For much of the past three years, a predictable cycle has dominated the market: Companies announce their intention to buy large amounts of Bitcoin, watch their stock prices soar into premiums, and issue new shares to buy even more Bitcoin. This feedback loop makes the accumulation of Bitcoin look like an “infinite monetary glitch”: a guaranteed way for public companies to create shareholder value out of thin air.
As we enter the first quarter of 2026, this cycle has been broken. Recent data shows that approximately 40% of publicly traded Bitcoin Treasuries are currently trading below their net asset value (NAV). In short, the market now views these companies as liabilities that are worth less than the market price of the Bitcoin they hold.
The plunge in valuations drew harsh criticism from institutional veterans. VanEck CEO Jan van Eck recently dismissed the industry as a propaganda-driven trend, while veteran analyst Herb Greenberg described the most prominent player, Strategy, as a “quasi-Ponzi scheme.”
These criticisms point out how many of these companies are management failures. To remain viable, Bitcoin Finance companies must accept that value-add dilution is no longer a sustainable strategy. They must move beyond passive holdings and operate as disciplined asset managers.
Competitive Concepts: Sponsors vs. Asset Managers
Today, most Bitcoin funding companies fall into two camps, representing fundamentally different business management philosophies: “sponsors” and “asset managers.”
Promoters view Bitcoin as a passive asset to be hoarded. In this model, the company has two main jobs. First, companies must act as active advocates for the base currency and its ecosystem. By investing in community projects and maintaining a constant presence in public discussions, sponsors work to drive up token prices and capitalize on earnings from their existing holdings. Second, promoters must market their shares to maintain high premiums. When the market values a company significantly higher than its actual Bitcoin holdings, the company can sell new shares at an inflated price and buy more Bitcoin at normal market prices. This carefully calculated financial strategy is called accretive dilution.
Together, these strategies create a feedback loop of hype. Sponsors need rising Bitcoin prices to increase their net asset value and maintain equity premiums to continue their accumulation strategies. However, this model is fragile because it relies entirely on external emotions. If BTC prices stagnate or equity premiums disappear (as we see across the board in 2026), promoters will be left with unproductive balance sheets and no internal growth mechanisms.
In contrast, asset managers view Bitcoin as a productive commodity similar to “digital oil.” In the real world, oil majors like Exxon Mobil or Shell don’t just hold reserves and hope for higher prices. They are experienced financial operators who view inventory as a productive asset. They trade the futures curve to capture premiums and monetize market movements.
Asset management company-style treasury applies the same industrial rigor to the digital realm. By leveraging their balance sheet to generate real returns denominated in Bitcoin, they ensure that growth is driven by operational skills and not a by-product of cryptocurrency market sentiment. By treating Bitcoin as a commodity that needs to be managed, asset managers can generate real returns through skillful management of the asset rather than by constantly issuing new shares to the public.
The era of value-added dilution is over
The distinction between the two models is no longer academic. One of them has stopped working.
The originator approach—relying on equity issuance to fund Bitcoin accumulation—is no longer a viable growth strategy. What was once considered a complex financial strategy is actually one that relies on unusually favorable market conditions.
Issuing shares at a premium can temporarily increase Bitcoin per share but does not create financial returns. It generates no cash flow, has no operational advantages, and has no lasting compounding mechanism. Its existence is entirely at the discretion of new investors. When demand weakens, the strategy collapses.
For much of 2025, this reality will be easy to ignore. Rising Bitcoin prices and abundant liquidity make accumulation strategies look interchangeable. Capital flowed freely, equity premiums expanded, and dozens of financial firms adopted the same strategy: buy Bitcoin, promote the story, raise more equity, repeat. In that environment, differentiation doesn’t matter.
This is indeed the case now.
As the market matures, Bitcoin treasury bonds that rely solely on passive accumulation face hard constraints: the lack of an inherent growth mechanism. When every company owns the same asset, holds it in the same way, and relies on the same stock market dynamics, there is no basis for sustained outperformance. The model has become commoditized and investors are growing weary of it.
Only the most prominent players—those with extraordinary scale, brand recognition, and Michael Thaler-level fame—can sustain this approach. For most financial companies, passive accumulation without active management provides no path to differentiation, resilience or long-term relevance.
The market has already reflected this reality. Nearly half of all Bitcoin finance companies have fallen below mNAV, and most will not be able to recover without a significant correction.
Shift from passive storage to active management
To move from promoters to asset managers, companies must move beyond simple long-term holding strategies and put their balance sheets to work. This means employing professional commodity trading tools.
One primary tool is basis trading, where companies exploit the spread between the spot price of Bitcoin and the price of futures contracts. By capturing this spread, companies can increase their Bitcoin holdings even if the asset’s price is flat or falling. Additionally, Bitcoin asset managers use dynamic options strategies to convert market volatility into income.
This approach provides “real returns” that don’t rely on selling more shares or finding new investors. It transforms the financial center from a cost center into a profit center. Most importantly, it provides a clear path to growing Bitcoin per share through operational excellence rather than capital market operations.
Treasury firms also need to adapt the way they communicate with investors. Too many financial CEOs emerge as low-budget Michael Thaler imitators—focused on narrative amplification, publicity, and symbolic accumulation. This is an approach designed to generate hype rather than plan for prudent financial management.
As investor scrutiny intensifies, CEOs will need to demonstrate credibility by explaining how they manage risk, structure their exposures and generate returns across a range of market conditions. The market won’t reward Bitcoin’s loudest cheerleaders; it will reward those companies that allocate their assets most efficiently.
