Tier 1: Still Has AccessTier 1: Still Has Access

Defining characteristics: Companies that are large enough for multiple institutional issuance even when mNAV compresses below 1.0x, or maintaining mNAV above 1.0x with
demonstrated access to capital markets.

Strategy (MSTR): 672,497 BTC, mNAV 0.82x. The undisputed leader reported $11.7 billion remaining in its ATM program and continues funding purchases through equity issuance despite trading at an 18% discount to Bitcoin NAV. Scale offers Strategy some significant advantages, as it has built institutional relationships over years, daily trading volumes supports large raises, and the company commands a worldwide shareholder base that accepts dilution in exchange for total accumulation growth. Strategy can issue $500 million at 0.82x mNAV and still find buyers — a luxury unavailable to smaller treasuries attempting the same scheme.

Metaplanet (MTPLF): 35,102 BTC; mNAV 1.14x. Maintains premium valuations and continues accessing equity markets, including opening issuance to overseas investors. The company led by CEO Simon Gercovich shows systematic accumulation, transparent communication, and executing on preferred equity issuance that delivered returns appears to sustain investor confidence whereas others lost it. Most importantly, Metaplanet offers Bitcoin exposure for investors that can’t find easy access for it in tax-punitive Japan.

Major Miners: Riot (RIOT), CleanSpark (CLSK), Hut 8 (HUT). These qualify as Tier 1 through their operational businesses that generate revenue, which reduces the dependence other companies have on equity raises. Indeed, when capital markets tighten for pure treasuries, miners can still access financing by pointing to cash flow and mining infrastructure — a structural advantage that pure-play treasury vehicles simply don’t have

Tier 2: Conditional AccessTier 2: Conditional Access

Defining characteristics: Typically 0.5x to 1.0x mNAV, capable of raising capital when windows open but stalled when mNAV compresses.

Twenty One Capital (XXI): 43,514 BTC, mNAV 0.79x. The #3 global holder trades at a 21% discount, creating potentially difficult capital raising dynamics when attempting dilutive issuance below NAV. Still, Jack Mallers’ company is building a portfolio of Bitcoin businesses designed to generate cash flow and reduce dependence on capital markets access. That could change, however, if it delivers on its promises.

Semler Scientific (SMLR): 5,048 BTC, mNAV 0.58x. The company trades at a 41% discount to Bitcoin NAV and uses an ATM program to fund purchases when market conditions allow. The company demonstrated the ability to raise capital and execute systematic buying during 2025, but the sub-1.0x mNAV creates systemic timing dependencies — equity issuance at current valuations dilutes per-share Bitcoin holdings, requiring management to choose between continuing accumulation (at the cost of hurting shareholder value) or pausing purchases until mNAV recovers.

Mid-Tier Companies: ProCap Financial (BRR, 5,000 BTC, 0.74x mNAV), Sequans (SQNS, 2,264 BTC, 0.56x mNAV), and others share the same pattern — they can raise capital when Bitcoin rallies create accretive windows, but get shut out when mNAVs compress. The difference between being able to deploy $10 million vs. $0 often comes down to whether Bitcoin is up or down that month.

The Tier 2 reality: These treasuries will accumulate in waves, becoming aggressive during rallies, and silent during consolidation. Total 2026 additions depend more on Bitcoin’s price action than management decisions.

Tier 3: Severe Structural ChallengesTier 3: Severe Structural Challenges

Defining characteristics: Below 0.5x mNAV, limited liquidity, and a spot where equity issuance becomes value-destructive rather than accretive.

The Deep Discount Cohort: Bitcoin Standard Treasury (CEPO, 30,021 BTC, 0.10x), DDC Enterprise Limited (DDC, 1,183 BTC, 0.09x), ZOOZ Power (ZOOZ, 1,036 BTC, 0.06x), Microcloud Hologram (HOLO, 2,353 BTC, 0.19x) trade at 80% to 95% discounts that could either represent temporary mispricings, market expectations of eventual Bitcoin sales to fund operations, or perhaps restructuring. In some cases, however, it’s likely that companies simply bought Bitcoin as a portfolio diversifier, and not necessarily pivoting to become a pure-play Bitcoin treasury. Still, at 0.05x-0.10x mNAV, raising $1 million requires issuing equity representing $10 to $20 million in Bitcoin NAV, instantly destroying most value for existing shareholders.

Mid-Size Distressed: GD Culture Group (GDC, 7,500 BTC, 0.42x), and KindlyMD/Nakamoto (NAKA, 5,398 BTC, 0.37x) hold meaningful amounts of Bitcoin while trading at important discounts that suggest investors don’t expect for any continued accumulation from the company. What’s more, NAKA’s Nasdaq delisting threat compounds the problem — OTC trading would eliminate any remaining access to institutions altogether.

The Tier 3 constraint: Equity issuance destroys value, debt markets demand punitive rates, and operational cash flow (if any) burns rather than funds accumulation. These companies face a choice: sell Bitcoin to extend runway, restructure operations, or accept that having an active treasury strategy has effectively ended. Prenetics already took this path — publicly shifting focus from “buying more BTC” to operating business, maintaining holdings without new accumulation.

The three-tier structure points toward continued consolidation around a handful of dominant players. Strategy captured 77% of all corporate Bitcoin accumulation in 2025, and that concentration could intensify if only a handful of companies maintain consistent access to capital markets throughout 2026.
When Tier 2 companies pause during mNAV compression and Tier 3 exits accelerate, the gap widens further — potentially pushing Strategy’s market share toward 85-90% of total additions.

This creates meaningful concentration risk. But if Strategy slows its rate of accumulation or faces its own capital constraints, total corporate Bitcoin buying could collapse regardless of what smaller treasuries attempt.

Ultimately, the 2026 survivors will likely be companies that either maintained premium valuations through disciplined execution and transparent communication, or those that built revenue-generating businesses that reduce dependence on capital markets entirely.