Treasury Balance Sheets Under WaterTreasury Balance Sheets Under Water
In November 2025, when Bitcoin hovered near $90,000, most corporate treasury companies were already underwater. Roughly 65% of firms had bought the asset above the trading price, carrying billions in unrealized losses as Bitcoin slipped from its all-time high.
Today, with Bitcoin trading at around $63,000, that pressure has intensified into the sector’s first real balance-sheet stress test. An estimated 85% to 90% of treasury companies now sit below cost basis. And that includes some of the largest players, like Strategy.
Yet the response has not been capitulation. Instead, the downturn is exposing something much more consequential: which treasury strategies are structurally sound, and which depended on rising prices to survive.
$28 billion compression
The numbers tell a staggering story.
Strategy, with its $76,037 average cost basis across 713,502 BTC, held an $11 billion cushion in November that has now shrunk to around $6.4 billion.
Strive reported -17% unrealized losses in late January at a $105,850 average cost basis. At $63,000 Bitcoin, those losses approach 40%, cutting the value of its treasury by hundreds of millions.
Moreover, the top 100 treasury companies collectively hold 1,133,359 BTC. At $90,000, that represented $102 billion, but at $63,000, it's $78 billion. That’s a whopping $28 billion balance sheet compression.
For companies that accumulated heavily above $80,000, the mark-to-market pressure has moved from uncomfortable to acute.
Despite the ongoing market stress, this isn’t capitulation but rather a test of capital structure.
Already by November we could see some early signs of liquidity stress. French-based Sequans Communications sold 970 BTC to reduce convertible debt, mining outlet Hut 8 reduced its holdings, cloud mining company Bitdeer sold more than it mined, while Genius Group and KindlyMD redeployed holdings.
Now investors are asking themselves whether $63,000 per Bitcoin will bring with it more forced selling.
Data from treasuries, however, shows some remarkable stability, even if some might be holding on to their coins by a thread. Strategy continues adding to its massive 713,502 BTC treasury, while Cango and its 7,982 BTC stash shows no distress despite trading at 0.35x mNAV.
When observing which companies are selling and which are holding, there’s a clear division. Companies with operational cash flow like miners, or non-dilutive capital access like Strive, can hold through corrections.
Companies that depend on equity issuance at compressed mNAVs or which carry debt against their Bitcoin holdings may face forced decisions.
Most exposedMost exposed
Our November report did identify specific companies that were “most exposed to mark-to-market losses” based on their high purchase prices.
To name a few: Trump Media, Strive, MetaPlanet, Semler Scientific, and ProCap. The report warned that “even large players like Strategy, Coinbase, and Hut 8 are near or below cost basis at $69,000.”
But the report's most prescient call concerned companies that would face “liquidity pressure.” We’re talking about the smaller, leveraged balance sheets that have been showing cracks for months. Sequans, Bitdeer, Genius Group, and KindlyMD all appear on both November’s seller list and today's distressed watchlist.
These weren’t random selections. They were balance sheets where holding through corrections was mathematically difficult.
Something that the November report missed, however, was the resilience of mining-based accumulation. American Bitcoin Corp wasn't on the risk radar, yet it added 745 BTC in January alone while trading at a 182% premium. Cango, previously seen as a peripheral player, has maintained more than 12 consecutive weeks of steady production regardless of Bitcoin's price — and its mNAV.
Capital StructureCapital Structure
Strive’s $225 million SATA offering — oversubscribed at $600 million in orders — demonstrates that institutional capital remains available for treasuries with zero debt and clear paths to Bitcoin per share growth.
What’s more, the company retired $110 million in legacy debt and bought 333 BTC despite being underwater.
How?
By using non-dilutive capital that doesn’t compress shareholder economics.
Mining operations show similar pliability.
American Bitcoin’s 2.8x mNAV reflects market recognition that operational production provides countercyclical advantages.
Strategy’s position, meanwhile, demonstrates the advantages it has at scale. Despite carrying approximately $6.4 billion in unrealized losses, the company continues deploying capital weekly through ATM programs, relying on institutional credibility and more than $8 billion in remaining shelf capacity.
At RiskAt Risk
Miners aside, a fair few companies find themselves in a tricky situation.
The highest-risk segment includes treasury companies with elevated average cost basis (>$90,000), dependence on equity issuance, and mNAV compression below 0.5x.
Take U.S.-based DDC Enterprise. The company has conducted some aggressive recent buying (500 BTC across three weeks in January), while trading at a 0.53x mNAV with undisclosed funding sources and negative enterprise value that suggests depleting cash reserves.
Trump Media holds 11,542 BTC accumulated at elevated prices, trading at 3.59x mNAV — a 259% premium — yet faces political uncertainty that could evaporate the valuation premium if sentiment shifts.
Smaller vehicles like ProCap Financial (5,000 BTC), and UK-based The Smarter Web Company (2,674 BTC at -21% unrealized loss) lack the scale, capital access, or operational cash flow to weather extended corrections.
Bitcoin at $60,000Bitcoin at $60,000
As Bitcoin falls to $60,000, companies that were -10% to -20% underwater quickly descend to -30% to -40%.
Convertible debt structures begin triggering covenant concerns, preferred equity becomes harder to issue, and equity raises become mathematically untenable for shareholder value creation.
The likely result: accelerated consolidation. Larger treasuries with durable capital access (Strategy, Strive, MARA) could acquire distressed smaller players, absorbing their Bitcoin holdings at discounts. Mining operations face hash rate economics rather than capital markets pressure, potentially creating expansion opportunities while equity-funded peers retrench.
Conversely, a move back to $80,000 to $90,000 would ease immediate pressure but still wouldn’t resolve structural issues. Companies that accumulated at more than $100,000 remain considerably underwater, while mNAV compression persists.
Finally, whether Bitcoin accumulation alone can reliably create shareholder value remains an open question. The November report concluded this phase would “separate firms with durable financing from firms dependent on rising Bitcoin prices.”
At $63,000, that separation is accelerating.
My Thoughts 💭My Thoughts 💭
This was short lived as the price bounced back on Friday but very good insight on what companies are strong versus the ones that are on a hope of a bitcoin mega candle. But I still think these companies will become strong M&A targets as Bitcoin rises an their fiat price stays low. Or these companies can sell the corn and buy their shares back.