structural loss. Holding cash yields nothing. The U.S. M2 money supply has grown by more than 7 percent annually since 1971, with recent years far exceeding that rate. A company holding idle dollars is losing 7 percent of purchasing power each year. U.S. Treasuries yield between 1 and 3 percent in most cycles. Compared to 7 percent monetary expansion, this results in a real loss of 4 to 6 percent per year. These figures may widen as governments and central banks continue expanding credit to support growing debt obligations. Stock buybacks are often framed as shareholder-friendly but rely on equity valuations inflated by the same monetary expansion that devalues cash. Once the capital is spent, it cannot be reallocated or used to defend the balance sheet. Buybacks might boost earnings per share but do nothing to preserve long-term monetary value. Bitcoin provides a structurally different outcome. It has no issuer, no credit risk, and a fixed supply of 21 million. It is the only asset that has consistently outpaced M2 expansion over time. Michael Saylor projects a 29 percent annual return over the next 20 years. If that projection proves accurate, a modest allocation to a bitcoin treasury could fully offset fiat debasement. As little as 2 percent in bitcoin may be enough to break even in real terms. With regular rebalancing, an allocation between 5 and 30 percent could preserve or grow purchasing power while still maintaining fiat liquidity. This is a strategic hedge against fiat decay and should be evaluated as a treasury defense mechanism, not a speculative bet. Read More: How a Bitcoin Treasury Converts Idle Reserves Into Strategic Capital For readers looking to explore this topic in greater depth, two standout resources offer high-signal material: Bitcoin treasury companies do more than store reserves in a the worlds best money. They restructure balance sheets around monetary certainty, offer regulated access to bitcoin, and create financial instruments anchored to absolute scarcity. As inflation accelerates and fiat-based finance becomes more unstable, treasury companies may become lifeboats for capital seeking long-term preservation.Background and Origins
Examples of Bitcoin Treasury Companies
Evaluating a Treasury Company and Measuring Success
Risks and Structural Headwinds
Related Concepts
Further Reading
Final Thoughts
About Author
