Bitcoin treasury companies (publicly traded companies that hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset) may shift from being market stabilizers to becoming major sellers, triggering a spiral decline in Bitcoin's price. This scenario is based on the interaction between corporate financial metrics (such as market-to-net asset value ratio, mNAV) and market psychology, revealing the potential fragility of institutional behavior in the cryptocurrency market.

• Entities: 10 Bitcoin treasury companies, with Bitcoin initially priced at $120,000.

• Company Differences: Their mNAV ratios range from 1.0x to 5.0x, and their quality depends on treasury size and management conviction (e.g., MicroStrategy is considered high-quality, while small and mid-sized companies may lack long-term belief).

• Market Environment: Institutional investors currently control about 17%-31% of Bitcoin's circulating supply, including ETFs, publicly traded companies, and government holdings, totaling over $428 billion.

1. Low-Quality Companies Sell First:

   • When mNAV falls below 1.0x, low-quality companies (e.g., small and mid-sized firms under financial pressure) start selling Bitcoin to repurchase shares and stabilize their stock prices.

   • Example: Japanese company Value Creation liquidated 22.36 BTC after holding for less than six months, profiting 52 million yen, citing "improving asset efficiency."

   • This selling pressure drops Bitcoin's price from $120,000 to $115,000.

2. Vicious Cycle Begins:

   • The price decline drags down other companies' mNAV, forcing 4-5 mid-quality companies to join the selling (at $115,000).

   • Market panic intensifies, with investors anticipating collective selling of 30%-50% of holdings, leading to Bitcoin's repricing to $100,000.

   • On-Chain Data Support: 310,000 BTC recently moved from exchanges to self-custody wallets, the highest since November 2022, suggesting whales are hedging risks early.

• Mid-Quality Companies Capitulate: Under shareholder pressure, weekly selling reaches $500 million to $1 billion, and Bitcoin falls to $90,000.

• High-Quality Companies Breach:

  • Companies like MicroStrategy (MSTR) see mNAV fall below 1.0x, and rumors circulate about potential dividend suspensions.

  • Some companies sell Bitcoin to cover operational costs (e.g., MARA, RIOT), pushing the price to $80,000.

• Final Stage: Selling spreads to high-quality companies, with weekly pressure expanding to $1.5 billion to $3 billion. If MSTR joins, Bitcoin could drop to $70,000.

  • Scale Basis: Excluding MSTR, treasury companies collectively hold 350,000 BTC (about $40 billion), making sustained selling highly feasible.

1. Low-Quality Companies: Early selling avoids greater losses but damages their reputation, reducing future capital inflows (e.g., Value Creation was criticized for "short-sightedness").

2. Long-Term Believers: Companies like MicroStrategy's Saylor may hold firm; if Bitcoin's annual growth rate remains 30%-40%, they could ultimately survive and benefit.

3. Middle-Ground Companies (e.g., MARA, RIOT): Sell at the worst stage, averaging around $75,000, suffering the heaviest losses.

4. Exception for ETH Treasuries: BMNR and SBET hold 75% of treasury ETH, and their concentration might facilitate coordination to avoid selling, though success probability remains low.

5. Historical Analogy: Similar to Archegos' meltdown in traditional finance, aggressive liquidators (e.g., Goldman Sachs) fared better than slow exiters (e.g., Credit Suisse).

• Institutional Holding Risks: Bitcoin holdings are highly concentrated among publicly traded companies, with MicroStrategy alone holding about 597,000 BTC; the top five companies account for over 80%.

• Recent Selling Pressure: In August 2025, Wall Street institutions (e.g., BlackRock, Fidelity) began reducing BTC and ETH holdings, selling hundreds of millions weekly.

• Macro Pressures: The Fed's high-interest rate policy (4.25%-4.75%), sticky inflation (core PCE above 2.8%), and tightening regulations (EU's MiCA 2.0, U.S. anti-money laundering bills) exacerbate market fragility.

This scenario is not a prediction but highlights reflexive risks in an institution-dominated market:

• Bitcoin's Double-Edged Sword: Institutional participation enhances liquidity but also amplifies systemic risks due to concentration.

• Investor Insights:

  • Short-term: Monitor mNAV metrics and corporate earnings, avoid high leverage.

  • Long-term: Rely on Bitcoin's fundamentals (halving scarcity, sovereign fund adoption trends), but watch security model debates (e.g., declining block rewards may weaken network security).

Note: Prices in this article are for scenario analysis only and not actual targets. Market dynamics are complex and require consideration of macro, regulatory, and technical factors.

Original Author | Cheshire Capital
Compiled by | Odaily Planet Daily
Translator | DingDang

PANews Editor's Note: This article is based on hypothetical scenarios aimed at analyzing potential risks and does not constitute investment advice. Corporate treasury strategies must balance short-term efficiency with long-term value. Investors should think independently and monitor on-chain data and macro trends.

Bitcoin treasury companies (publicly traded companies that hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset) may shift from being market stabilizers to becoming major sellers, triggering a spiral decline in Bitcoin's price. This scenario is based on the interaction between corporate financial metrics (such as market-to-net asset value ratio, mNAV) and market psychology, revealing the potential fragility of institutional behavior in the cryptocurrency market.

• Entities: 10 Bitcoin treasury companies, with Bitcoin initially priced at $120,000.

• Company Differences: Their mNAV ratios range from 1.0x to 5.0x, and their quality depends on treasury size and management conviction (e.g., MicroStrategy is considered high-quality, while small and mid-sized companies may lack long-term belief).

• Market Environment: Institutional investors currently control about 17%-31% of Bitcoin's circulating supply, including ETFs, publicly traded companies, and government holdings, totaling over $428 billion.

1. Low-Quality Companies Sell First:

   • When mNAV falls below 1.0x, low-quality companies (e.g., small and mid-sized firms under financial pressure) start selling Bitcoin to repurchase shares and stabilize their stock prices.

   • Example: Japanese company Value Creation liquidated 22.36 BTC after holding for less than six months, profiting 52 million yen, citing "improving asset efficiency."

   • This selling pressure drops Bitcoin's price from $120,000 to $115,000.

2. Vicious Cycle Begins:

   • The price decline drags down other companies' mNAV, forcing 4-5 mid-quality companies to join the selling (at $115,000).

   • Market panic intensifies, with investors anticipating collective selling of 30%-50% of holdings, leading to Bitcoin's repricing to $100,000.

   • On-Chain Data Support: 310,000 BTC recently moved from exchanges to self-custody wallets, the highest since November 2022, suggesting whales are hedging risks early.

• Mid-Quality Companies Capitulate: Under shareholder pressure, weekly selling reaches $500 million to $1 billion, and Bitcoin falls to $90,000.

• High-Quality Companies Breach:

  • Companies like MicroStrategy (MSTR) see mNAV fall below 1.0x, and rumors circulate about potential dividend suspensions.

  • Some companies sell Bitcoin to cover operational costs (e.g., MARA, RIOT), pushing the price to $80,000.

• Final Stage: Selling spreads to high-quality companies, with weekly pressure expanding to $1.5 billion to $3 billion. If MSTR joins, Bitcoin could drop to $70,000.

  • Scale Basis: Excluding MSTR, treasury companies collectively hold 350,000 BTC (about $40 billion), making sustained selling highly feasible.

1. Low-Quality Companies: Early selling avoids greater losses but damages their reputation, reducing future capital inflows (e.g., Value Creation was criticized for "short-sightedness").

2. Long-Term Believers: Companies like MicroStrategy's Saylor may hold firm; if Bitcoin's annual growth rate remains 30%-40%, they could ultimately survive and benefit.

3. Middle-Ground Companies (e.g., MARA, RIOT): Sell at the worst stage, averaging around $75,000, suffering the heaviest losses.

4. Exception for ETH Treasuries: BMNR and SBET hold 75% of treasury ETH, and their concentration might facilitate coordination to avoid selling, though success probability remains low.

5. Historical Analogy: Similar to Archegos' meltdown in traditional finance, aggressive liquidators (e.g., Goldman Sachs) fared better than slow exiters (e.g., Credit Suisse).

• Institutional Holding Risks: Bitcoin holdings are highly concentrated among publicly traded companies, with MicroStrategy alone holding about 597,000 BTC; the top five companies account for over 80%.

• Recent Selling Pressure: In August 2025, Wall Street institutions (e.g., BlackRock, Fidelity) began reducing BTC and ETH holdings, selling hundreds of millions weekly.

• Macro Pressures: The Fed's high-interest rate policy (4.25%-4.75%), sticky inflation (core PCE above 2.8%), and tightening regulations (EU's MiCA 2.0, U.S. anti-money laundering bills) exacerbate market fragility.

This scenario is not a prediction but highlights reflexive risks in an institution-dominated market:

• Bitcoin's Double-Edged Sword: Institutional participation enhances liquidity but also amplifies systemic risks due to concentration.

• Investor Insights:

  • Short-term: Monitor mNAV metrics and corporate earnings, avoid high leverage.

  • Long-term: Rely on Bitcoin's fundamentals (halving scarcity, sovereign fund adoption trends), but watch security model debates (e.g., declining block rewards may weaken network security).

Note: Prices in this article are for scenario analysis only and not actual targets. Market dynamics are complex and require consideration of macro, regulatory, and technical factors.

Original Author | Cheshire Capital
Compiled by | Odaily Planet Daily
Translator | DingDang

PANews Editor's Note: This article is based on hypothetical scenarios aimed at analyzing potential risks and does not constitute investment advice. Corporate treasury strategies must balance short-term efficiency with long-term value. Investors should think independently and monitor on-chain data and macro trends.