In the sixteen months since the Financial Accounting Standards Board's new crypto asset standard took effect, a new species of public company has emerged. It does not manufacture anything material to its valuation. Its operating business is, in many cases, an afterthought. What it does is issue equity and debt at a premium to the underlying value of its balance sheet, use the proceeds to buy a single volatile asset, and then mark that asset to fair value through earnings every quarter. The reported earnings—when the asset rises—are then offered as evidence that the model is working, justifying the next issuance at a higher premium. The cycle has produced billions of dollars in shareholder value and, more recently, billions of dollars in shareholder losses, an emerging body of securities litigation, and a class of structures that institutional capital is now being asked to underwrite on terms that did not exist before fiscal year 2025.
The phenomenon has a name in the trade press. Analysts call them "digital asset treasury" companies, or DATs. Total Bitcoin held by publicly listed corporates has risen from approximately 620,000 BTC at the start of 2025 to roughly 1.15 million BTC by early 2026.¹ A single issuer, Strategy Inc (NASDAQ: MSTR)—formerly MicroStrategy Incorporated, renamed in August 2025—accounted for an estimated 97.5 percent of corporate Bitcoin buying in early 2026 and, as of May 17, 2026, held 843,738 BTC purchased for approximately $63.87 billion.² The model has been copied across jurisdictions, market capitalizations, and operating businesses, and the imitators have, in the aggregate, produced enough shareholder destruction to draw a formal warning from at least one institutional research firm that the sector has entered what it described as a "Darwinian phase."³
This article examines the accounting and capital-markets mechanics that enabled the trade, the gaps in the federal investment-company and audit-disclosure frameworks that have allowed the trade to scale, the litigation now testing the boundaries of disclosure under the new standard, and the forensic questions institutional investors must answer before underwriting the next convertible note, at-the-market equity program, or preferred stock issuance from a Bitcoin treasury company.
The flywheel did not exist in its current form before January 1, 2025. Under the prior regime, corporate holders of Bitcoin and similar crypto assets were required to account for those holdings as indefinite-lived intangible assets under Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") Topic 350, carried at historical cost less impairment.⁴ Companies were required to write down their crypto holdings to reflect declines in fair value, but they were not permitted to write them back up to reflect subsequent recoveries unless and until the asset was sold—an asymmetric model that, in the view of many stakeholders, did not faithfully represent the economics of those holdings.⁵
That changed with the FASB's issuance of Accounting Standards Update No. 2023-08, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other—Crypto Assets (Subtopic 350-60): Accounting for and Disclosure of Crypto Assets, on December 13, 2023.⁶ The Update created ASC Subtopic 350-60 and requires in-scope crypto asset holdings to be measured at fair value at each reporting date, with changes in fair value recognized in net income in each reporting period.⁷ The standard is effective for all entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024, with early adoption permitted.⁸ For calendar-year reporters, that meant the new framework took effect on January 1, 2025.
The implications for an issuer concentrated in Bitcoin are direct and dramatic. When Bitcoin appreciates, the carrying value of the holding rises, and the resulting unrealized gain flows through net income. When Bitcoin declines, the reverse occurs. Across the four quarters of 2025—Strategy's first full fiscal year of reporting under the new standard—the company recorded an unrealized loss on its digital assets of approximately $5.91 billion in the first quarter, an unrealized gain of approximately $14.05 billion in the second, an unrealized gain of approximately $3.89 billion in the third, and an unrealized loss of approximately $17.4 billion in the fourth, the last of which translated to a fourth-quarter net loss of approximately $12.4 billion or $42.93 per diluted common share.⁹ These are not adjustments to other comprehensive income or footnote items. They are reported earnings, with the same line-item dignity as operating income from selling software or shipping goods, and they swing in nine and ten-figure increments quarter to quarter with the price of a single asset.
Fair-value accounting on its own does not create a treasury company. What ASU 2023-08 did was complete the missing piece of a capital-markets mechanic now being marketed to institutional investors under various names and structures.
The mechanic has four steps. First, the company issues common stock, convertible debt, or preferred stock at a price that values the enterprise above the market value of its crypto holdings—what practitioners refer to as the multiple of net asset value, or "mNAV."¹⁰ Second, the company uses the proceeds to buy Bitcoin. Third, the Bitcoin position is marked to fair value through earnings, producing reported income, in a rising market, that supports the narrative of "accretion" and the continuation of the premium. Fourth, the company issues again at the maintained or expanded premium, and the loop repeats.
Strategy has formalized the language of this loop with a self-defined performance indicator it calls "BTC Yield"—not a yield in the traditional cash-distribution sense, but a measure of the growth in Bitcoin holdings per assumed diluted share over a stated period.¹¹ Metaplanet Inc. (TSE: 3350), one of the most prominent imitators, reports the same metric and disclosed a year-to-date BTC Yield of 2.8 percent for the first quarter of 2026.¹² The arithmetic works only as long as the premium to net asset value is positive: when the market values the company above its Bitcoin holdings, each share issued raises more cash per share than the Bitcoin it buys, which in turn increases Bitcoin-per-share for existing holders. When the premium collapses to or below parity, the flywheel reverses, and the proposition of holding the company's equity rather than the underlying asset disappears.
Strategy is the dominant case study because it is the largest, the longest-running, and the issuer whose capital structure is most fully developed. As of May 17, 2026, the company held 843,738 BTC purchased for approximately $63.87 billion at an average cost basis of approximately $75,700 per coin.¹³ The accumulation has been funded through a layered capital stack: convertible senior notes, with approximately $8.2 billion outstanding at an average coupon understood to be approximately 0.42 percent; at-the-market common equity programs in aggregate amounts of approximately $28.7 billion; and a series of perpetual preferred stock instruments introduced through 2025—Strike (STRK, 8 percent fixed dividend, convertible), Strife (STRF, 10 percent fixed cumulative dividend, non-convertible), Stride (STRD, 10 percent non-cumulative dividend), Stretch (STRC, variable-rate dividend recently around 11 percent, designed to trade near $100 par), and Stream (STRE, a Euro-denominated equivalent of STRF listed on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange).¹⁴
The design of that capital structure is not incidental. The convertible debt offered near-zero coupons in exchange for equity upside; the at-the-market equity allowed continuous issuance into the premium; the perpetual preferreds have no stated maturity, removing refinancing risk in exchange for ongoing dividend obligations projected by industry observers to reach approximately $904 million in 2026.¹⁵ The legacy software business, on roughly $477 million in annual revenue, cannot service those obligations from operations.¹⁶ Strategy has been transparent that its preferred securities are not collateralized by the company's Bitcoin holdings and have only a preferred claim on residual assets.¹⁷ In a stress scenario, preferred holders do not hold a security interest in the underlying Bitcoin and must look to the company's general balance sheet alongside other creditors.
The common equity has experienced the full range of the flywheel. From an all-time intraday high of approximately $543 per share reached on November 21, 2024, MSTR common stock declined to approximately $121 per share by the end of the first quarter of 2026—a more than 75 percent decline—before partially recovering to roughly $164 per share by mid-May 2026.¹⁸ The premium to net asset value did not just compress; on an enterprise-value basis, the market valued the entire capital structure at roughly the level of the Bitcoin holdings alone at certain points in early 2026, briefly removing the premium that had previously been the company's principal funding advantage.¹⁹
Briefings on markets, governance, and our investment philosophy—delivered directly.
The imitators tell a more compressed version of the same story. Metaplanet, a Tokyo-listed firm that pivoted from hotel operations to Bitcoin treasury management, had accumulated 40,177 BTC by March 31, 2026 at an average cost basis of approximately $104,000 per coin—materially above the prevailing Bitcoin price for much of the period that followed.²⁰ Independent research has documented that Metaplanet's market capitalization rose from a roughly $1 billion Bitcoin base to a peak of approximately $8 billion before falling to approximately $3.1 billion, even as the company continued to hold roughly $3.3 billion of Bitcoin—a reported destruction of approximately $4.9 billion in shareholder value alongside roughly $2.3 billion of Bitcoin accumulated.²¹ Semler Scientific Inc. (NASDAQ: SMLR), the second United States-listed company to adopt a Bitcoin treasury strategy, has announced a three-year plan to accumulate 105,000 BTC by year-end 2027.²² GameStop Corp. (NYSE: GME) raised approximately $1.3 billion in convertible debt in 2025 to help fund a 4,710 BTC purchase, before its chief executive publicly suggested in early 2026 that those holdings might be liquidated to fund a "transformative" acquisition.²³
The stress test arrived in two waves. Bitcoin reached an all-time high of approximately $126,272 on October 6, 2025; four days later, on October 10, a tariff-driven liquidation event wiped out approximately $19 billion in leveraged positions and began a multi-month decline.²⁴ On February 6, 2026, Bitcoin briefly traded as low as approximately $60,062—a decline of more than 50 percent from the October peak.²⁵ By early 2026, approximately 40 percent of the top 100 publicly listed Bitcoin treasury firms were reported to be trading at market capitalizations below the value of their Bitcoin holdings.²⁶ One institutional research firm estimated that shareholders of treasury companies had collectively overpaid for Bitcoin exposure by approximately $20 billion over the cycle.²⁷ Another characterized the sector as having entered a "Darwinian phase" in which the issuance-driven growth loop had reversed and leverage that had been an accelerant in the rising market had become a liability in the falling one.²⁸
For investors familiar with prior corporate Bitcoin experiments, the dynamic is not new in kind, only in scale and structure. Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA) purchased approximately $1.5 billion of Bitcoin in the first quarter of 2021, sold approximately 75 percent of those holdings the following year, and recorded $204 million of impairment losses in 2022 under the prior cost-less-impairment regime.²⁹ That episode was a single-company experiment under a different accounting standard; the present cohort of treasury companies has compounded the dynamic with continuous issuance, layered preferred capital, and a fair-value framework that converts every quarterly price move into a reported earnings event.
The structure that has emerged raises a regulatory question that, in Buxton Helmsley's view, has received less attention than it warrants: why is a publicly listed entity holding the substantial majority of its assets in a single fungible digital commodity not regulated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940?
The technical answer is that Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act—the so-called "40 percent test"—applies only to issuers that own "investment securities" exceeding 40 percent of total assets exclusive of cash and government securities.³⁰ Senior staff at the Securities and Exchange Commission have taken the position since at least 2018 that Bitcoin is not a "security" for purposes of the federal securities laws, and the joint guidance issued by the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in March 2026 confirmed Bitcoin's classification as a "digital commodity" rather than a security.³¹ Because Bitcoin is not an "investment security" within the meaning of Section 3(a), an entity holding billions of dollars of Bitcoin does not trigger the 40 percent test and, under prevailing interpretation, falls outside the definition of an investment company subject to the Act.³²
The economic answer is different. A treasury company with the substantial majority of its assets in Bitcoin and a capital structure designed for continuous accumulation is, in functional terms, a leveraged single-asset crypto investment vehicle. Spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products approved by the SEC in 2024 operate under disclosure, custody, sponsor independence, and (depending on structure) Investment Company Act or Securities Act regimes that impose meaningful constraints on leverage, affiliate transactions, valuation methodology, and the kinds of self-defined performance metrics now in widespread use among DATs. A treasury company achieves a similar essential economic exposure—amplified, in many cases, by convertible debt and perpetual preferred capital—without any of those constraints.
The gap is not the product of any single issuer's conduct. It is a function of how the federal investment-company framework was drafted in 1940, when "investment securities" had a settled meaning and the prospect of a public-market vehicle that would hold tens of billions of dollars of a single non-security digital commodity as its entire economic identity was not contemplated. The largest treasury company has acknowledged the position with notable directness in its own annual report risk factors, disclosing that a regulatory reclassification of Bitcoin as a security could lead to the company's classification as an investment company under the 1940 Act, and stating affirmatively in the same filing that it does not currently operate under the regulatory regime applicable to mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, or registered investment advisers.³³ Those two admissions, taken together, are a candid statement of the regulatory arbitrage on which the strategy rests. Institutional investors evaluating subscription documents should not be misled into believing they receive, by virtue of an issuer's status as an operating company, the body of investor protection regulation that would attach to an economically equivalent registered investment vehicle.
A securities class action and a related derivative action are pending against Strategy and several of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In Hamza v. MicroStrategy Incorporated d/b/a Strategy, No. 25-cv-00861, plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, contending that the company and certain executives made materially false or misleading statements about the risks and profitability of the Bitcoin-focused treasury strategy, including the magnitude of potential unrealized losses following the adoption of ASU 2023-08 and the use of self-defined performance indicators such as "BTC Yield" and "BTC Gain."³⁴ Pomerantz LLP has been appointed lead counsel, with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as liaison counsel.³⁵ A related derivative action filed in the same court asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste against the same individual defendants, and includes allegations of insider stock sales by four of those individuals between April 30, 2024 and April 4, 2025.³⁶ Strategy has publicly stated that it intends to vigorously defend against both actions, and neither has been adjudicated on the merits.³⁷
The April 4, 2025 endpoint of the alleged class period is not arbitrary. It is the last trading day before the company's April 7, 2025 disclosure that it expected to recognize approximately $5.91 billion of unrealized losses under ASU 2023-08 for the first quarter of 2025, after which MSTR stock declined approximately 8.7 percent on the day of the disclosure.³⁸ The plaintiffs' theory, in substance, is that the alleged insider sales were made during the eleven months preceding that disclosure—a period during which the adoption of ASU 2023-08 had been publicly mandated by the FASB but, in the plaintiffs' view, the company had not yet adequately disclosed the magnitude of the volatility that fair-value accounting would introduce into reported earnings.
The Rule 10b5-1 question that this fact pattern raises is one that institutional investors should evaluate independently of the merits of the litigation. Rule 10b5-1, as amended effective February 27, 2023, provides a written-plan affirmative defense to insider trading allegations but only where the plan satisfies the amended conditions: a cooling-off period for directors and officers of the later of 90 days or two business days after the next Form 10-Q or 10-K filing for the fiscal quarter in which the plan was adopted, capped at 120 days; a written certification at adoption that the insider is not aware of material non-public information and is acting in good faith; restrictions on overlapping plans and on single-trade arrangements; and quarterly issuer disclosure of plan adoption, modification, and termination on Forms 10-Q and 10-K.³⁹ Whether the named individual defendants in the derivative action conducted their sales pursuant to compliant plans, and what the issuer's disclosed quarterly tabulations show about the timing of plan adoption relative to the company's internal deliberations on the ASU 2023-08 transition, are questions the public record will ultimately answer.
The broader analytical point is structural. In a capital structure where reported quarterly earnings are dominated by a fair-value mark on a single asset that the issuer publicly states it will continue to accumulate, executive sales at or near the inflection points of that mark are uniquely susceptible to retrospective scrutiny under the amended Rule 10b5-1 framework. The timing of plan adoption, the alignment of the cooling-off period with the issuer's quarterly reporting cycle, the disclosed pattern of insider sales by reference to public Form 4 filings, and the issuer's compliance with the new quarterly disclosure regime are all evaluable on the public record before the next subscription is signed.
Each registered public accounting firm that audits a DAT is required, under Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Auditing Standard 3101, to disclose in the audit report any "critical audit matter," defined as a matter arising from the audit that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee, that relates to accounts or disclosures material to the financial statements, and that involved especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment.⁴⁰ The fair-value measurement of in-scope crypto assets recognized at tens of billions of dollars on a DAT's balance sheet under ASC 350-60—where the quarterly remeasurement drives the entirety of reported earnings—is, on its face, precisely such a matter.
Strategy's independent registered public accounting firm, KPMG LLP, identified a critical audit matter in the company's 2023 Form 10-K relating to the evaluation of audit evidence pertaining to the existence and control of the company's digital assets, an issue arising from the fact that the underlying private keys are held by third-party custodial services at multiple geographically dispersed locations.⁴¹ In KPMG's audit report for the company's fiscal year ended December 31, 2025—Strategy's first complete fiscal year under fair-value accounting, with digital assets carried on the balance sheet at $58.85 billion as of year-end—KPMG identified a critical audit matter framed in materially the same terms: the evaluation of audit evidence pertaining to the existence and control of the digital assets.⁴² Notwithstanding the January 1, 2025 adoption of ASU 2023-08, the audit report does not appear, on its face, to disclose a separate critical audit matter addressing the fair-value measurement of crypto assets under ASC Subtopic 350-60 and ASC Topic 820—the principal market determination, the methodology used to value the position at the measurement date, the data sources tested in support of the closing-date mark, the internal controls placed in reliance, or the reasonableness of management's fair-value assertions on positions that drive multi-billion-dollar quarterly earnings swings. Each of those elements is precisely the kind of "especially challenging, subjective, or complex" judgment that AS 3101 was designed to surface in the audit report.
Institutional investors should look, in each treasury company's most recent annual audit report, for whether the auditor has disclosed a critical audit matter that specifically addresses the fair-value measurement of crypto assets under ASC 350-60—and, where the historical existence-and-control CAM is preserved without expansion to address the new measurement question, that asymmetry is itself a question that institutional investors and their counsel can fairly raise with the audit committee chair. The auditor's report is the single document in the public record that speaks directly to the rigor with which the largest line item on the balance sheet was tested; in a treasury company, that document deserves close reading rather than the cursory attention it ordinarily receives.
A distinct regulatory exposure that warrants careful evaluation is the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax ("CAMT") enacted by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which imposes a 15 percent minimum tax on certain large corporations based on adjusted financial statement income.⁴³ Until late September 2025, analysts widely expected that the application of CAMT to unrealized fair-value gains on crypto assets recognized under ASC 350-60 could produce a multi-billion-dollar tax liability for the largest treasury companies beginning in tax year 2026.⁴⁴ On September 30, 2025, the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service issued Notices 2025-46 and 2025-49, providing interim guidance that introduced an elective exclusion permitting corporations to disregard fair-value measurement adjustments on items such as digital assets for purposes of computing adjusted financial statement income.⁴⁵ Strategy has publicly stated that, in reliance on that interim guidance, it no longer expects to face CAMT exposure on its unrealized Bitcoin gains.⁴⁶ Institutional investors should note, however, that the September 2025 notices are interim guidance pending final regulations. The exposure was created by an accounting change, was nearly converted into a tax liability by the interaction of that accounting change with the CAMT statute, and was relieved by an executive-branch interpretation that any subsequent Administration or court could revisit. The model is, by construction, exquisitely sensitive to regulatory and policy decisions outside the issuer's control.
The point of the foregoing is not to argue that fair-value accounting for crypto assets is improper, that any specific issuer has engaged in misconduct, or that digital-asset exposure has no place on a corporate balance sheet. Each issuer discussed has made detailed disclosures in its public filings, the cited civil actions have not been resolved on the merits, and a properly structured treasury exposure can serve legitimate corporate purposes. The point is that institutional investors who are now being asked to underwrite convertible notes, at-the-market equity, and perpetual preferred stock from treasury companies face a set of questions that did not exist in their current form before ASC Subtopic 350-60 took effect.
Buxton Helmsley believes the forensic framework should address, at a minimum, the following. The multiple of net asset value at the moment of issuance: a convertible note or equity raise priced at an enterprise value of less than approximately 1.1x the issuer's underlying crypto holdings provides little margin for compression and can reverse the flywheel quickly. The capital-structure pecking order under stress: where preferred shares are explicitly not collateralized by the crypto holdings, the residual claim available after convertible debt and senior obligations, and the operating cash flow available to service perpetual preferred dividends through a sustained drawdown, are the questions that determine recovery in adverse scenarios. The construction of non-GAAP key performance indicators: "BTC Yield," "BTC per Share," "BTC Gain," and similar issuer-defined metrics are not GAAP measures, are subject to no auditor opinion, and—because they are functions of issuance arithmetic—can register positive readings even while shareholder value is being destroyed.
The quality of risk factor disclosure under ASC 350-60: the candor with which issuers quantify drawdown sensitivity and its effect on covenant or dividend capacity varies widely, and boilerplate is not a substitute. The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax exposure: investors should ask whether the issuer has quantified the potential liability under current Treasury guidance, whether it is relying on the September 2025 interim relief, and whether management has stress-tested liquidity for a reversal of that guidance. The insider trading and Rule 10b5-1 plan history: where executives have sold material amounts of stock during periods relevant to the company's strategy, the timing and manner of disclosure are evaluable on the public record. The audit committee and board oversight architecture: a treasury operation of the scale and volatility of the leading DATs is a board-level matter that the proxy statement and audit committee charter should reflect accordingly. Finally, the auditor's critical audit matters disclosure: the fair-value measurement of in-scope crypto assets is precisely the type of judgment that PCAOB Auditing Standard 3101 was designed to surface in the audit report, and the absence of any such disclosure is itself a question.
The treasury company model can work for the right issuer, with the right governance, the right disclosure, and the right investor base. It can also—as a growing body of evidence appears to show—work for the issuer in the form of accumulated Bitcoin per diluted share while working badly for shareholders in the form of capital destruction. The two outcomes look identical on the way up. They diverge sharply on the way down.
Institutional capital that is being asked to participate in the next round of issuance has every right—and, in the case of fiduciary capital, every obligation—to insist on the disclosure necessary to tell the difference before the subscription is signed.
May 18, 2026
Read
May 15, 2026
Read
May 12, 2026
Read
Briefings on markets, governance, and our investment philosophy—delivered directly.
Referenced Sources:
¹ Aggregated data from public-company disclosures and BitcoinTreasuries.net, as reported in industry coverage; see CB Insights, Strategy (MSTR) Accounted for 97.5% of Corporate Bitcoin Buying Last Month, Report Shows (Feb. 12, 2026).
² Strategy, Form 8-K (May 18, 2026); see CoinDesk, Strategy (MSTR) news: Company purchased more than $2 billion of BTC last week (May 18, 2026).
³ Galaxy Research, Bitcoin treasury firms enter a 'Darwinian phase' as premiums collapse (Dec. 6, 2025).
⁴ FASB Accounting Standards Codification, Topic 350, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other.
⁵ See FASB, ASU 2023-08, Basis for Conclusions ¶¶ BC10–BC17.
⁶ FASB, Accounting Standards Update No. 2023-08, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other—Crypto Assets (Subtopic 350-60): Accounting for and Disclosure of Crypto Assets (Dec. 13, 2023).
⁷ ASC 350-60-35; see Deloitte, Heads Up: FASB Issues Final Standard on Crypto Assets (Dec. 13, 2023).
⁸ ASC 350-60-65-1; see KPMG, FASB Issues Final ASU on Crypto Asset Accounting (Dec. 2023).
⁹ Strategy, Form 8-K (Apr. 7, 2025) (preliminary disclosure of Q1 2025 $5.91 billion unrealized loss); Strategy, Form 8-K (July 31, 2025), Exhibit 99.1 (Q2 2025 results, including unrealized fair value gain on digital assets of approximately $14.0 billion); Strategy, Form 8-K (Oct. 30, 2025), Exhibit 99.1 (Q3 2025 results, including unrealized gain on digital assets of approximately $3.9 billion); Strategy, Form 8-K (Feb. 5, 2026), Exhibit 99.1 (Q4 2025 unrealized loss on digital assets of $17.4 billion, net loss of $12.4 billion, $42.93 diluted loss per common share).
¹⁰ See VanEck, Deconstructing Strategy (MSTR): Premium, Leverage, and Capital Structure (May 22, 2025).
¹¹ Strategy, Investor Relations materials (defining "BTC Yield" as the percentage change period to period of the ratio of Bitcoin holdings to assumed diluted shares outstanding).
¹² Metaplanet Inc., Q1 2026 quarterly report; see CoinDesk, Metaplanet (3350) acquires 5,075 BTC, jumps to third largest BTC treasury company (Apr. 2, 2026).
¹³ Strategy, Form 8-K (May 18, 2026); see TipRanks, Strategy Raises Equity to Expand Massive Bitcoin Holdings (May 18, 2026).
¹⁴ Strategy, prospectus supplements and Form 8-K filings for the STRK, STRF, STRD, STRC, and STRE series; see The Block, What are Strategy's products? From STRK to STRC explained (Mar. 23, 2026).
¹⁵ See Techi, MicroStrategy and Michael Saylor: The Complete Bitcoin Strategy Explained (Mar. 31, 2026) (citing aggregate convertible note balance of approximately $8.2 billion at an average coupon of approximately 0.42 percent, aggregate ATM equity raises of more than $28.7 billion, and projected 2026 aggregate preferred dividend obligations of approximately $904 million).
¹⁶ Software segment revenue of approximately $477 million; see Techi, MicroStrategy and Michael Saylor: The Complete Bitcoin Strategy Explained (Mar. 31, 2026).
¹⁷ Strategy, Investor Relations webpage, STRK Information (disclosing that the company's preferred securities are not collateralized by the company's Bitcoin holdings and hold only a preferred claim on residual assets).
¹⁸ TradingView, MicroStrategy Stock — NASDAQ:MSTR Price and Chart (recording intraday all-time high of $543.00 on November 21, 2024); MacroTrends, Strategy Inc - 15 Year Stock Price History (recording closing high of $473.83 on November 20, 2024, and closing price of $164.63 on May 19, 2026); Techi, MicroStrategy and Michael Saylor: The Complete Bitcoin Strategy Explained (Mar. 31, 2026) (reporting MSTR trading at approximately $121 per share at the end of Q1 2026).
¹⁹ See BitcoinQuant, Strategy (MSTR) Bitcoin Treasury Analysis (May 2026) (reporting market-cap-to-Bitcoin-NAV multiple of 0.84x and enterprise-value-to-Bitcoin-NAV multiple of 1.09x).
²⁰ Metaplanet Inc., Q1 2026 quarterly report; CoinDesk, Metaplanet (3350) acquires 5,075 BTC, jumps to third largest BTC treasury company (Apr. 2, 2026); Decrypt / Yahoo Finance, Metaplanet Adds 5,075 BTC in Q1, Becomes Third Largest Bitcoin Treasury (Apr. 2, 2026).
²¹ 10x Research, After the Magic: How Bitcoin Treasury Firms Must Evolve Beyond NAV Illusions (Oct. 17, 2025).
²² Semler Scientific Inc., press release (June 20, 2025) (announcing three-year plan to accumulate 105,000 BTC by year-end 2027).
²³ GameStop Corp., Form 8-K (May 28, 2025) (announcing purchase of 4,710 Bitcoin); CoinDesk, GameStop (GME) Buys $513M in Bitcoin (May 28, 2025); CoinDesk, GameStop revealed its plans to pursue a bitcoin treasury strategy in March, offering $1.3 billion in debt (May 28, 2025); IndexBox, GameStop's CEO Hints at Bitcoin Sale for 'Transformative' Acquisition (Feb. 3, 2026).
²⁴ Zipmex / Bernstein, Why Is Crypto Crashing? 6 Reasons Behind the 2026 Market Crash (May 2026) (recording October 6, 2025 all-time high of $126,272 and October 10, 2025 liquidation event).
²⁵ JP Stanley (Medium), Bitcoin's Brutal 2026 Crash: What Went Wrong? (Feb. 7, 2026) (recording February 6, 2026 intraday low of $60,062).
²⁶ Hokanews, Bitcoin Treasury Stocks Are Cracking: 40% Now Trade Below NAV as Investor Confidence Slips (Jan. 3, 2026).
²⁷ 10x Research, After the Magic: How Bitcoin Treasury Firms Must Evolve Beyond NAV Illusions (Oct. 17, 2025).
²⁸ Galaxy Research, Bitcoin treasury firms enter a 'Darwinian phase' as premiums collapse (Dec. 6, 2025).
²⁹ Tesla, Inc., Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 (recording $204 million of digital-asset impairment losses); Tesla, Inc., Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2022 (disclosing sale of approximately 75 percent of Bitcoin holdings); CoinDesk, Tesla Records $101M Impairment Loss on Bitcoin Holdings for 2021 (Feb. 7, 2022).
³⁰ Investment Company Act of 1940, § 3(a)(1)(C), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-3(a)(1)(C) (defining investment company by reference to ownership of "investment securities" exceeding 40 percent of the value of total assets exclusive of government securities and cash items, on an unconsolidated basis).
³¹ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC Clarifies the Application of Federal Securities Laws to Crypto Assets, Press Release No. 2026-30 (Mar. 17, 2026); see Decrypt, SEC Declares 'Most Crypto Assets' Not Securities, Including Staking, Airdrops and Bitcoin Mining (Mar. 17, 2026); Ropes & Gray LLP, SEC and CFTC Issue Landmark Joint Guidance on Classification of Crypto Assets Under Federal Securities Laws (Mar. 26, 2026); see also W. Hinman, Director of the SEC Division of Corporation Finance, Digital Asset Transactions: When Howey Met Gary (Plastic), Remarks at the Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit: Crypto (June 14, 2018) (articulating staff view that Bitcoin transactions do not constitute securities transactions).
³² See Investment Company Act of 1940, § 3(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-3(a)(2) (defining "investment securities" by reference to inclusion of all securities other than government securities, employees' securities, and certain majority-owned subsidiary securities).
³³ Strategy Inc, Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (filed Feb. 19, 2026), Item 1A (Risk Factors) (under "Regulatory change reclassifying bitcoin as a security could lead to our classification as an 'investment company' under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and adversely affect the market price of bitcoin and our securities" and "We are not subject to legal and regulatory obligations that apply to investment companies such as mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, or to obligations applicable to investment advisers").
³⁴ Hamza v. MicroStrategy Incorporated d/b/a Strategy, No. 25-cv-00861 (E.D. Va. filed May 16, 2025); see Strategy, Form 8-K (May 19, 2025) (disclosing the complaint and the company's intent to defend).
³⁵ Pomerantz LLP, Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against MicroStrategy Incorporated d/b/a Strategy and Certain Officers (July 7, 2025); Law360 docket entries in Hamza v. MicroStrategy Incorporated et al. (recording appointment of Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as liaison counsel).
³⁶ Derivative action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on June 19, 2025; see Strategy, Form 8-K (June 19, 2025) (disclosing the derivative action and the substance of its allegations, including alleged insider sales by four named individual defendants between April 30, 2024 and April 4, 2025).
³⁷ Strategy, Form 8-K (May 19, 2025); Strategy, Form 8-K (June 19, 2025).
³⁸ Strategy, Form 8-K (Apr. 7, 2025) (disclosing $5.91 billion unrealized loss for Q1 2025); coverage of MSTR closing decline of approximately 8.67 percent on April 7, 2025 following the disclosure.
³⁹ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Rule 10b5-1 and Insider Trading, Release No. 33-11138 (Dec. 14, 2022) (effective February 27, 2023) (introducing cooling-off period of the later of 90 days or two business days after the next Form 10-Q or 10-K for directors and officers, capped at 120 days; a 30-day cooling-off period for non-officer, non-director insiders other than the issuer; good-faith certification at adoption; restrictions on overlapping plans; limits on single-trade arrangements; and quarterly issuer disclosure on Forms 10-Q and 10-K of plan adoption, modification, and termination).
⁴⁰ Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, Auditing Standard 3101, The Auditor's Report on an Audit of Financial Statements When the Auditor Expresses an Unqualified Opinion (defining a critical audit matter as a matter arising from the audit that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that (i) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (ii) involved especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment); effective for audits of fiscal years ending on or after June 30, 2019 (large accelerated filers) and December 15, 2020 (other filers).
⁴¹ MicroStrategy Incorporated, Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023 (KPMG LLP audit report identifying as a critical audit matter the evaluation of audit evidence pertaining to the existence and control of the company's digital assets); see also J. Brewer, Critical Audit Matters in Crypto, Oregon Blockchain Group (June 7, 2024) (describing KPMG's procedures including specialist visits to custodian locations and reconciliation of issuer records to custodial ledger and to the public blockchain).
⁴² Strategy Inc, Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (filed Feb. 19, 2026), Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (KPMG LLP, McLean, Virginia) (identifying as a critical audit matter "Evaluation of audit evidence pertaining to the existence and control of the digital assets," and reporting that as of December 31, 2025 the carrying value of the Company's digital assets was $58.85 billion).
⁴³ Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-169, § 10101 (codified at I.R.C. § 55(b)(2), § 56A).
⁴⁴ See Cryptopolitan, U.S. Treasury to ease corporate crypto tax rule (Oct. 1, 2025) (reporting that, before the September 2025 interim guidance, Strategy had flagged approximately $14 billion of unrealized Bitcoin gains for the first half of 2025 that risked triggering CAMT in tax year 2026).
⁴⁵ Internal Revenue Service, Notice 2025-46 and Notice 2025-49 (Sept. 30, 2025); see Current Federal Tax Developments, IRS Releases Additional Interim Guidance on the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (Sept. 30, 2025) (describing the elective fair-value-inclusion exclusion option introduced by the guidance).
⁴⁶ Yahoo Finance, Treasury to Exempt Bitcoin from 15% CAMT Tax on Unrealized Gains, Saving Strategy Billions (Oct. 1, 2025).
Briefings on markets, governance, and our investment philosophy—delivered directly.
