The corporate world’s embrace of Bitcoin as a treasury asset has reached a pivotal inflection point. Metaplanet’s $3.7 billion capital-raising initiative to accumulate 210,000 BTC by 2027 exemplifies this trend, but it also underscores the high-stakes gamble inherent in such strategies. While Bitcoin’s fixed supply and inflation-hedging appeal make it an attractive addition to corporate balance sheets, the execution of these strategies requires navigating a complex web of financial, regulatory, and operational risks.
The Metaplanet Model: Structure and Ambition
Metaplanet’s approach combines equity issuance, preferred stock innovation, and structured financing to fund its Bitcoin purchases. By expanding its authorized shares to 2.7 billion and introducing perpetual preferred shares with 6% annual dividend yields, the company aims to preserve common shareholder control while mitigating dilution. Additionally, covered call options on Bitcoin generated ¥1.9 billion in Q2 2025, illustrating the potential for hybrid income streams. As of September 2025, Metaplanet already holds 20,000 BTC ($2.2 billion), positioning it as the sixth-largest corporate Bitcoin holder.
However, the strategy’s success hinges on sustained investor confidence. A 54% drop in Metaplanet’s stock price since mid-2025 has complicated fundraising efforts, raising questions about the scalability of equity-based financing in volatile markets. This scenario mirrors broader challenges faced by companies like MicroStrategy, which reported a $5.91 billion unrealized loss on its Bitcoin holdings in Q1 2025.
Risks and Realities of Corporate Bitcoin Holdings
Bitcoin’s volatility remains a double-edged sword. While its 16.32–21.15% 30-day price swings offer opportunities for gains, they also amplify downside risks. For corporations, this volatility can lead to significant balance sheet strain, particularly when acquisitions are funded through leveraged equity or debt. Strategy Inc., which holds 66% of corporate Bitcoin holdings (628,946 BTC), has seen its market-to-net asset value (mNAV) ratio decline due to equity dilution from repeated fundraising.
Regulatory uncertainty further complicates the landscape. The U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission have imposed penalties for anti-money laundering (AML) failures and unregistered securities offerings in the crypto space. Additionally, divergent accounting standards under GAAP and IFRS create inconsistencies in financial reporting, as seen in Marathon Digital Holdings’ $331 million revaluation under GAAP versus IFRS-based treatments. These challenges highlight the need for clearer frameworks to ensure transparency and comparability.
Broader Implications and Mitigation Strategies
The long-term viability of corporate Bitcoin treasuries depends on balancing innovation with governance. Hybrid models—such as yield staking, collateralized loans, and AI-driven hedging—are emerging to mitigate risks. For instance, Empery Digital’s $500 million Bitcoin allocation via Gemini custodianship demonstrates how diversified income streams can enhance returns. Similarly, Metaplanet’s use of covered call options reflects a strategic attempt to generate revenue while holding Bitcoin.
Yet, market saturation looms. With over 180 companies now holding Bitcoin, the asset’s appeal as a unique hedge may diminish, particularly as exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and institutional custodians offer alternative access points. This raises the question: Can corporate Bitcoin treasuries sustain their value proposition in a maturing market?
