Strategy and Metaplanet: Navigating the Bitcoin Challenge

As the era of Bitcoin ETFs arrives, can Strategy and Metaplanet withstand the pressure, especially as direct Bitcoin access reduces the incentive to invest through corporate treasuries?

Key Takeaways

Bitcoin's recent price drop has negatively impacted the market positions of corporate holders like Strategy and Metaplanet.
Strategy operates similarly to a Bitcoin investment firm and has amassed significant Bitcoin holdings, while Metaplanet has transitioned from a hospitality business to a major Bitcoin treasury.
Both companies use innovative funding methods to finance their Bitcoin purchases, helping them navigate market fluctuations.
Analysts express caution, noting the risks associated with Bitcoin treasury valuations as companies operate below net asset value.
The emergence of ETFs has altered the investment landscape, challenging the relevance of companies like Strategy and Metaplanet.

Strategy and Metaplanet face Bitcoin stress

Strategy and Metaplanet Under Pressure

The recent decline of Bitcoin to under $100,000 in early November has shaken the financial stability of its largest public holders. Strategy (MSTR) and Japan's Metaplanet (3350) are now facing increased scrutiny as market sentiments lean towards caution.

As of Nov. 10, Strategy held 641,692 BTC, totaling a cost of $47.5 billion, which averages about $74,079 per coin. Under the leadership of executive chairman Michael Saylor, Strategy functions more like a Bitcoin-focused investment vehicle than a traditional software company.

On the same day, Saylor tweeted about Strategy acquiring additional bitcoins, raising the total value of its holdings to over $68 billion based on current market prices. Meanwhile, Metaplanet has transitioned from a hospitality firm to a corporate Bitcoin treasury since 2024, now holding 30,823 BTC valued at around $3.23 billion, making it the largest non-U.S. company with Bitcoin assets.

Despite their substantial Bitcoin reserves, both companies have seen their stock prices decline sharply. As of Nov. 10, Strategy's shares are trading near $239, down 55% from their all-time high of $543 reached in November 2024. Similarly, Metaplanet's stock has dropped 78% from its peak of 1,930 yen in June 2025, currently sitting at around 427 yen. This downturn was exacerbated by Bitcoin's price correction from its October high and ongoing net outflows from U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs.

Financing Bitcoin Purchases

To maintain their Bitcoin purchases, Strategy and Metaplanet have developed financing strategies that do not rely solely on available cash. Both firms actively raise funds from public markets and invest that capital into expanding their Bitcoin holdings.

Strategy utilizes three primary methods for financing their purchases. First, they issue common stock, receiving cash from investors which is then partly used to acquire Bitcoin. Second, they rely on convertible notes—loans that can be converted into shares, allowing for lower interest borrowing because investors expect potential stock price increases. Finally, they have introduced preferred shares, specifically Series A Stretch shares (ticker STRC), that pay adjustable monthly dividends based on market demand.

While these financing options provide flexibility, Strategy faces challenges when Bitcoin prices decline, as investors may demand higher dividends or lower prices, raising the company's capital costs. If the stock performs poorly, issuing new shares could dilute current shareholder ownership.

Metaplanet mirrors this approach by combining equity sales with debt financing. They aim to increase their Bitcoin holdings to 210,000 BTC by 2027 and have established subsidiaries in Japan and the U.S. Recently, Metaplanet secured a $100 million loan backed by its Bitcoin holdings, using part of its BTC as collateral.

Analyzing the Valuation Fragility

As Bitcoin's price continues to decline and treasury firms trade below net asset value, analysts shift their focus from growth prospects to survival strategies. Seb Bunney, CIO at Block Rewards, commented on how Bitcoin-holding corporations are resembling traditional value investments, likening their situation to Benjamin Graham's "cigar butt" strategy—finding value in companies trading below their book value.

Bunney warns that Bitcoin treasury firms now facing several risks, as many trade below their calculated market value of Bitcoin holdings. He defines the multiple of net asset value (mNAV), indicating a company's market cap compared to its Bitcoin assets. When mNAV falls below one, it suggests that the company is worth less than its Bitcoin holdings, making it vulnerable to acquisition.

Deep-pocketed companies like Apple or Berkshire Hathaway could potentially capitalize on these undervalued firms, leading to significant Bitcoin sales and further market stress. Although Bitcoin itself is resistant to systemic failures, its vulnerabilities increase when wrapped in fragile corporate structures.

Omid Malekan, a professor at Columbia Business School, voices concerns that Digital Asset Treasuries (DATs) may amplify market stress rather than mitigate it. He argues that many DATs launched in a way that could lead to value destruction and provide mass exit events for insiders.

Pierre Rochard, a Bitcoin treasury strategy expert, emphasizes the importance of identifying the factors contributing to changes in mNAV. He attributes Strategy’s recent struggles to a blend of cyclical and structural challenges, suggesting that the company may still have positive long-term potential.

The Future of Bitcoin Treasuries

Bitcoin treasury companies are now navigating a transformed competitive landscape due to the rise of ETFs, which provide direct Bitcoin purchasing opportunities. Investors previously seeking indirect Bitcoin exposure through stocks are now more inclined to buy Bitcoin directly through these regulated funds.

Firms like Strategy and Metaplanet face new pressures and must prove their continued relevance in this evolving market. Strategy's intricate funding model needs to demonstrate consistent value in the wake of reduced enthusiasm, while Metaplanet's reliance on Bitcoin-backed loans heightens its vulnerability during price swings.

For smaller treasury firms, the margin for error is slimmer. With simplified access to Bitcoin via ETFs, these companies need to transition from passive holders to active, capable enterprises that can generate revenue consistently. The critical question remains: can these firms evolve to ensure they possess enduring value in this rapidly changing landscape?