Corporate Bitcoin holdings have exploded to $215 billion across 213 entities, with public companies controlling 71.4% of the total, but new research warns this “dangerous game” will likely see most participants fail to survive a full credit cycle.
According to a research report from Sentora shared with Cryptonews, companies are “borrowing billions in fiat, issuing new equity, and restructuring entire balance sheets to acquire Bitcoin” while engaging in what amounts to structured speculation on a non-yielding, highly volatile digital asset.
The study identifies a critical flaw in the strategy. “Idle Bitcoin on a corporate balance sheet is not a scalable strategy in a rising-rate world” because most Bitcoin treasury companies are either unprofitable or heavily reliant on mark-to-market gains to appear solvent.
Source: Sentora ResearchStrategy leads with 628,791 BTC, followed by MARA Holdings at 50,639 BTC and Bitcoin Standard Treasury Company with 30,021 BTC. Notably, Japan’s Metaplanet’s recent Q2 financial report revealed a stunning 468% Bitcoin yield in Q2 2025.
Speaking with Cryptonews, Vincent Maliepaard, Vice President of Marketing at Sentora, noted that “balance sheet diversification with a hard asset like Bitcoin is the right framing, especially in an era of heightened geopolitical uncertainty.”
However, the research warns that without Bitcoin evolving from digital property to productive digital capital that generates yield, the strategy remains fundamentally limited.
Historical Parallels Reveal Both Promise and Peril
The Bitcoin treasury strategy mirrors historical wealth-building through leveraged acquisition of scarce assets like land and property, sharing characteristics of “a scarce and durable asset, cheap capital,” but currently lacking “the asset’s ability to produce yield.”
Source: Sentora ResearchThe research notes that while families and companies built generational wealth through real estate for centuries, “Gold Treasury companies” never emerged despite gold’s scarcity due to storage costs, movement difficulties, and negative carry.
Bitcoin’s digital advantages enable global transfers in seconds, programmable custody, and 24/7 trading, positioning it as potentially superior to gold for treasury purposes.
However, the research emphasizes that “like land that gains economic meaning when developed, Bitcoin ‘must do something‘” beyond existing as idle digital property on balance sheets.
The study warns that most Bitcoin treasury adopters from 2020-2024 “misunderstood the asset, the structure, or the macro environment” during an era of cheap fiat and QE-boosted equities.
The transition to higher interest rates exposes structural weaknesses in strategies designed for ultra-low rate environments.
Leveraged Speculation Disguised as Treasury Management
The research categorizes Bitcoin treasury strategies as “negative-carry trades” where companies borrow fiat to acquire a non-yielding asset, contrasting sharply with traditional carry trades that provide a positive yield while waiting.
Unlike foreign exchange carry trades with built-in cushions, Bitcoin strategies offer “no yield cushion, no neutral carry, and no risk-parity ballast.”
Strategy has pioneered the model using $3.7 billion in ultra-low coupon convertible bonds and $5.5 billion in perpetual preferred shares to finance acquisitions.
Michael Saylor attributes Strategy’s premium to net asset value through “Credit Amplification, Options Advantage, Passive Flows, and Superior Institutional Access” that provide 2x-4x Bitcoin exposure amplification unavailable to spot ETFs.
The financing mechanisms reveal structural vulnerabilities. Mining companies like Marathon Digital face “razor-thin and deteriorating margins, often being structurally unprofitable below ~$100k BTC” with Bitcoin constituting 50-80% of their assets.
The research notes that these firms face high liquidation risk due to short-term cash needs during downturns.
Similarly, Metaplanet also exemplifies this aggressive accumulation, doubling Bitcoin holdings every 60 days for 475 days while utilizing zero-interest convertible bonds worth ¥270.36 billion.
The company filed shelf registrations for ¥555 billion in perpetual preferred shares, targeting 210,000 BTC by 2027, representing 1% the total Bitcoin supply.
Credit Cycle Vulnerability Threatens Corporate Bitcoin Experiment
The research warns of structural risks when “interest payments become unserviceable, refinancing costs spike, equity issuance turns non-accretive, and boards question the Bitcoin strategy itself.”
Most companies lack sustainable business models beyond Bitcoin appreciation, creating dangerous dependencies on continued price momentum.
Rising interest rates amplify negative carry, while Bitcoin price stagnation over 2-3 years could erode conviction and make equity issuance dilutive.
The study notes “there is no lender of last resort, no circuit breaker, and no refinancing facility” when Bitcoin carry trades break, making risks “binary and reflexive.”
Presumably due to the weakening risk appetite, Strategy is already facing multiple class-action lawsuits alleging misleading statements about Bitcoin strategy profitability and risks.
However, the company maintains unique advantages through index inclusion, providing passive flows from $35 trillion in equity markets and $60 trillion in credit markets compared to Bitcoin ETFs’ $700 billion access.
Most recently, Kazakhstan has also launched Central Asia’s first spot Bitcoin ETF, while Norway’s sovereign wealth fund increased indirect Bitcoin exposure by 192% through equity stakes in Coinbase, Metaplanet, and Strategy.
These developments support Maliepaard’s prediction that “more private enterprises will reveal significant BTC positions” as market infrastructure matures.
The research concludes that for the strategy to succeed long-term, “Bitcoin must evolve from digital property to digital capital,” which generates yield without custodianship requirements.
Until Bitcoin becomes productive through yield-bearing mechanisms, most corporate treasury experiments face potential failure during adverse credit cycles.
However, Maliepaard remains optimistic about long-term prospects, predicting that “the familiar boom-and-bust framing of Bitcoin cycles will start to fade” as adoption widens across corporate and sovereign balance sheets.
He believes that “if debt-financed acquisition of hard assets like land and real estate has historically compounded value, applying the same playbook to Bitcoin could reshape market dynamics entirely,” with even aggressive price forecasts potentially proving conservative.
The post $215B Corporate Bitcoin Boom Creates ‘Dangerous Game,’ Most ‘Won’t Survive Credit Cycle’: Research appeared first on Cryptonews.
