Bitcoin “treasury companies” have proliferated quickly, with SatsIntel counting 179 listed firms holding BTC on their balance sheets as of September 2026. The pitch is straightforward: raise capital through traditional equity markets, buy Bitcoin, and—ideally—grow the amount of BTC backing each share faster than dilution erodes it.
That mechanism can outperform in rising markets, but it works symmetrically. When Bitcoin’s premium to share prices disappears and capital becomes harder to secure, the same corporate wrapper that helped magnify gains can magnify losses.
Key takeaways
- SatsIntel reports 179 listed Bitcoin treasury companies as of September 2026, all pursuing variations of a similar “buy BTC with raised capital” model.
- StoneX equity research analyst Mark Palmer says investors should evaluate Bitcoin per fully diluted share, net of debt and preferred stock claims, not just BTC holdings.
- Palmer warns that issuing equity at a discount to net asset value destroys value, even if new proceeds are used to buy more Bitcoin.
- CoinShares-like scrutiny is not the only issue—convertible debt and preferred stock create cash obligations that spot Bitcoin itself does not.
- Executives at several treasury firms argue the strategy has outperformed Bitcoin, but past performance does not remove risks tied to funding access, debt maturities, and yield commitments.
The “BTC per share” test investors can’t ignore
Behind the headlines, the core question for shareholders is mechanical: does a company end up with more Bitcoin backing each share over time after accounting for the way new capital is raised and financed?
Mark Palmer of StoneX argues investors should move beyond raw BTC totals and instead track a more precise metric: “Bitcoin per fully diluted share, net of debt and preferred stock claims.” The point is that corporate claims ahead of common shareholders can materially change what equity holders effectively “own,” even when the firm’s BTC balance grows.
In practice, dilution is only problematic when the economics are unfavorable. If new share issuance occurs at a premium and the incremental capital buys Bitcoin (and generates profits) that more than compensate for the dilution, existing holders can see their BTC backing per share improve. If issuance happens below the value of the Bitcoin backing those shares, the opposite can occur—new buyers may help fund BTC purchases, but at a cost that reduces the effective BTC exposure of existing equity holders.
That distinction becomes especially important when financing conditions tighten. Palmer notes that the treasury model can “beat” Bitcoin during periods when markets cooperate—i.e., investors are willing to fund share issuance at attractive terms—while the same structure can underperform during drawdowns when issuance becomes more expensive or unavailable.
When capital markets stop cooperating
The difficulty treasury companies face is not simply that Bitcoin can fall—it’s that the equity market’s willingness to fund the next purchase spree often deteriorates during downturns. Palmer’s framing highlights the asymmetry: share issuance at a premium can increase Bitcoin backing per share, while the same move at a discount reduces value.
The fragility of the model shows up in market performance. According to reporting referenced in the article, the 50 largest Bitcoin treasury companies “bled” $83 billion in market value since July 2025, underscoring how quickly sentiment can reverse when premiums evaporate.
Metaplanet’s shareholder backlash is offered as an example of the questions that emerge when dilution pressures become hard to justify. While treasuries may have strong narratives in bull cycles, backlash signals a breakdown in the trust equation: investors may tolerate frequent stock sales when Bitcoin is rising, but become far less patient when share issuance expands and the expected catch-up to BTC gains fails to materialize.
For traders and long-term shareholders alike, the key uncertainty is whether a treasury firm can keep issuing capital on acceptable terms during market stress. If it cannot, the model’s downside can accelerate because debt and yield obligations remain even when Bitcoin’s price and equity premiums fall.
Leadership, governance, and the problem of “story over exit”
Not all treasuries are structurally equal. Experience and branding can matter, the article suggests, because these firms often rely on investor attention to sustain financing.
StoneX commentator McCarthy frames it as a form of first-mover advantage. He points to the role of well-known executives—citing Strategy and figures such as Michael Saylor—as helping maintain momentum even when Bitcoin’s price weakens. Other companies, including Ethereum treasury firm Bitmine, are also described as having prominent leadership that can support investor narratives.
Still, McCarthy warns there are not enough “Michael Saylors” in the market to replicate the same effect broadly. His concern is that many companies that followed Strategy were essentially buying Bitcoin and betting that the stock price would mirror BTC’s performance, without a clear “exit plan” for what happens when the capital markets dynamics reverse.
McCarthy goes further in his expectation of a harsh shakeout, arguing that the majority of treasury companies could be flushed out if the financing-based arithmetic no longer holds. Whether or not that exact figure proves accurate, the underlying message is clear: investors should not evaluate treasury companies purely as Bitcoin proxies; they are corporate structures with real governance, financing, and timing risks.
Treasury equities vs spot ETFs: why the wrapper changes everything
One practical takeaway for investors is that exposure to Bitcoin does not require a corporate wrapper. Spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds allow investors to buy through conventional brokerage accounts, without needing to assess a treasury company’s management decisions, financing structure, or governance complexities.
Palmer highlights why the equity wrapper can be difficult to model, especially for retail investors: common shareholders are residual claimants. In a company’s capital structure, convertible debt and perpetual preferred stock sit ahead of common equity and can carry cash obligations that Bitcoin itself does not generate.
That distinction matters when conditions turn. A treasury firm may hold significant BTC, but if scheduled obligations persist—while equity issuance becomes unfavorable and market sentiment declines—shareholders can experience downside driven as much by balance-sheet mechanics as by Bitcoin price movement.
Do treasury companies beat Bitcoin? Executives say yes—partially
Supporters of the treasury strategy point to relative performance since adoption or inception. Matt Cole, chief executive of Strive, is quoted arguing investors should “look at the scoreboard.” He claims Strategy has dramatically outperformed Bitcoin since adopting its strategy, Metaplanet has outperformed since inception, and Strive has outperformed both Bitcoin since announcing its strategy in May 2025 and year-to-date in 2026.
Cole further says Strive has not sold any Bitcoin and, during a Bitcoin bear market, increased holdings approximately fourfold while still outperforming Bitcoin. The article also includes David Bailey, chief executive of Nakamoto, making a case for Metaplanet’s performance, including claims drawn from his social media remarks that Metaplanet was the “best performing equity” for nearly two years and up materially from genesis.
Yet the same discussion acknowledges that performance to date does not resolve longer-term risks. Debt maturity and yield obligations remain potential pressure points, and the article cites examples where companies reportedly experienced steep declines from prior highs. Those cases reinforce a recurring theme in treasury investing: access to capital and balance-sheet resilience can matter as much as the BTC thesis itself.
McCarthy’s own hypothetical allocation—mostly buying an ETF and placing only a smaller amount into Strategy “for the vol.”—reflects a cautious split between direct exposure and the additional uncertainties attached to treasury equities.
At bottom, the decision framework is straightforward. Buying Bitcoin is a bet on Bitcoin. Buying a treasury company is a bet on Bitcoin plus a second bet: that the people running the company, the financing structure, the balance sheet, and governance practices are robust enough to manage dilution and obligations when market conditions deteriorate.
Investors who already own or are evaluating treasury equities should focus less on BTC totals in isolation and more on the issuance terms, the implied net asset value dynamics, and the company’s capital structure—especially preferred and convertible claims—because those details determine whether the model can compound or simply reshuffle losses during the next stress period.
Be the first to comment