For much of the last three years, a predictable cycle dominated the market: companies announced their intentions to purchase massive volumes of Bitcoin, watched their stock prices soar to a premium and issued new shares to buy more Bitcoin. This feedback loop made Bitcoin accumulation look like an “infinite money glitch”: a guaranteed way for public companies to manufacture shareholder value out of thin air.

As we move through the first quarter of 2026, that cycle has broken. Recent data shows that roughly 40% of publicly traded Bitcoin treasuries are now trading at a discount to their net asset value (NAV). In plain terms, the market now values these companies as a liability, worth less than the market price of the Bitcoin they hold.

This collapse in valuation has invited blistering criticism from institutional veterans. Jan van Eck, CEO of VanEck, recently dismissed the sector as a publicity-driven trend, while veteran analyst Herb Greenberg has characterized the most prominent player, Strategy, as a “quasi-Ponzi scheme.”

These critiques point to a failure in how many of these firms are managed. To remain viable, Bitcoin treasury companies must accept that accretive dilution is no longer a sustainable strategy. They must move beyond holding passively and operate as disciplined asset managers.

Competing philosophies: the promoter vs. the asset manager

Today, most Bitcoin treasury companies are divided into two camps, representing fundamentally different philosophies of corporate management: “Promoters” and “Asset Managers.”

Promoters treat Bitcoin as a passive asset to be hoarded. In this model, the company’s primary job is two-fold. First, the firm must act as an aggressive advocate for the underlying currency and its ecosystem. By investing in community projects and maintaining a constant presence in public discourse, the Promoter works to drive the token price higher and capitalize on gains from its existing holdings. Second, the Promoter must market its own stock to maintain a high premium. When the market values the company significantly higher than the Bitcoin it actually holds, the company can sell new shares at that inflated price to buy more Bitcoin at the normal market rate. This calculated financial maneuver is called accretive dilution.

Together, these strategies create a feedback loop of hype. The Promoter needs the price of Bitcoin to rise to increase its net asset value, and it needs the equity premium to be maintained to continue its accumulation strategy. However, this model is fragile because it relies entirely on external sentiment. If the price of BTC stalls or the equity premium vanishes — as we are seeing across the board in 2026 — the Promoter is left with an unproductive balance sheet and no internal mechanism for growth.

In contrast, asset managers view Bitcoin as a productive commodity akin to “digital oil.” In the physical world, an oil major like Exxon or Shell does not simply sit on reserves and hope for a price rally. They are sophisticated financial operators who treat their inventory as a productive asset. They trade the futures curve to capture premiums and monetize market volatility.

Asset Manager-style treasuries apply this same industrial rigor to the digital realm. By using their balance sheet to generate real, Bitcoin-denominated returns, they ensure growth is driven by operational skill, rather than a byproduct of crypto market sentiment. By treating Bitcoin as a commodity to be managed, the asset manager generates real yield from the skilled management of the asset, not from the continuous issuance of new stock to the public.

The era of accretive dilution is over

The distinction between these two models is no longer academic. One of them has stopped working.

The Promoter approach — relying on equity issuance to finance Bitcoin accumulation — is no longer a viable growth strategy. What once passed as financial sophistication was, in practice, a tactic that depended on unusually favorable market conditions.

Issuing shares at a premium can temporarily increase Bitcoin per share, but it does not create an economic return. It generates no cash flow, no operational advantage and no durable compounding mechanism. It exists entirely at the discretion of new investors. When that demand weakens, the strategy collapses.

For much of 2025, this reality was easy to ignore. Rising Bitcoin prices and abundant liquidity made accumulation strategies look interchangeable. Capital flowed freely, equity premiums expanded, and dozens of treasury companies adopted the same playbook: buy Bitcoin, promote the narrative, raise more equity, repeat. In that environment, differentiation didn’t matter.

It does now.

As the market matures, Bitcoin treasuries that rely solely on passive accumulation face a hard constraint: they lack an internal mechanism for growth. When every firm owns the same asset, holds it the same way and depends on the same equity-market dynamics, there is no basis for sustained outperformance. The model has become commoditized — and investors are growing sick of it.

Only the most prominent players — those with exceptional scale, brand recognition, and Michael Saylor-level fame — will be able to sustain this approach. For most treasury companies, passive accumulation without active management offers no path to differentiation, resilience, or long-term relevance.

Markets are already reflecting this reality. Nearly half of Bitcoin treasury companies have fallen below mNAV, and most won’t recover without a drastic pivot.

Transitioning from passive storage to active management

To transition from a promoter to an asset manager, companies must move beyond the simple HODL strategy and put the balance sheet to work. This means adopting the tools of professional commodity trading.

One primary tool is the basis trade, in which a firm exploits the price difference between the spot price of Bitcoin and the futures contract price. By capturing this spread, a company can grow its Bitcoin holdings even when the asset’s price is flat or declining. Furthermore, a Bitcoin asset manager uses dynamic options strategies to turn market turbulence into income.

This approach provides a “real yield” that does not rely on selling more stock or finding new investors. It transforms the treasury from a cost center into a profit center. Most importantly, it provides a clear path to increasing Bitcoin-per-share through operational excellence rather than capital market maneuvers.

Treasury companies also need to adjust the way they communicate with investors. Too many treasury CEOs posture as low-budget Michael Saylor impersonators — focusing on narrative amplification, public advocacy and symbolic accumulation. It’s an approach designed to generate hype, not project careful financial stewardship.

As investor scrutiny intensifies, CEOs will need to project credibility by explaining how risk is managed, how exposure is structured, and how returns are generated across a range of market conditions. The market will not reward Bitcoin’s loudest cheerleaders; it will reward the firms that deploy their holdings most productively.