For much of the past three years, a predictable cycle dominated the market: companies announced their intentions to buy massive amounts of Bitcoin, saw their share prices rise to a premium, and issued new shares to buy more Bitcoin. This feedback loop made Bitcoin accumulation look like an “infinite money bug”: a guaranteed way for public companies to manufacture shareholder value out of thin air.
As we move through the first quarter of 2026, that cycle is broken. Recent data shows that around 40% of publicly traded Bitcoin Treasuries are now trading at a discount to their net asset value (NAV). In short, the market now values these companies as a liability worth less than the market price of the Bitcoin they hold.
This collapse in valuation has drawn fierce criticism from institutional veterans. Jan van Eck, CEO of VanEck, recently dismissed the sector as an advertising-driven trend, while veteran analyst Herb Greenberg has characterized the most prominent player, Strategi, as a “quasi-Ponzi scheme.”
These criticisms point to a flaw in how many of these companies are managed. To remain viable, Bitcoin finance companies must accept that increasing dilution is no longer a sustainable strategy. They must go beyond passive holding and act as disciplined asset managers.
Competing philosophies: the promoter vs. the asset manager
Today, most Bitcoin treasury companies are divided into two camps that represent fundamentally different corporate management philosophies: “Promoters” and “Asset Managers.”
Promoters treat Bitcoin as a passive asset to be hoarded. In this model, the company’s primary job is twofold. First, the company must act as an aggressive advocate for the underlying currency and its ecosystem. By investing in community projects and maintaining a constant presence in the public discourse, the organizer works to drive the token price higher and leverage gains from its existing holdings. Second, the promoter must market its own stock to maintain a high premium. When the market values the company significantly higher than the Bitcoin it actually holds, the company can sell new shares at the inflated price to buy more Bitcoin at the normal market rate. This calculated economic maneuver is called accretive dilution.
Together, these strategies create a feedback loop of hype. The promoter needs the price of Bitcoin to rise to increase its net asset value, and it needs the share premium to be maintained to continue its accumulation strategy. However, this model is fragile because it relies solely on external emotions. If the price of BTC stagnates or the equity premium disappears – as we see across the board in 2026 – the promoter is left with an unproductive balance sheet and no internal growth mechanism.
In contrast, asset managers see Bitcoin as a productive commodity, akin to “digital oil.” In the physical world, an oil major like Exxon or Shell does not simply sit on reserves and hope for a price rise. They are sophisticated financial operators who treat their holdings as a productive asset. They trade the futures curve to capture premiums and profit from market volatility.
Asset Manager-style Treasuries apply the same industrial rigor to the digital world. By using their balance sheet to generate real, Bitcoin-denominated returns, they ensure that growth is driven by operational skill, rather than a byproduct of crypto market sentiment. By treating Bitcoin as a commodity to be managed, the asset manager generates real returns from the skillful management of the asset, not from the ongoing issuance of new shares to the public.
The era of increasing dilution is over
The distinction between these two models is no longer academic. One of them has stopped working.
The Promoter approach – relying on equity issuance to fund Bitcoin accumulation – is no longer a viable growth strategy. What once passed as financial sophistication was in practice a tactic dependent on unusually favorable market conditions.
Issuing shares at a premium may temporarily increase Bitcoin per share, but it does not create a financial return. It generates no cash flow, no operational benefits and no sustainable compounding mechanism. It exists solely at the discretion of new investors. When that demand weakens, the strategy breaks down.
For most of 2025, this reality was easy to ignore. Rising Bitcoin prices and abundant liquidity made accumulation strategies look interchangeable. Capital flowed freely, equity premiums widened, and dozens of financial firms took the same playbook: buy Bitcoin, promote the narrative, raise more equity, repeat. In that environment, differentiation didn’t matter.
It does now.
As the market matures, Bitcoin treasuries that rely solely on passive accumulation face a severe limitation: they lack an internal mechanism for growth. When every company owns the same asset, holds it in the same way and depends on the same stock market dynamics, there is no basis for sustained outperformance. The model has become commoditized – and investors are getting tired of it.
Only the most prominent players—those with unparalleled scale, brand recognition, and Michael Saylor-level fame—will be able to sustain this approach. For most treasury companies, passive accumulation without active management provides no path to differentiation, resilience or long-term relevance.
The markets are already reflecting this reality. Nearly half of Bitcoin’s treasury companies have fallen below mNAV, and most will not recover without a drastic pivot.
Transition from passive storage to active management
To move from a promoter to an asset manager, companies must move beyond the simple HODL strategy and set the balance in motion. This means that you must use the tools for professional commodity trading.
A primary tool is the basis trade, where a company takes advantage of the price difference between the spot price of Bitcoin and the futures contract price. By capturing this spread, a company can grow its Bitcoin holdings even when the asset’s price is flat or declining. Furthermore, a Bitcoin asset manager uses dynamic options strategies to turn market turbulence into income.
This approach provides a “real return” that is not dependent on selling more shares or finding new investors. It transforms the treasury from a cost center to a profit center. Most importantly, it provides a clear path to increase Bitcoin per share through operational excellence rather than capital market maneuvers.
Treasury companies must also adapt the way they communicate with investors. Too many CFOs act as low-budget Michael Saylor impersonators—focusing on narrative amplification, public advocacy, and token accumulation. It’s an approach designed to create hype, not project careful financial management.
As investor scrutiny intensifies, CEOs will need to project credibility by explaining how risk is managed, how exposure is structured and how returns are generated across a range of market conditions. The market will not reward Bitcoin’s loudest cheerleaders; it will reward the companies that use their holdings most productively.
