Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Treasury Companies Are Bubbles Half a year has passed since the publishing of my initial report on the company then-named MicroStrategy, now simply Strategy. Other than a name change, the company has since then broadened the arsenal of its financial products, accumulated more bitcoin, and fueled a wide array of companies copying Michael Saylor’s playbook. There seem to be bitcoin treasury companies everywhere. Due for an update, we will now investigate whether or not these bitcoin treasury companies’ operations are in line with the predictions made in the initial report, and yet again attempt to conclude where all this is eventually going. A Cause for Alarm In December last year, the company seemed near invincible: With its bitcoin yield KPI accumulating at a mind-boggling annual rate of above 60%, optimism reigned. It was no wonder then that most of the arguments carefully laid out in the report released at that time were either ridiculed, ignored, or met with snarling challenges to sell the shares short. The share price, denominated either in dollar or bitcoin, is at time of writing flat compared to those days and so far offers little in terms of vindication. Tragically few understood or even reached the most important conclusion of my December report, which concerns the source of the bitcoin yield. We will therefore iterate what’s wrong with the company’s metric, and why this should be a cause of alarm for any serious investor. The bitcoin yield — the increase in bitcoin per share — reaching old shareholders comes from the pockets of new shareholders. The new shareholders, many of them buying shares in the hope of getting a high bitcoin yield themselves, provide the bitcoin yield either directly by buying Strategy common shares created in the company’s world-record sized ATM (“at the market”) offerings or indirectly by buying the shares borrowed (and then sold) by delta neutral hedge funds that simultaneously hold the company’s convertible bonds. This is the Ponzi part of company operations — publicly boasting a bitcoin yield far higher than any conventional yield, while obfuscating the fact that the yield stems, not from the sale of company goods or services, but from the new investors themselves. They are the yield, and the harvesting of their hard-earned money will continue as long as they willingly provide it. The size of the harvest is in proportion to the size of the confusion, here measured as the premium of common shares over company net assets. This premium is nurtured by complicated but inviting company narratives, promises, and financial products. Because the word “Ponzi” has been thrown Bitcoiners’ way for over a decade, they have become accustomed — and rightly so — to simply disregard such critiques altogether. But just because a company within the Bitcoin sector intentionally or inadvertently has constructed a Ponzi scheme, that does not obviously mean that bitcoin itself is a Ponzi. The two assets are separate. During metallic monetary standards of the past, Ponzi schemes existed, but that does not mean the precious metals themselves ever were, or are, such schemes. When I make this claim of Strategy in its current form, I mean it from the point of definition, not from tiresome hyperbole. The Accumulation Continues Before drawing any further conclusions, it is first time to pick up where we left off in the initial report, and map relevant company decisions made over the last six months. Strategy announced on December 9 that approximately 21,550 bitcoin had been acquired for about $2.1 billion (average price: approximately $98,783 per bitcoin). This purchase was conducted with proceeds from the ATM outlined in the famous 21/21 Plan initiated earlier the same year. Just a few days later, over 15,000 more bitcoin were purchased, also through the ATM offering, and a few days after that announcement, about 5,000 more were purchased. The end of 2024 saw the company requesting from its shareholders an amendment to increase the number of authorized shares of class A common stock from 330,000,000 shares to 10,330,000,000 shares — in other words, a 30x. The number of authorized shares of preferred stock was to be increased from 5,000,000 shares to 1,005,000,000 shares — a 200x. All this, though not the same as stating the full amount to actually be issued, was done to give the company more liberty in future financial operations as the 21/21 Plan quickly ran its course. By also focusing on preferred stock, another variant of funding could now be pursued. The full year ended with about 446,000 bitcoin owned by Strategy, and with a company bitcoin yield of 74.3%. Perpetual Strike Preferred Stock The new year started with an 8-K filing stating that Strategy was now ready to seek the new funding through preferred stock. The new instrument, as the name implies, was to be senior to the company’s common shares, meaning the owners of the preferred shares had a stronger claim on any future cash flows. Initially, a $2 billion raise was the stated goal. While the new instrument was being prepared, 450,000 bitcoin had been accumulated by January 12. At the end of the month, all 2027 convertible bonds were called on to be redeemed for newly issued shares, as the conversion price was now below the market price of the shares. Any Strategy convertible bond far “in the money” becomes unappealing to the largest buyers of such instruments — the gamma-trading, delta neutral hedge funds — who prefer early conversion followed by new convertible bond issuance over holding the old bonds until maturity. On January 25, 2025, the company finally filed its prospectus for Strike perpetual preferred stock ($STRK), and about a week later, 7.3 million Strike shares were issued with 8% cumulative dividends on the liquidation preference of $100 per share. In practice, this meant a $2 per share quarterly dividend in perpetuity, or until the shares are converted to Strategy shares in case the price of the latter reaches $1,000. Conversion was defined at the ratio 10:1, meaning 10 Strike shares must be converted for every new Strategy share. In other words, the instrument is akin to a dividend-paying perpetual call option on Strategy common shares. If deemed necessary, Strategy can pay the dividends in the form of its own common shares. On February 10, about 7,600 bitcoin were purchased with the proceeds from the Strike issuance as well as from conventional ATM offering of common shares. On February 21, Strategy issued $2 billion worth of convertible bonds maturing March 1, 2030, with a conversion price of about $433 per share, representing a conversion premium of about 35%. About 20,000 bitcoin could quickly be purchased with the proceeds. Shortly thereafter, a new prospectus was published, enabling the company to issue up to $21 billion worth of Strike perpetual preferred stock, meaning the already ambitious 21/21 Plan of last year now seemed to morph into something even more massive. Perpetual Strife and Stride Preferred Stock As soon as the company had publicly announced its ambitious expansion of its funding plan, yet another instrument was announced; Strife ($STRF), a perpetual preferred stock similar to Strike, was to go live with 5 million shares. It was to offer 10% annual dividends in cash — paid quarterly — instead of 8% in cash or common shares. Strife, unlike Strike, had no equity conversion feature, but was senior to both common shares and Strike. Any dividend delay was to be compensated by higher future dividends, with a maximum of 18% total annual dividend rate. At time of issuance, the initial plan of issuing 5 million shares seems to have been increased to 8.5 million shares, raising over $700 million. With ATM activity for the common shares as well as for Strike, Strategy could finally announce in March that the company held over 500,000 bitcoin. April saw mostly regular common share ATM activities, until that type of funding was all but depleted. Strike ATM activity continued as well, but due to what was likely low liquidity, the dollar amount raised was negligible. With the proceeds, Strategy’s total bitcoin position climbed above 550,000 bitcoin. On May 1, Strategy announced the intention of launching another $21 billion common share ATM offering. This announcement came very shortly after the ATM arm of the initial 21/21 Plan had been exhausted, and fully vindicated the logic outlined in the previous report as well as on X. As any premium to net assets creates an arbitrage for the company, management is bound to continue to print new shares overvalued relative to underlying bitcoin assets in order to capture it. Issuance started almost immediately, and more bitcoin could be accumulated. As the fixed income arm of the initial 21/21 Plan already had been extended with the new preferred stock in mind, investors now faced a massive 42/42 Plan, meaning a maximum of $42 billion in common share issuance and $42 billion in fixed income security issuance. May also saw the SEC filing of a new $2.1 billion ATM offering for the Strife perpetual preferred stock instrument. At the end of the month, all three ATM offerings were printing shares for the acquisition of new bitcoin. In the beginning of June, yet another instrument was announced: Stride ($STRD), a perpetual preferred stock asset similar to Strike and Strife, was soon to launch. It was to offer 10% optional, noncumulative dividends in cash, had no equity conversion feature, and was junior to every other instrument except the common shares. A little less than 12 million shares worth about $1 billion were initially issued, paving the way for about 10,000 more bitcoin for the company coffers. A Dazzling Mosaic of Bitcoin Treasury Companies With the STRK, STRD, and STRF products launched, and Strategy’s 21/21 Plan in full swing, the full picture of what has been going on in the last six months should be clearer. I pointed out in the initial report that the main rationale behind the convertible bonds was not, despite the claims of the company, to offer bitcoin exposure to a section of the market in need and want of such. The buyers of the bonds were almost all of them delta neutral hedge funds, and, being simultaneously short Strategy shares, they never had any actual bitcoin exposure. It was all a ruse. The true reason that Strategy offered these securities to lenders was that it gave retail investors an impression of financial innovation targeting a multitrillion-dollar industry, as well as facilitating further bitcoin accumulation without equity dilution. And as the investors bid on the common shares, so did the price discrepancy to net assets and the opportunity of risk-free bitcoin yield grow in proportion. The greater the economic confusion, coupled with Michael Saylor’s way with words and vivid analogies, the larger the company’s arbitrage opportunity. By issuing three different perpetual preferred stock securities over the last six months, in addition to the various convertible bonds already in place, these complicated financial products could now create an appearance of financial innovation, thus spurring further bidding on the common shares. At the time of writing, the common shares trade near double that of net assets, which is a great feat by company management, given the large size and activity of the common share ATM offerings. It means Strategy can continue to buy about two bitcoin for the price of one in a risk-free fashion. In 2024, the company could enjoy tailwinds originating from the popular “reflexivity flywheel” theory, where it was argued that the more bitcoin the company purchased, the more its shares would increase in value, resulting in the opportunity to buy even more bitcoin. In 2025, this self-referential stupidity morphed slightly to a “torque” narrative, manifesting itself as official company depictions of fixed income cogwheels rotating the core that is the common shares, with bitcoin yield produced from the machinery as a result. Exactly from where, or how, the yield was created, few investors seemed to be asking themselves, and instead the made-up dynamic was mindlessly celebrated.

Preferred shares are financial assets, and not subject to the laws of physics. Being an engineer, it is not surprising that Saylor should come up with all these fallacious analogies so that bitcoin yield would appear to stem from what can only be viewed as financial alchemy. But since there are no actual company revenues to speak of, no actual banking (the company borrows, but does not lend), the bitcoin yield must in the end stem from the earlier outlined Ponzi element of the company’s business model; retail investors are dazzled by carefully curated narratives, causing them to bid up the price of common shares enough for the bitcoin yield opportunity to materialize. Whatever bitcoin yield originating from the various debt instruments cannot yet be considered settled as debt must eventually be paid off. Only the bitcoin yield stemming from common share ATM offerings is immediate and final — a true profit. A Bubble of Bitcoin Treasury Companies Oblivious or not to the fact that narratives can’t influence reality forever, the massively successful bitcoin yield concept of Strategy has spread like a wildfire among management teams of smaller companies all over the world. CEOs have seen how Strategy insiders, by continuously dumping shares on the retail investors currently chasing the shares, have become immensely rich, and so have started copying the playbook. The constant Strategy insider selling can be verified by looking at the numerous Form 144 filings. Many of these companies have successfully pulled this off, already enriching management and old shareholders at the expense of new ones. But it must all end at one point, and many of these companies, grasping in desperation at the bold, new strategy of becoming bitcoin treasury companies (due to the conventional main business struggling or even failing) will be the first that are compelled to sell their bitcoin assets to pay creditors when things take a turn for the worse. Michael Saylor himself once admitted that he was desperate before stumbling over bitcoin.

• Metaplanet was once known as Red Planet Japan and struggled mightily to be profitable in Japan’s budget hotel sector.
• Before Méliuz SA desperately adopted a bitcoin acquisition strategy, it had undergone a 100:1 reverse split.
• Vanadi Coffee SA drifted ever closer to bankruptcy, managing five cafes and a bakery in Spain’s Alicante region, but its pivot to a bitcoin strategy now seems to have performed miracles for its share price.
• The notorious meme stock company Trump Media & Technology, with no revenue to speak of, is now pursuing billions of dollars in funding for the purpose of creating a bitcoin treasury company in order to rescue a share price trading at all-time lows.
• Bluebird Mining Ventures Ltd, also in desperation, I would imagine — at least if the share price is any indicator — just recently decided to sell any gold it managed to mine in order to fund bitcoin purchases for its treasury; the shares are at time of writing up almost 500% in a month.
• H100 Group, a small and until recently struggling Swedish biotech company, has, at the time of writing returned, to its investors about 1,500% in a month on news that Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, is funding the company through some type of convertible bonds, for the pursuit of a bitcoin treasury strategy.

The list could go on and on, but I think the point is made; it is not Microsoft, Apple, or Nvidia that are becoming bitcoin treasury companies, but failing companies with nothing to lose. Jesse Myers, a Strategy supporter and a direct influence on Michael Saylor’s bitcoin valuation modeling, admitted that,  “[…] with MicroStrategy, Metaplanet and Gamestop, they are all zombie companies. They all had […] a reason to take a serious look in the mirror and say, we can’t keep doing the strategy that we’ve… the path we’ve been on. We have to radically reinvent our approach to delivering shareholder value.”  All these desperate companies have looked at Michael Saylor and Strategy and believe they have found a clear path to riches. By copying the financial alchemy themselves, they are now all involved in a great transfer of wealth as the bitcoin treasury company bubble runs its course. When the Mosaic Breaks Though part of the impressive company mosaic, Strike, Strife, and Stride are all senior to equity. The same is true for the convertible bonds, not all of them are currently “in the money.” Future free cash flow will always have to reach holders of these instruments before whatever is left can go to owners of the common shares. In good times, this is obviously not a problem due to the rather low debt ratio of the company; in bad times, the value of all company assets decline considerably while debt obligations remain — like tall, looming threats to any new creditor. Due to a phenomenon sometimes referred to as debt overhang, any new creditor will be hesitant to lend for the purpose of paying off other debt obligations. What started as an enchanting collection of narratives and exaggerations morphs into something turning on its creator. This is all exacerbated by the fact that a prolonged bitcoin bear market will cause further sell pressure on the asset by the many bitcoin treasury companies then in distress. The more popular Strategy’s playbook becomes, in other words, the deeper the future bitcoin crash, likely wiping out much of the equity of most companies having pursued such a strategy to the bitter end. In summary: Michael Saylor likes bitcoin. He, like all of us, prefers more bitcoin to less bitcoin. It is then extremely naive to think that he will let company management pass on what is by definition an arbitrage. When common shares trade at a premium to net assets, the company can create risk-free profits for its old shareholders by transferring wealth from the buyers of newly issued shares. This will continue in the form of ever-larger common share ATM offerings alongside new, obfuscating ”innovative products”, despite protests and mutterings about equity dilution. Evidence of this claim is my prediction made in March, coming true in the form of a new $21 billion ATM offering barely one and a half months later. If Strategy does not act on this arbitrage, all the copy-cats will capture it instead as they attempt to increase their bitcoin treasury in an equally risk-free manner. In the frantic scramble to create and expand all these arbitrage opportunities, companies will take on debt in various forms, and danger abounds. During the next bitcoin bear market, the Strategy share price will reach — and then break below — net assets per share, inflicting large bitcoin-denominated losses on anyone buying at today’s premium. The best action a Strategy investor can take today is doing exactly what the company and its insiders are all doing: Sell the shares!  Bitcoin is no longer the main strategy of this company, nor of any of the now multiplying bitcoin treasury companies; you are. This is an edited version of the article posted on the author’s Medium page. A fuller assessment is featured in the next Bitcoin Magazine Print issue — be sure to get your subscription now. BM Big Reads are weekly, in-depth articles on some current topic relevant to Bitcoin and Bitcoiners. If you have a submission you think fits the model, feel free to reach out at editor[at]bitcoinmagazine.com. This post Bitcoin Treasury Companies Are Bubbles first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Emil Sandstedt.

Bitcoin Magazine

The Nakamoto Strategy: Seeding Bitcoin Treasury Companies in Every Capital Market NOTE: This article presents the author’s perspective on the likely structure and future implications of Nakamoto’s strategy. It is a forward-looking analysis, not a statement from Nakamoto or its employees. Until the proposed merger closes, Nakamoto’s strategic execution remains subject to change. The analysis reflects public materials, early actions, and directional signals observed to date. Introduction: From Treasury Strategy to Global Bitcoin Refinery The Nakamoto strategy offers a new framework for capital formation in the age of Bitcoin. Rather than viewing Bitcoin solely as a reserve asset, Nakamoto is pursuing an approach that uses Bitcoin as a foundation for constructing a more dynamic and globally integrated capital structure. The strategy involves more than simply accumulating BTC on a balance sheet. Nakamoto treats Bitcoin as a base layer of value and pairs it with public equity as a leverage layer—strategically deploying capital into smaller, high-potential public companies. The goal is to compound exposure, improve market access, and support the growth of a decentralized, Bitcoin-native financial ecosystem. Already, UTXO Management has provided examples by seeding and supporting several high-profile Bitcoin treasury companies:

• Metaplanet (TSE: 3350) – Japan’s fastest-growing public Bitcoin company with 13,350 BTC, and #1 performing public company of 2024 out of 55,000 globally.
• The Smarter Web Company (AQUIS: SWC) – A UK-based web services firm that IPO’d with a BTC treasury strategy and has returned more than 100x since listing.
• The Blockchain Group (Euronext: ALTBG) – Europe’s first Bitcoin treasury company, with over 1000% BTC yield YTD 2025.

Backed by over $750+ million in capital, Nakamoto can scale this strategy globally—market by market, exchange by exchange, one Bitcoin treasury company at a time. As Bitcoin increasingly functions as the emergent global hurdle rate for capital—strategies that generate returns in excess of Bitcoin itself become especially valuable. Nakamoto’s model is designed not just to preserve value in BTC terms, but to compound it. In that context, firms capable of consistently outperforming Bitcoin through disciplined BTC-denominated strategies are likely to earn outsized attention—and may increasingly attract capital as investors seek returns above the Bitcoin benchmark. The Nakamoto Strategy Explained The strategy rests on a straightforward insight: market access constraints are as important as Bitcoin itself. In many jurisdictions, institutional capital cannot buy or custody Bitcoin directly. But that same capital can buy public equities that hold Bitcoin as a treasury reserve. This creates a specific opportunity:

• Seed new Bitcoin treasury companies: These are established in jurisdictions where access to BTC is structurally constrained, or where no such companies yet exist.
• Deploy Bitcoin strategically: BTC may be contributed directly or indirectly through equity financing mechanisms like PIPEs, warrants, or structured investments.
• Enable public market revaluation: These companies may begin to trade at a premium to the value of their BTC holdings (an mNAV expansion).
• Recycle capital through appreciation: Nakamoto can participate in this cycle and may reinvest in additional companies or accumulate further BTC.

The Nakamoto Flywheel below illustrates how equity premiums from public markets are strategically converted into long-term Bitcoin reserves. This repeatable model compounds Bitcoin-denominated value with each cycle—building balance sheet strength at global scale. Key Mechanics: How the Strategy Multiplies Value mNAV Arbitrage and Strategic Premium Capture The Nakamoto strategy generates value by leveraging the structural dynamics of public markets and the constrained nature of Bitcoin access in many jurisdictions. One of the foundational mechanisms of the Nakamoto strategy is mNAV (multiple of Net Asset Value) arbitrage. When Nakamoto allocates capital to a Bitcoin treasury company in a jurisdiction where no other compliant BTC exposure vehicles exist, that company often begins trading at a multiple of its net Bitcoin holdings. This outcome assigns a strategic premium to Nakamoto’s deployed capital and effectively increases the market value of Bitcoin originally acquired at or near spot. BTC Yield as the Core Performance Metric Rather than focusing on traditional accounting metrics, Nakamoto evaluates performance in Bitcoin-denominated terms—specifically by tracking Bitcoin per diluted share. This measure, referred to as BTC Yield, captures the compounding benefit when a treasury company increases its Bitcoin holdings at a rate faster than its equity issuance. This reinforces long-term alignment with Bitcoin-native value creation. Nakamoto also tracks look-through BTC ownership—its proportional claim on Bitcoin held across portfolio companies—as a secondary KPI, ensuring every equity move is benchmarked in Bitcoin terms. While most Bitcoin treasury companies rely heavily on repeated equity issuance—diluting existing shareholders in order to grow BTC-per-share, Nakamoto can compound holdings without dilution by running what is referred to as the mNAV² strategy. In practice, this means:

1. Seed at Intrinsic Value: Nakamoto launches or invests in a Bitcoin treasury company at or near 1× mNAV—meaning the equity is priced roughly in line with the company’s net Bitcoin holdings.
2. Unlock the Premium: Public markets re-rate the company, assigning a valuation multiple above its Bitcoin holdings due to scarcity, strategic positioning, or narrative momentum—creating an mNAV premium.
3. Recycle Without Dilution: Nakamoto harvests a portion of the appreciated equity, redeploying the proceeds into additional BTC or new ventures—without issuing new Nakamoto shares, enabling BTC-per-share growth through capital efficiency.

As competition among listed treasury vehicles intensifies, markets are likely to reward the firms that can expand BTC-per-share through non-dilutive mechanisms. mNAV² makes that outcome native to Nakamoto’s playbook, turning balance-sheet efficiency itself into a competitive moat. Closing the Institutional Access Gap Jurisdictional limitations prevent many institutional investors from directly holding Bitcoin. However, they are often permitted to invest in public equities that hold BTC as a treasury asset. Nakamoto addresses this asymmetry by seeding and supporting regionally compliant public vehicles that serve as legal and practical conduits for institutional Bitcoin exposure. Advantages of Operating Through Public Markets By using public markets as its operational arena, Nakamoto benefits from transparency, ongoing liquidity, and efficient price discovery. These attributes allow it to recycle capital efficiently and expand into new geographies quickly. Unlike traditional private market structures, this approach supports scale, visibility, and regulatory alignment in real-time. The 40% Rule: Redeploying Gains Into Bitcoin A key structural requirement of the Nakamoto strategy is compliance with the Investment Company Act of 1940, which mandates that no more than 40% of Nakamoto’s balance sheet can consist of securities such as public equities. Bitcoin, classified as a commodity, does not count toward this limit. This regulatory boundary shapes how Nakamoto must operate:

• As equity positions in Bitcoin treasury companies appreciate, Nakamoto is compelled to sell down those stakes to stay within the 40% threshold.
• This naturally reinforces the strategy’s focus on cycling gains from equity back into Bitcoin—accelerating BTC accumulation.
• To manage this constraint, Nakamoto has begun using innovative structures such as Bitcoin-denominated convertible notes. These instruments help fix asset exposure, enabling gradual conversion and avoiding sudden threshold breaches.

The cap is not a limitation on ambition—it’s a forcing function for capital discipline and strategic BTC reinvestment. As Nakamoto’s balance sheet grows, so does its capacity to hold larger equity positions—always with Bitcoin as the core reserve asset. Strategic Instruments: Bitcoin-Denominated Convertible Notes To manage compliance with the 40% securities threshold and mitigate volatility exposure, Nakamoto is likely to rely on Bitcoin-denominated convertible note structures in future deployments. These instruments offer a flexible way to structure exposure—allowing Nakamoto to fix the value of an investment on its balance sheet while retaining the option to convert into equity over time. This structure presents several strategic advantages:

• Regulatory Buffer: Because conversion is optional and can be staged, these notes help delay classification as securities—preserving balance sheet headroom under the 40 Act.
• Gradual Entry and Exit: Nakamoto can incrementally convert notes as needed, smoothing market impact and aligning exposure with evolving balance sheet capacity.

This approach has already shown promise in models pursued by The Blockchain Group and H100, where similar structures have enabled Bitcoin-native capital deployment without triggering regulatory friction. If scaled appropriately, Bitcoin-denominated convertibles could become a defining instrument in Nakamoto’s toolkit—one that aligns capital strategy with both performance and compliance. Addressing Criticism of the Nakamoto Strategy Navigating Tax Complexity A recurring concern centers around the tax consequences of transferring Bitcoin between entities. In many jurisdictions, such transfers can trigger taxable events, reducing capital efficiency. Nakamoto mitigates this risk by avoiding direct BTC transfers and instead utilizing equity-based structures—such as PIPEs, warrants, and joint ventures—that provide exposure without incurring immediate tax obligations. Interpreting mNAV Premiums and Narrative Risk Critics often question the durability of mNAV premiums, suggesting they may be driven more by market hype than fundamentals. Nakamoto responds to this concern by focusing on Bitcoin-per-share growth rather than valuation multiples alone. The firm emphasizes BTC Yield as a more reliable metric and prioritizes tangible BTC accumulation through recapitalizations and disciplined capital deployment. Governance and Operational Influence Some observers have expressed concern about Nakamoto’s degree of influence over the companies it supports. Nakamoto does not aim to control daily operations but ensures strategic alignment through governance rights, board representation, and equity stakes. This structure allows Nakamoto to influence treasury policy and maintain Bitcoin-centric discipline without compromising the autonomy of each company. Managing Market Volatility and Compression Risk The potential for mNAV compression—particularly in risk-off environments—is a known challenge. Nakamoto mitigates this risk by focusing on jurisdictions with low initial valuations and unmet demand for Bitcoin exposure. Even if valuation multiples contract, the companies Nakamoto supports continue to hold BTC on their balance sheets, preserving intrinsic value regardless of market sentiment. Capturing Value in a Bitcoin-Denominated Model A related concern involves how Nakamoto captures tangible value from the companies it helps establish or support. Unlike models that rely on dividend payments or near-term liquidity events, Nakamoto benefits through long-term strategic equity stakes, pre-IPO warrant structures, and equity appreciation tied directly to BTC-per-share growth. This approach enables value capture that aligns with its thesis of Bitcoin-denominated performance, without compromising the capital structure or autonomy of the underlying companies. Differentiation from Traditional Private Equity Models Comparisons are often drawn between Nakamoto’s strategy and private equity investing. While there are structural similarities, Nakamoto distinguishes itself through its liquidity profile, public market transparency, and alignment with Bitcoin-native accounting. Rather than operating as a fund, Nakamoto functions as a public infrastructure builder—identifying underserved markets, constructing regulatory frameworks, and absorbing early-stage risk in order to unlock institutional Bitcoin access at scale. The Role of Nakamoto vs. Direct Investment Some critics question whether Nakamoto is simply a middle layer between investors and the companies themselves—arguing that sophisticated capital could bypass Nakamoto and invest directly. In practice, however, Nakamoto delivers differentiated value by sourcing deals in overlooked markets, architecting compliant listing structures, and catalyzing early demand. It acts as a bridge between Bitcoin-native capital and traditional financial systems, taking on the narrative and structural lift that many institutions are unwilling or unable to initiate alone. The irreplaceable edge for Nakamoto is deal flow. Nakamoto can source, structure, and price transactions at the moment of inception—access that simply isn’t available to most outside capital until valuations have already moved. Conclusion: Nakamoto and the Formation of Bitcoin-Native Capital Markets The Nakamoto strategy represents an emerging capital architecture centered around Bitcoin. By enabling market access, accelerating public-market velocity, and aligning incentives around BTC-per-share accumulation, Nakamoto is helping build a new generation of treasury-first public companies. With over $750 million raised, operating examples across Tokyo, London, and Paris, and a growing network of prospective listings, Nakamoto is executing on a strategy designed to bridge the gap between capital markets and Bitcoin adoption. As traditional financial institutions continue to face structural and regulatory barriers to holding BTC directly, the model Nakamoto is developing may offer a scalable, compliant path forward. It’s not just a capital strategy. It’s a structural response to Bitcoin’s growing role in global finance. Disclaimer: This content was written on behalf of Bitcoin For Corporations, and is not a statement from Nakamoto or Kindly MD, Inc. This article is intended solely for informational purposes. This post The Nakamoto Strategy: Seeding Bitcoin Treasury Companies in Every Capital Market first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Nick Ward.