Who is Paying for the $64 Billion Paper Profit Party?

链捕手Published on 2026-06-26Last updated on 2026-06-26

Abstract

Bitcoin fell below the crucial $60k support, hitting lows not seen since October 2024. The real concern isn't the price drop, but the corporate Bitcoin holders whose financial models are faltering. Companies like MicroStrategy (Strategy), with 847k BTC at an average cost of ~$75.6k, now face significant unrealized losses. Their stock prices trade at a steep discount to their Bitcoin holdings' net asset value. Others like Japan's Metaplanet and Solmate (formerly Brera Holdings) face even deeper losses. While immediate, price-triggered liquidations are unlikely due to unsecured debt structures, the core financial "flywheel" is stalling. The new ASU 2023-08 accounting rule, which books Bitcoin's quarterly price swings directly into profits/losses, amplified gains in the bull market but now creates massive paper losses, potentially triggering index fund exclusions and forced selling. MicroStrategy’s CEO even hinted at possibly selling Bitcoin to pay dividends, contradicting his "never sell" stance. The true liquidity test is scheduled for Fall 2027, when convertible bond holders may demand cash repayment. If Bitcoin stays below key cost bases, these companies could be forced to sell hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin into the market, creating a severe liquidity crisis. The risk has shifted from instant margin calls to a slow-burning countdown to a debt reckoning.

Author | Cathy, Plain Talk Blockchain

$60,000, broken.

Bitcoin breached a key support level it had held for nearly two years, dropping to its lowest point since October 2024. On-chain data shows that institutional and whale groups holding between 10 and 10,000 Bitcoin sold off 45,000 BTC into the market within eight days. The US stock market followed suit, and crypto-related stocks collectively collapsed.

What's truly unsettling, however, is not the price itself.

It's the publicly listed companies that have bet their entire balance sheets on Bitcoin. They've hoarded hundreds of thousands of coins, issued tens of billions of dollars in debt, and used a sophisticated financial flywheel to tie their stock prices to the coin's price. Now, that flywheel is starting to slip.

01 Who Hurts the Most?

Let's start with the biggest one.

  • Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy): Holds 847,000 Bitcoin, accumulated at a total cost of $64.1 billion, with an average cost of about $75,600 per coin. With Bitcoin below $60,000, the overall paper loss exceeds 20%. More critically, MSTR's stock price relative to the net asset value of its Bitcoin holdings has gone from a hefty premium during the bull market to a deep discount of 0.60 to 0.65 times. In other words, the market thinks this company's $1 worth of Bitcoin is only worth 60 cents.

  • Metaplanet: This Japanese company is in an even worse state. With 40,000 Bitcoin at an average cost of nearly $97,600, and combined with the impact of the weakening yen, its paper loss exceeds 37%.

  • Twenty One Capital (XXI): Led by Jack Mallers, backed by Tether, Bitfinex, and SoftBank – a lineup that sounds like a dream team. But since its first day of trading after going public via SPAC, its stock price has been on a one-way street, down over 85% from its highs, with its valuation premium evaporating. By May 2026, SoftBank chose to fully transfer its 26% stake at a discount to Tether and withdrew from the board. The big player has already left.

  • Solmate: If we're talking about the most dramatic case, it has to be this company. Formerly called Brera Holdings, its business involved holding stakes in several low-tier football clubs. Inspired by MicroStrategy during the bull market, it announced a complete transformation, raised $300 million, and went all-in on Solana. Cathie Wood's ARK Invest even touted it as the "treasury asset revolution." The result? Solana fell 53%, and Solmate's stock price crashed from $249 to $5. The board is in internal strife, major shareholders are suing each other for allegedly emptying the company's coffers, and the CEO and Chief Economist have resigned.

This is not a failure of the Bitcoin-holding model. This is the normal outcome of a gambling game with no core business to fall back on.

02 No Forced Liquidation, But the Flywheel is Stalling

A panic narrative is circulating in the market: if Bitcoin falls below $60,000, MicroStrategy will face forced liquidation.

This is a misjudgment of financial instruments.

In 2022, MicroStrategy did borrow a $205 million collateralized loan from crypto bank Silvergate, directly tied to Bitcoin collateral ratios, and nearly got liquidated then. The ATM (At-The-Market offering facility) was closed, and it had to keep paying interest by issuing more MSTR common stock. But with MSTR itself already trading at a 0.6x NAV discount, further dilutive share issuance would severely dilute the Bitcoin per share ownership.

This is a vicious cycle: stop paying dividends, the "digital credit" rating collapses; keep paying, and common shareholders get eaten.

During the Q1 2026 analyst call, Michael Saylor conceded for the first time. He said that in an extreme financing freeze environment, the company would "most likely proactively sell a portion of its Bitcoin" to pay preferred dividends.

This statement directly contradicts his long-standing public dogma of "never selling Bitcoin."

03 Accounting Standards Are Making Things Worse

The ASU 2023-08 standard, effective from 2025, requires public companies to account for Bitcoin at fair value, with quarterly price fluctuations directly flowing into the income statement.

  • During a bull market, this is a money printer. Bitcoin rises, tens of billions in unrealized gains appear on the income statement, ROE soars, quantitative stock-picking models and index screens automatically pull these companies in. Traditional capital follows.

  • During a bear market, the money printer reverses into a paper shredder.

Strategy recorded a $14.46 billion unrealized loss in Q1 2026, with a GAAP net loss of $12.54 billion for the quarter. This loss scale exceeds the profits of the vast majority of global blue-chip companies.

More critically, there are chain reactions. Index providers like MSCI are beginning to assess whether to exclude these "pseudo-industrial companies." Once kicked out of indices, passive funds and pension trusts tracking those indices would be forced to sell, creating a spiral: "price drop → exclusion → passive fund selling → further price drop."

This isn't a free market choice; it's rule-driven mechanical selling pressure.

04 Fall 2027 is the Real Big Test

In the short term, these holding companies will not face forced liquidation. The design of unsecured debt and perpetual preferred stock gives them a "time-for-space" buffer.

However, if Bitcoin cannot return to the $75,000 average cost line within the next 12 to 24 months, the convertible bond put option window starting in the fall of 2027 will become a credit reckoning.

The path is clear: Bitcoin remains low, MSTR's stock price stays below the conversion price for an extended period, convertible bondholders exercise their put rights demanding full cash redemption, financing channels freeze up, preferred dividends deplete cash reserves, and the final step is being forced to sell hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin into the market for fiat currency.

That will be a true liquidity crisis.

The holding company model does not possess immunity from liquidation. It merely swaps an "immediate price-triggered liquidation" for a "time-triggered debt payment crisis."

Don't stare at the $60,000 technical support level. Stare at the calendar for September 2027.

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat is the main concern of the article regarding publicly listed companies heavily invested in Bitcoin?

AThe article's main concern is not the price drop itself, but the precarious situation of publicly listed companies that have anchored their entire balance sheets on Bitcoin. These companies have hoarded hundreds of thousands of bitcoins and issued tens of billions in debt, creating a 'financial flywheel' that ties their stock price to the BTC price. This flywheel is now beginning to falter, potentially leading to a 'time-triggered debt repayment crisis' rather than an immediate price-triggered liquidation.

QWhich company is highlighted as the largest and most at-risk in this 'corporate Bitcoin' model?

AThe article highlights MicroStrategy (now named Strategy) as the largest and most at-risk. It holds 847,000 BTC with an average cost of $75,600 per coin. At prices below $60,000, it faces over 20% unrealized losses. Crucially, its stock price (MSTR) is trading at a deep discount of 0.60 to 0.65 times its Net Asset Value (NAV), meaning the market values its $1 of bitcoin at only 60 cents.

QWhy does the article claim the threat of a 'forced liquidation' for MicroStrategy is a misjudgment?

AThe article argues that the fear of a forced liquidation if Bitcoin falls below $60,000 is a misjudgment of their financial tools. The immediate danger is not a margin call but a financial deadlock: the company must pay mandatory dividends on its preferred stock. If traditional financing channels are frozen, it might have to sell bitcoin to raise cash, which contradicts its 'never sell' doctrine and would likely require dilutive equity issuances at a significant discount to NAV.

QWhat is the ASU 2023-08 accounting rule, and how is it making the situation worse for these companies according to the article?

AThe ASU 2023-08 accounting rule, effective from 2025, requires companies to carry Bitcoin at fair value, with quarterly price fluctuations flowing directly into the income statement. In a bull market, this creates paper profits that boost metrics like ROE, attracting passive index funds. In a bear market, it creates massive paper losses (e.g., MicroStrategy reported a $14.46 billion unrealized loss in Q1 2026). This can trigger a downward spiral: losses lead to potential exclusion from major indices, forcing index-tracking funds to sell, which further depresses the stock price.

QAccording to the article, what is the real 'litmus test' for these corporate Bitcoin holders, and when does it occur?

AThe real 'litmus test' or major exam is the put option window for convertible bonds, which begins in the fall of 2027. If Bitcoin's price remains below the average cost basis (~$75k) for an extended period, MicroStrategy's stock price will stay below the conversion price. Bondholders may then choose to exercise their right to demand full cash redemption. With financing frozen and cash reserves depleted by dividend payments, the company could be forced to sell hundreds of thousands of bitcoins on the open market to raise cash, potentially causing a severe liquidity crisis.

Related Reads

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbit2m ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbit2m ago

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Title: STRC Deeply Discounted, mNAV Falls Below Break-even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Redefined The recent volatility in MSTR and STRC highlights the need to reassess the core business model of Bitcoin reserve companies. These entities function more like leveraged, single-asset banks rather than software/tech firms. Consequently, they should be valued using banking metrics, not based on their total Bitcoin holdings. The key valuation metric is mNAV (market net asset value), akin to a price-to-book ratio. It compares the company's market capitalization to the equity value of its Bitcoin holdings after deducting all senior debt and preferred equity (like STRC). As of June 24, Strategy's mNAV was 1.10x. The focus should be on "net Bitcoin per share" (the Bitcoin claim per share after senior claims) and its growth rate, equivalent to a bank's book value and return on assets. Given STRC's 19% discount to its $100 par value (yielding 14.2%), issuing new MSTR equity at the current price to buy more Bitcoin is inefficient. It slightly dilutes the widely watched "total Bitcoin per share" metric while providing minimal improvement to the more critical "net Bitcoin per share." The article analyzes four potential uses for $1 billion in new equity: 1. **Buy Bitcoin:** Least effective. Improves net Bitcoin per share only marginally while diluting total Bitcoin per share. 2. **Repurchase STRC:** Most effective for balance sheet repair. The discount creates immediate value, increasing net Bitcoin per share by 1.0%, reducing debt burden, and lowering future dividend obligations. 3. **Boost Cash Reserves:** Dramatically improves the "cash coverage ratio" for STRC dividends from 9.8 months to 16.8 months, a crucial liquidity metric in a tightening funding environment. 4. **50/50 Split (STRC buyback & cash):** A balanced approach improving all key metrics. Strategy's own Q1 report indicates its internal break-even mNAV for profitable equity issuance to buy Bitcoin is 1.22x. With the current mNAV at 1.10x, such a move would be value-destructive. The core assumptions of its previous expansion model—issuing STRC at par and maintaining ample dividend coverage—have broken down. The recommended path is to use new capital to optimize core financial health: repurchasing discounted STRC and/or bolstering cash reserves. This would repair the balance sheet, signal liquidity strength, support STRC's price, lower its yield, and potentially reopen the par-value issuance channel. The current STRC discount represents a low-cost capital opportunity to restart this positive cycle. Bitcoin reserve companies must be evaluated as banks, focusing on book value, leverage, and liquidity resilience.

Foresight News3m ago

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Foresight News3m ago

South Korean Institutions' Crypto Race: Dual Explosion of Stablecoins and RWA

**Summary: South Korea's Institutional Crypto Race: Stablecoins and RWA Take Off** South Korea is undergoing a structural shift in its crypto ecosystem, moving beyond its historical role as a major retail trading hub. Major financial institutions and internet platforms are now building institutional-grade blockchain infrastructure, with stablecoins and Real-World Asset (RWA) tokenization as the primary drivers. The push for a regulated Korean won stablecoin market is a major policy and corporate focus. This is driven partly by an estimated $115 billion outflow into dollar stablecoins like USDC, threatening the domestic financial system. Banks (e.g., KB Financial, Hana), payment giants (e.g., Shinhan Card, BC Card), and internet super-apps (KakaoPay, NAVER Pay) are all conducting pilots. The goal is to anchor future digital finance to the Korean won and local regulations. In RWA, South Korea is advancing rapidly within regulatory sandboxes, focusing on unique domestic assets beyond typical global templates like US Treasuries. Projects involve tokenizing ships (with Hyundai Heavy Industries), defense supply chain assets, and K-pop intellectual property, alongside more conventional assets. A legal framework is set for 2027, and platforms like NXT are preparing for regulated trading. Key opportunities for crypto-native projects lie in providing the underlying technology these traditional institutions lack: global distribution channels for tokenized assets, cross-chain liquidity solutions, and enabling infrastructure tools (e.g., for asset packaging and management). Partnerships, such as Solana with Shinhan Card or LayerZero with the Korea Gold Exchange, exemplify this proactive approach. Crucially, user access is being shaped by consumer platforms. NAVER's planned acquisition of Upbit's operator Dunamu and Kakao's development of a unified wallet aim to seamlessly integrate crypto with everyday payments for tens of millions of users. The race is now about which protocols and projects will become the foundational standards as regulation solidifies and institutional adoption accelerates.

Foresight News1h ago

South Korean Institutions' Crypto Race: Dual Explosion of Stablecoins and RWA

Foresight News1h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

What is $BITCOIN

DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): A Comprehensive Analysis Introduction to DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a blockchain-based project operating on the Solana network, which aims to combine the characteristics of traditional precious metals with the innovation of decentralized technologies. While it shares a name with Bitcoin, often referred to as “digital gold” due to its perception as a store of value, DIGITAL GOLD is a separate token designed to create a unique ecosystem within the Web3 landscape. Its goal is to position itself as a viable alternative digital asset, although specifics regarding its applications and functionalities are still developing. What is DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a cryptocurrency token explicitly designed for use on the Solana blockchain. In contrast to Bitcoin, which provides a widely recognized value storage role, this token appears to focus on broader applications and characteristics. Notable aspects include: Blockchain Infrastructure: The token is built on the Solana blockchain, known for its capacity to handle high-speed and low-cost transactions. Supply Dynamics: DIGITAL GOLD has a maximum supply capped at 100 quadrillion tokens (100P $BITCOIN), although details regarding its circulating supply are currently undisclosed. Utility: While precise functionalities are not explicitly outlined, there are indications that the token could be utilized for various applications, potentially involving decentralized applications (dApps) or asset tokenization strategies. Who is the Creator of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? At present, the identity of the creators and development team behind DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) remains unknown. This situation is typical among many innovative projects within the blockchain space, particularly those aligning with decentralized finance and meme coin phenomena. While such anonymity may foster a community-driven culture, it intensifies concerns about governance and accountability. Who are the Investors of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? The available information indicates that DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) does not have any known institutional backers or prominent venture capital investments. The project seems to operate on a peer-to-peer model focused on community support and adoption rather than traditional funding routes. Its activity and liquidity are primarily situated on decentralized exchanges (DEXs), such as PumpSwap, rather than established centralized trading platforms, further highlighting its grassroots approach. How DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) Works The operational mechanics of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) can be elaborated on based on its blockchain design and network attributes: Consensus Mechanism: By leveraging Solana’s unique proof-of-history (PoH) combined with a proof-of-stake (PoS) model, the project ensures efficient transaction validation contributing to the network's high performance. Tokenomics: While specific deflationary mechanisms have not been extensively detailed, the vast maximum token supply implies that it may cater to microtransactions or niche use cases that are still to be defined. Interoperability: There exists the potential for integration with Solana’s broader ecosystem, including various decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms. However, the details regarding specific integrations remain unspecified. Timeline of Key Events Here is a timeline that highlights significant milestones concerning DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): 2023: The initial deployment of the token occurs on the Solana blockchain, marked by its contract address. 2024: DIGITAL GOLD gains visibility as it becomes available for trading on decentralized exchanges like PumpSwap, allowing users to trade it against SOL. 2025: The project witnesses sporadic trading activity and potential interest in community-led engagements, although no noteworthy partnerships or technical advancements have been documented as of yet. Critical Analysis Strengths Scalability: The underlying Solana infrastructure supports high transaction volumes, which could enhance the utility of $BITCOIN in various transaction scenarios. Accessibility: The potential low trading price per token could attract retail investors, facilitating wider participation due to fractional ownership opportunities. Risks Lack of Transparency: The absence of publicly known backers, developers, or an audit process may yield skepticism regarding the project's sustainability and trustworthiness. Market Volatility: The trading activity is heavily reliant on speculative behavior, which can result in significant price volatility and uncertainty for investors. Conclusion DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) emerges as an intriguing yet ambiguous project within the rapidly evolving Solana ecosystem. While it attempts to leverage the “digital gold” narrative, its departure from Bitcoin's established role as a store of value underscores the need for a clearer differentiation of its intended utility and governance structure. Future acceptance and adoption will likely depend on addressing the current opacity and defining its operational and economic strategies more explicitly. Note: This report encompasses synthesised information available as of October 2023, and developments may have transpired beyond the research period.

463 Total ViewsPublished 2025.05.13Updated 2025.05.13

What is $BITCOIN

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of BTC (BTC) are presented below.

活动图片