Bitcoin Treasuries Make Strategic Sense. That Doesn’t Mean the Valuations Do.
By Charles Chong, VP of Strategy, BlockSpaceForce
Corporate Bitcoin adoption is accelerating. Today, more than 170 public companies hold over 984,000 BTC, worth more than $112 billion, on their balance sheets.
That shift has ignited explosive equity rallies. Metaplanet, often dubbed “Japan’s MicroStrategy,” is up nearly 200% in the past year, fueled almost entirely by its Bitcoin holdings. Investors are rewarding these companies with steep premiums over the value of their BTC, betting on future capital raises, structural advantages, or sheer momentum.
But that dynamic is starting to strain under its own weight. Are these valuations justified? What happens when sentiment turns? And are shareholders actually gaining Bitcoin exposure — or just underwriting dilution?
The mechanics behind Bitcoin treasury premiums are fragile and often misunderstood. But the broader shift they reflect is real: public companies are rethinking how they store value and manage risk. Bitcoin treasuries may be a sound strategy — but not at any price.
Premiums Reflect Narrative, But Also Fragility
That caveat — not at any price — is where the tension lies.
Today’s valuations often reflect more than just Bitcoin fundamentals. Investors are paying well above the value of corporate BTC holdings, as seen in soaring market-to-net asset value (mNAV) multiples. An mNAV above 1 means the market is valuing the company more than the underlying Bitcoin, implying belief in added advantages — like superior execution, lower cost of capital, or regulatory flexibility.
But the higher the premium, the shakier the foundation. Jim Chanos recently dismissed MicroStrategy’s premium as “financial gibberish.” Others see these valuations as justified, arguing companies offer access to BTC with structural upsides ETFs can’t replicate.
That divide is widening. With mNAV multiples diverging wildly across companies, the market is starting to question whether some of these premiums are sustainable — or just sentiment-driven.
mNAV Can Mislead
mNAV works best when balance sheets are clean. But many of these companies aren’t just Bitcoin wrappers — they have operations, liabilities, and in some cases, leverage. That complexity skews mNAV comparisons.
For leveraged companies, enterprise value (EV), not market cap, gives a more accurate picture. Two firms holding the same amount of Bitcoin shouldn’t trade the same if one is loaded with debt.
The Core Metric: Bitcoin Yield Per Share
What’s keeping these mNAV premiums alive? The answer is Bitcoin yield per share: the idea that companies can grow BTC holdings per share over time. This can happen when they issue new equity at a premium or raise debt to buy more Bitcoin.
As long as the company can issue new shares above its NAV, each raise is accretive, boosting BTC per share for existing holders. But if mNAV falls below 1, the same strategy becomes destructive: dilution kicks in, and BTC per share declines.
It’s a fragile loop. Bitcoin yield growth is used to justify high premiums, but maintaining that yield depends on the premium staying high. Once investor enthusiasm wavers, the flywheel stalls, and the strategy collapses on itself.
Some critics liken this to “ponzinomics”, a structure dependent on endless new capital to sustain previous gains.
The Metaplanet Problem
Metaplanet illustrates just how precarious this dynamic can be. NYDIG’s analysis of Metaplanet’s June SEC filings show that each Metaplanet share represents about 0.00001159 BTC, but investors are effectively paying for 0.00008798 BTC, implying the company must grow BTC-per-share by more than 650% just to justify its valuation.
Even raising $100 billion, 14x its ~$7B market cap, at a $9.25 share price wouldn’t be enough to generate that return. If the premium compresses, the math gets even worse. If it holds, Metaplanet might squeeze out a 616% Bitcoin yield — still less than the 650% increase that investors are betting on. Investors would earn more by simply buying and holding Bitcoin themselves.
This raises two key questions: What could justify mNAV rising this high, and how much more must Metaplanet raise (or can it raise) to deliver returns for investors who bought in at an mNAV of 7.6?
Fiat-Based Investor Perspective
For fiat-denominated investors, the outlook is slightly more forgiving. As long as the company raises capital at an mNAV above 1, the stock price can still rise even if the premium shrinks.
Why? Because every dollar raised adds more than a dollar to market cap. That growth can offset a falling multiple, keeping share prices buoyant.
For instance, if we explore Metaplanet’s announced $5.4B and assume they are able to execute it at $9.25 per share, and that mNAV stays flat at 7.6, the share price would soar to $56.25 — a 500%+ gain. If the mNAV compresses to 4.0 after the raise, the stock could still more than double. But if the mNAV drops all the way to breakeven, around 1.96 in this case, investors would see no price gain at all.
Which brings us to a third question: What’s a sustainable mNAV long-term? Because as the company gets bigger, each new raise needs to work harder just to keep the stock price from collapsing, let alone push the price higher.
The Road Ahead for Bitcoin Treasuries
Over the long run, mNAV premiums are likely to settle in the 1.0 to 1.3 range — modest but defensible. That reflects real advantages: timing Bitcoin accumulation, lower capital costs, and market access retail investors may not have.
Speculative favorites may enjoy higher multiples for a time, but as capital needs grow and early momentum fades, gravity sets in.
Still, the broader trend is bullish. Corporate treasuries adopting Bitcoin deepen its integration into capital markets and expand its legitimacy. Even if premiums compress, this shift is real and lasting.
At its core, the thesis remains the same: Bitcoin is still the most resilient long-term asset a company can hold.
The fact that more public companies are choosing to hold it — not just trade it — cements its place in the global financial system.
Charles Chong is the Vice President of Strategy at BlockSpaceForce, where he leads research on blockstocks (public companies with direct crypto exposure) and the evolving intersection of Bitcoin treasuries, capital markets, and digital asset strategies. The views expressed are his own.