mNAV has become the valuation of choice for bitcoin government stocks – but a growing number of analysts warn that it oversimplifies the story.
The rise of mNAV in bitcoin financing
Over the past few years, a class of publicly traded companies has emerged whose primary value proposition is keeping bitcoin on their balance sheets. These “bitcoin treasure holdings” — including firms like Strategy (MSTR), formerly known as MicroStrategy — have sparked debate among investors, especially when their shares trade at levels unrelated to the value of the BTC they hold.
The most common valuation metric is multiple of net asset value (mNAV). It compares a company’s enterprise value (EV) to the market value of its bitcoin holdings, giving investors a way to assess how much of a premium or discount the market is assigning to its treasury.
mNAV ≈ enterprise value ÷ bitcoin holding value
The metric is now widely followed. Strategy publishes its own mNAV on its investor website, while third-party dashboards such as BitcoinTreasuries.net track different mNAV numbers across multiple firms.
How mNAV works
A basic mNAV calculation involves:
- Estimating the market value of the company’s BTC stack using current prices.
- Calculation of enterprise value: market value + debt – cash and cash equivalents.
- Divide EV by BTC holdings to get the multiple.
This EV-based approach represents only one way to calculate mNAV. Depending on how analysts treat debt, cash and potential equity dilution, the ratio can change significantly — which is why the industry now tracks multiple variants.
A reading above 1.0 implies a premium, while a reading below 1.0 suggests a discount—potentially a red flag or an opportunity, depending on the investor’s outlook.
While Strategy reports an enterprise value-based mNAV on its investor website, third-party data providers publish multiple versions of the metric — each reflecting different assumptions about capital structure and share count.
How to read mNAV: premium, parity, discount
Once calculated, mNAV provides a sense of how the markets value a firm’s bitcoin exposure:
- mNAV > 1:
The stock trades at a premium to the value of its bitcoin. Investors can assign additional value for capital market access, future BTC accumulation potential, or an operating business. - mNAV ≈ 1:
The firm trades at a price close to the value of its BTC holdings. This suggests that it is valued as a direct bitcoin proxy, with little added or subtracted for other factors. - mNAV < 1:
The stock is trading at a discount to its BTC holdings – a sign that investors are unwilling to pay even full price for the coins on balance. This may raise concerns about execution or capital structure, but some value investors see it as a buying opportunity.
Because mNAV is a dimensionless ratio, it allows comparisons across firms regardless of treasury size or share count. It also reflects broader market sentiment about whether investors have confidence in the company’s overall strategy.
Understanding the variants: basic, dilute and EV mNAV
Some dashboards, e.g. BitcoinTreasuries.net, now shows more mNAV variants:
- mNAV Basic
A simple ratio using the current market cap and BTC holdings, with no adjustments for future equity dilution. - mNAV diluted
Adjusts for convertible notes and other instruments by increasing the number of shares. This provides a more conservative view of what shareholders “really” own. - mNAV EV
Uses enterprise value instead of market value to incorporate debt and other liabilities. This version is particularly useful when a firm, such as Strategy, has issued long-term convertibles and has significant liabilities.
Per On 30 November, the Strategy’s reported values were:
- mNAV Basic: 0.856
- mNAV diluted: 0.954
- mNAV EV: 1.105
That means equity investors may be paying a little less than $1 per share. dollar in BTC on a diluted basis, while the broader market – including debt holders – still values the firm above its BTC holdings.
Why it matters
mNAV has real consequences for capital markets’ activity. A company trading above 1.0 can raise equity or debt at favorable terms and buy more bitcoin, effectively increasing its exposure. As mNAV falls, that playbook becomes more difficult or dilutive.
Because of this feedback loop, mNAV affects how companies approach financing — and how investors assess the viability of bitcoin-first business models.
The NYDIG review
In a June 2025 blog post, Greg Cipolaro, the global head of research at NYDIG, offered a scathing critique of mNAV as it is commonly used. He argued that the metric is “woefully flawed” for failing to reflect key balance sheet risks – particularly assumptions about convertible bonds.
Many analysts, Cipolaro noted, treat these convertibles as if they are guaranteed to convert to stock. However, if the market triggers are not met, the notes may have to be repaid in cash, creating a refinancing risk that mNAV cannot capture.
Cipolaro has also flagged that mNAV often ignores the value of the operating company (opco), which can be a source of hidden risk or upside. Instead of scrapping the metric, he suggested refining it to incorporate more robust modeling of capital structure and opco valuation.
The road ahead
mNAV remains the most cited metric for comparing bitcoin treasuries, but critics like Cipolaro’s suggest it may need an upgrade. Investors are increasingly calling for more transparency and standardization — especially as more companies adopt bitcoin-forward finance strategies.
With bitcoin treasuries growing in number and complexity, the question is no longer just “what is the multiple?” but “what’s really in it?”
