Bitcoin treasury companies are businesses, usually listed, that hold Bitcoin as a central part of their corporate strategy rather than as a small reserve. Many raise capital specifically to buy more Bitcoin, and their investors often value them largely by reference to the Bitcoin they hold.
The category is distinct from the much larger group of companies that simply keep a modest allocation on the balance sheet. Understanding the difference helps a board decide which, if either, it wants to be.
Where Bitcoin treasury companies came from
The model became widely known in August 2020, when MicroStrategy, a US software company, announced that it had bought Bitcoin as its primary treasury reserve asset. It continued buying in the following years, funded increasingly by capital raised for that purpose, and renamed itself Strategy in 2025.
In February 2021, Tesla disclosed a US$1.5bn purchase of Bitcoin. That was a different kind of decision: a large company allocating part of its cash to Bitcoin without making it the centre of its strategy.
Since then, listed companies in several markets have adopted Bitcoin treasury strategies. Some are operating businesses that added the strategy. Others have reorganised around it. Our short history of institutional Bitcoin adoption sets out the milestones.
Three types of corporate holder
It helps to separate three types, because their risks and governance needs differ.
| Type | Role of Bitcoin | Typical funding | Investor focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve holder | Small share of treasury | Surplus cash | Core business results |
| Strategic holder | Material, long-term allocation | Cash and operating income | Business plus Bitcoin exposure |
| Bitcoin treasury company | Central to the strategy | Equity and debt raised to buy | Bitcoin per share, mNAV |
Most companies that consider Bitcoin are reserve or strategic holders. The term "Bitcoin treasury companies" usually refers only to the third group.
The lines between the types are not fixed. A reserve holder can become a strategic holder as its allocation grows, and a strategic holder can drift towards the treasury company model if it starts raising capital to buy. That drift should be a deliberate board decision, recorded in policy, not something that happens by accident.
How Bitcoin treasury companies fund purchases
Funding is where the model differs most from an ordinary corporate treasury.
- Cash and operating income. The simplest route. Exposure grows only as fast as the business generates surplus cash.
- Equity issuance. Selling new shares, sometimes through at-the-market programmes. This makes sense to existing shareholders only if each share ends up backed by more Bitcoin than before.
- Convertible bonds. Borrowing at a low coupon, with the option for holders to convert into shares. This adds a repayment obligation if the shares do not rise.
- Preferred shares and other instruments. Fixed dividends or other claims that rank ahead of ordinary shareholders.
Each route changes the risk profile. Borrowing to buy a volatile asset creates the possibility that obligations fall due when the asset is worth less than expected. Equity issuance dilutes shareholders unless it is accretive in Bitcoin terms.
How investors measure them
Investors use a small set of metrics that are specific to this model.
- Bitcoin per share. Total Bitcoin held divided by fully diluted shares. Growth in this figure is what accretive issuance aims for.
- mNAV. The company's market value divided by the market value of its Bitcoin. A figure above 1 is a premium; below 1 is a discount. See what is mNAV.
- Debt and obligations relative to holdings. How much the company owes, and when, compared with its Bitcoin.
- Cost basis. The average price paid, which affects reported results and investor perception.
These metrics only make sense alongside clear disclosure. Under US GAAP, ASU 2023-08 now requires fair value measurement and specific disclosures, including holdings, cost basis and restrictions, for fiscal years beginning after 15 December 2024.
The main risks
Bitcoin treasury companies carry all the risks of holding Bitcoin, plus risks created by the structure itself:
- Price risk. Reported results and share price move with Bitcoin, often by more.
- Premium risk. A premium to holdings can shrink or turn into a discount, which can close off equity funding.
- Refinancing risk. Debt that falls due during a drawdown may be hard to roll over.
- Concentration risk. A single asset dominates the balance sheet.
- Governance and disclosure risk. Investors expect frequent, precise reporting of holdings and funding.
- Custody risk. Large holdings make key management and provider selection critical.
See the main risks of a corporate Bitcoin treasury for a fuller list.
Should your company become one?
For most companies, no. The model suits a business whose board and shareholders explicitly want the company to be a Bitcoin vehicle, and that can manage capital markets activity alongside it.
Most corporates considering Bitcoin are better served by a defined allocation within a written Bitcoin treasury strategy, with clear sizing, custody and exit rules.
CFO tip: before any board discussion, write down which of the three types your company would be. Most disagreements in the boardroom come from directors assuming different answers.
Companies should take their own accounting, tax and legal advice. Nothing here is investment advice, and we make no comment on any specific company's valuation.
How The Bitcoin World helps
We help boards decide what kind of Bitcoin holder they want to be, and design the strategy, policy and investor communication that follow. For companies building larger positions, we plan execution and liquidity sourcing. Execution, custody and settlement are carried out by licensed third-party institutions. See our board advisory and OTC liquidity services.