Strategy and Metaplanet’s Bitcoin experiment meets its toughest test yet

Can Strategy and Metaplanet survive the ETF era, where direct Bitcoin access leaves little reason to invest through corporate treasuries?

Bitcoin’s pullback below $100,000 in early November rattled the corporate balance sheets of its largest public holders. Strategy (MSTR) and Japan’s Metaplanet (3350), two companies that built their corporate identity around Bitcoin (BTC), now face growing pressure as market sentiment weakens.

As of Nov. 10, Strategy held 641,692 BTC acquired at a total cost of $47.5 billion, averaging $74,079 per coin. Led by executive chairman Michael Saylor, the company operates more like a Bitcoin investment vehicle than a software firm. 

The latest purchase, worth $49.9 million, was made today and pushed the firm’s total Bitcoin holdings to more than $68 billion at current market value.

Metaplanet, listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, has undergone a complete transformation since 2024, evolving from a hospitality firm into a corporate Bitcoin treasury. It now holds 30,823 BTC valued at about $3.23 billion, making it the largest non-U.S. public company holding Bitcoin.

Despite their massive holdings, both firms’ equities have fallen sharply. Strategy’s stock trades near $239 as of Nov. 10, down 55% from its record high of $543 reached in November 2024. 

Metaplanet, after hitting a peak of 1,930 yen in June 2025, has fallen to around 427 yen, marking a steep 78% drop within months despite ongoing Bitcoin accumulation.

The downturn accelerated during Bitcoin’s correction from its October record near $126,000 to below $100,000 in early November, driven by consecutive days of net outflows from U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs. 

Let’s dive deeper into their financial structure and how future Bitcoin price movements could alter their prospects.

How two public firms keep fueling their Bitcoin buys

Strategy and Metaplanet have built financing systems that let them continue buying Bitcoin without depending entirely on their cash reserves. Both raise funds from public markets and channel that capital into expanding their Bitcoin holdings.

Strategy uses three main methods to fund its purchases. The first is through common stock, the regular shares available for trading on the stock market. When the company issues new shares, it receives cash from investors and uses part of it to acquire Bitcoin.

The second method is through convertible notes, which are loans that allow investors to exchange their debt for company shares later, often if the stock price increases. The structure lets Strategy borrow at lower interest rates since investors anticipate potential gains if the stock performs well.

The third method involves a newer class of preferred shares called Stretch. The Series A Stretch preferred shares, traded under the ticker STRC, pay a monthly dividend that can be adjusted based on market demand. 

The goal is to maintain the share price near its stated value of $100. Company filings in October showed a 10.50% annualized rate for November.

These tools provide the firm with flexible funding options. When Bitcoin prices rise and investor sentiment improves, Strategy can issue shares or preferred stock on more favorable terms. 

When Bitcoin weakens, investors demand higher dividends or lower prices to take on added risk, which raises the company’s cost of capital. If the share price also declines, issuing new stock becomes more dilutive, reducing the ownership stake of existing shareholders.

Metaplanet follows a similar model, combining equity sales with debt financing. The management team has set a long-term target of holding 210,000 BTC by 2027. Metaplanet has also created subsidiaries in Japan and the U.S. to handle its Bitcoin-related operations.

In early November 2025, several reports indicated that Metaplanet secured a $100 million loan backed by its Bitcoin holdings. The company pledged part of its Bitcoin as collateral to obtain the loan. 

If Bitcoin’s price falls, the collateral value declines, and lenders may require additional Bitcoin or reduced borrowing. If the price rises, the company gains more flexibility to draw from its credit line.

The hidden fragility beneath Bitcoin treasury valuations

As Bitcoin’s price slides and treasury firms trade below their net asset value, the discussion among analysts has shifted from growth to survival. 

Seb Bunney, Chief Investment Officer at Block Rewards, draws a parallel between traditional value investing and the current condition of Bitcoin-holding corporations. He refers to Benjamin Graham’s “cigar butt” strategy, where investors buy companies trading below their book value in hope of extracting one last profitable “puff.”

Bunney argues that a similar pattern is unfolding in crypto, where several Bitcoin treasury companies now trade below their multiple of net asset value (mNAV). 

He defines mNAV as the ratio between a company’s market cap and the total value of its Bitcoin holdings. When the ratio drops below one, the market values the entire company at less than the worth of its Bitcoin.

According to him, “Firms trading below an mNAV of 1 are sitting ducks for a hostile takeover.” He explains that a buyer could “purchase the entire company and gain control of its Bitcoin at a 20% discount to the spot price.”

Companies like Semler Scientific (SMLR), which holds $513 million worth of Bitcoin against a $406 million market cap, represent exactly this kind of opportunity.

Bunney warns that if a deep-pocketed acquirer such as Apple or Berkshire Hathaway were to buy these discounted firms and liquidate their Bitcoin, billions of dollars worth of BTC could flood the market.

He also notes that while Bitcoin itself is antifragile, “the most liquid, censorship-resistant asset in the world can still be vulnerable in the short term to financial gamesmanship when wrapped inside fragile corporate structures.”

A parallel concern appears in the work of Omid Malekan, a professor at Columbia Business School, who believes that Digital Asset Treasuries have intensified market stress instead of absorbing it.

Malekan describes DATs as a new class of public crypto-holding vehicles, many of which were launched “in a fashion likely to cause value destruction for crypto assets.”

He argues that DATs became “a mass extraction and exit event,” allowing insiders to cash out through complex public listings and undisclosed side deals. He adds that “raising too much money and minting too many tokens, even if they are ‘locked’ or for ‘ecosystem growth’, is the gangrene of crypto.”

“The biggest damage DATs did to aggregate crypto market cap was by providing a mass exit event for supposedly locked tokens,” he added.

Meanwhile, Pierre Rochard, host of Bitcoin for Corporations and a leading commentator on Bitcoin treasury strategies, offers a more technical view of the same issue.

He examines Strategy’s recent performance and attributes its weakness to a mix of cyclical and structural factors. 

“MSTR’s underperformance relative to BTC year-to-date is because it outperformed too much in 2024,” he says, explaining that Bitcoin’s volatility has cooled since then. Rochard believes part of the current pain is a healthy correction.

He points to Strategy’s “rotation from leveraged convertible bonds to amplified perpetual preferreds,” explaining that such financing shifts can temporarily weigh on valuation yet “create the best conditions for the preferreds to grow” by improving the company’s capital structure.

The firm’s recent use of at-the-market share programs, he adds, may “put marginal pressure on mNAV” in the short term but over time “increases the company’s fundamental value by growing the collateral base.”

He views the present uncertainty as an investment opportunity, arguing that the market may be discounting Strategy too harshly.

The survival test of DATs 

Bitcoin treasury firms now face a new reality. ETFs have taken over the role once played by companies such as Strategy and Metaplanet.

Before spot ETFs became available, investors who wanted Bitcoin exposure through traditional markets often turned to these firms. Buying their stocks offered an indirect way to gain Bitcoin exposure without using exchanges or wallets.

With regulated ETFs now allowing investors to purchase Bitcoin directly, treasury firms must prove their continued relevance. Strategy’s complex funding system involving stock, notes, and preferred shares once gave it an advantage, yet that model must now show sustained value as enthusiasm fades.

Metaplanet’s position appears more fragile. Its Bitcoin-backed loan magnifies each price movement, leaving the company exposed during market downturns. Managing debt while expanding holdings will determine whether it can endure long enough to benefit from a recovery.

Smaller treasuries have even less room for error. With ETFs offering a simpler and cheaper way to access Bitcoin, many of these firms must evolve from being passive holders into credible businesses capable of generating steady cash flow.

What remains to be seen is whether these firms can evolve from vehicles of exposure into businesses with lasting purpose.