Michael Saylor is doubling down on Bitcoin treasuries, but the cracks in the model are starting to show — not in conviction, but in capital structure sustainability.
Michael Saylor didn’t hold back this week when challenged on the sustainability of Bitcoin treasury companies. During a “What Bitcoin Did” podcast appearance, he called the line of questioning “ignorant and offensive,” defending the model he pioneered at Strategy as rational capital allocation no different from adopting superior technology. But the timing matters.
Saylor’s defensiveness comes as the treasury model faces its first real stress test. Roughly 40% of the top 100 Bitcoin treasury companies are now trading below net asset value — the key metric that allows them to raise capital accretively. More than 60% purchased Bitcoin at prices higher than today’s levels. Some have seen stock prices collapse by 99%. These aren’t hypothetical risks; they’re visible in filings and price charts. Strategy itself illustrates the dynamic.
Through the first nine months of 2025, the company generated about $125 million in operating cash flow from its legacy software business. During that same period, it raised over $50 billion through equity, preferred stock, and convertibles — and spent nearly all of it buying Bitcoin. That means more than 99% of the capital behind Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury came from securities issuance, not business operations. Saylor argues this is rational: if a company loses $10 million a year but gains $30 million from Bitcoin appreciation, it’s net profitable.
The logic works in a rising Bitcoin market. The question is what happens when Bitcoin trades sideways or down for extended periods while debt service and dilution continue. If premiums to NAV compress and new capital stops flowing in, the model doesn’t just slow down — it reverses. What’s interesting is the broader pattern. Companies like Metaplanet, Nakamoto Holdings, and Bitcoin Standard Treasury have all adopted variations of Saylor’s playbook. Some are pure-play treasuries with no operating business at all.
They exist to issue securities and buy Bitcoin. Saylor dismissed concerns about competition by saying there’s room for 400 million companies to buy Bitcoin. Maybe. But there’s not room for 400 million companies to continuously issue equity into a finite pool of investor capital. The real test isn’t whether Bitcoin is a good treasury asset. It’s whether leveraged Bitcoin accumulation via continuous issuance is a sustainable business model when market conditions shift.
So far, the model has worked because Bitcoin went up and investors were willing to pay premiums for exposure. If either variable changes durably, the whole structure needs recalibration — and Saylor’s defensive tone this week suggests he knows it.
0 Comments