Bitcoin Treasury Companies Enter ‘Darwinian’ Shakeout as Premiums Vanish, Galaxy Warns
Bitcoin-focused treasury firms are moving into a brutal survival phase as the foundations of their business model crumble, according to a fresh analysis from Galaxy Research. What was once marketed as a high-octane way to gain leveraged exposure to Bitcoin is now turning into a serious liability as equity premiums evaporate and balance sheets come under strain.
Galaxy’s report argues that the digital asset treasury (DAT) trade has effectively hit a wall. For much of the recent bull cycle, these companies issued new shares at fat premiums to their net asset value (NAV), then used the proceeds to buy more Bitcoin (BTC). That virtuous loop powered rapid BTC-per-share growth and attracted speculative capital.
Now, that loop has spun in reverse. As equity prices have slumped below the value of the underlying Bitcoin holdings, the issuance engine has stalled. Without the ability to sell overvalued stock to accumulate more BTC, the core mechanism driving expansion has broken down. The leverage that once amplified upside is now exposing shareholders to disproportionate downside.
The turning point, Galaxy notes, came after Bitcoin slid from its October high near 126,000 dollars to roughly 80,000 dollars, igniting a sharp pullback in risk appetite. A major deleveraging event on October 10 accelerated the reversal. Open interest in futures was wiped out, liquidity thinned in spot markets, and investors began to reassess leveraged vehicles tied to BTC.
For listed treasury firms whose shares had been treated by traders as turbocharged Bitcoin plays, the move has been brutal. Galaxy points out that the same financial structuring that supercharged returns on the way up is now intensifying losses on the way down. Equity holders are discovering that leverage cuts both ways.
Over the summer, many DAT stocks traded at steep premiums to their Bitcoin NAV, sometimes far above the value of their BTC reserves. Now, most of those premiums have not just vanished — they have flipped to outright discounts, even though Bitcoin itself is down only about 30% from the highs. In other words, the equities are underperforming the asset they are supposed to track, reflecting both collapsing enthusiasm and growing concern about solvency and governance.
Companies like Metaplanet and Nakamoto, once flaunting hundreds of millions of dollars in unrealized profits on their Bitcoin treasuries, have swung deeply into loss territory. Their average BTC acquisition cost sits above 107,000 dollars, meaning the market would need a significant rally just for them to break even on their holdings. Until that happens, their books will show substantial paper losses that weigh on sentiment and limit strategic flexibility.
Galaxy flags one firm, NAKA, as a stark example of the downside risk built into this model. The company’s stock has collapsed more than 98% from its peak — a drawdown Galaxy compares to the kind of “wipeout” typically associated with memecoins rather than public equities. Such extreme moves highlight how fragile these capital structures can be when they rely heavily on equity issuance and market enthusiasm rather than operational cash flows.
With the issuance-driven growth model essentially off the table, Galaxy outlines three main scenarios for what comes next.
The base-case scenario is a long stretch of compressed or non-existent premiums. In this environment, BTC-per-share growth stalls because firms can no longer issue inflated stock to buy more coins. DAT equities, instead of offering levered Bitcoin upside, may simply magnify the downside. Investors could face a situation where holding the stock is riskier than owning BTC directly, with limited compensating benefit.
A second path is consolidation and restructuring across the sector. Firms that were especially aggressive — issuing large volumes of shares at peak valuations, loading up on debt, or buying Bitcoin close to the top — are now under the most pressure. As their equity values sink and debt obligations loom, these companies could be pushed into distressed sales, acquisitions, or formal restructurings. Stronger players with lower leverage and better timing may be able to scoop up distressed assets and emerge with greater market share.
The third scenario leaves room for a rebound — but only for those that managed risk prudently. If Bitcoin eventually reaches new all-time highs, some DAT firms could see their premiums return and their treasuries move back into profit. However, Galaxy stresses that this upside is reserved for companies that kept ample liquidity, avoided reckless issuance, and limited excessive leverage during the exuberant phase. Those that overextended themselves may not survive long enough to see the next cycle.
Against this backdrop, some of the largest Bitcoin treasury players are already adjusting strategy to reassure investors. Strategy CEO Phong Le recently revealed that the company has built a 1.44 billion dollar cash reserve. The explicit goal is to calm fears over its capacity to fund dividends and meet debt obligations in a prolonged Bitcoin downturn.
This war chest, financed via a stock sale, is designed to secure at least 12 months of dividend payments, with an internal aim to extend that cushion to 24 months. The move signals a shift away from pure-maximalist treasury expansion toward a more defensive balance between shareholder distributions, liabilities, and BTC exposure.
At the same time, Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan has pushed back against speculation that Strategy might be forced into a fire sale of its Bitcoin holdings if its share price deteriorates further. He insisted that such fears are misplaced and that the company’s financial position does not require liquidating BTC to stay solvent, positioning the firm as more resilient than some critics suggest.
—
Why the DAT Model Broke: From Virtuous Cycle to Vicious Spiral
The heart of the DAT strategy was financial engineering. When a firm’s stock traded meaningfully above the per-share value of its Bitcoin reserves, it could raise capital at a premium. Each new share effectively represented less BTC than the market was paying for, allowing the company to issue equity, buy more Bitcoin, and increase BTC-per-share over time.
This feedback loop depended on one crucial condition: sustained investor willingness to pay a premium to NAV. Once that premium vanished, the engine reversed. Issuing new shares at or below NAV would dilute existing holders without creating incremental value, making the play unattractive. Instead of reinforcing growth, market sentiment began eroding it.
As risk appetite diminished, these firms found themselves trapped in a structure optimized for boom times but ill‑suited for choppy or bearish markets. What was framed as a creative capital markets strategy began to look like a leveraged bet on eternal optimism.
—
Premiums, Discounts, and What They Signal to Investors
The collapse from rich premiums to persistent discounts is more than a technical detail; it is a signal of how the market now perceives Bitcoin treasuries. A premium suggests investors value the firm’s governance, strategy, or additional business lines enough to pay above the value of its raw BTC. A discount, by contrast, implies skepticism or fear.
For treasury companies, a deep discount effectively closes the door on accretive equity financing. It also raises existential questions: if the market values a firm’s Bitcoin less than the coins themselves, investors may wonder whether they should simply hold BTC directly and avoid corporate risk altogether.
In the current environment, many DAT firms are grappling with this credibility gap. Restoring trust likely requires more than macro tailwinds — it demands stronger risk management, clear communication, and proof that management can navigate adverse conditions.
—
The Leverage Trap: Amplifying Pain in Downturns
Leveraged strategies are attractive in bull markets because they multiply gains. However, they also accelerate losses when prices fall. For DAT firms, leverage appears in multiple forms: explicit debt, margin financing, or implicit leverage via equity premiums used to buy more Bitcoin than could be supported by operational cash flows.
When Bitcoin reversed from its peak, these layers of leverage started to bite. Debt service remains fixed even as equity values plunge. Collateral thresholds may tighten. Investors, fearing further dilution or forced sales, mark down the stock even more. This dynamic can create a self-reinforcing spiral where equity becomes progressively less attractive, further limiting the firm’s options.
The NAKA collapse illustrates this pattern in extreme form. A nearly total drawdown in market capitalization, coupled with heavy exposure to a falling asset, leaves little room for recovery without a dramatic shift in conditions or an external rescue.
—
Consolidation, Distress, and the Next Phase of the Cycle
Galaxy’s consolidation scenario is already taking shape in the minds of investors and corporate strategists. In traditional finance, extended periods of over-leveraging and speculative excess often end in mergers, asset sales, and bankruptcies. The DAT sector may follow the same script.
Companies that maintained moderate leverage and bought Bitcoin at more conservative prices can potentially come out stronger. In a distressed environment, they may be able to acquire BTC-rich competitors or their assets at significant discounts, effectively lowering their own aggregate cost basis. However, executing such a play requires both liquidity and investor patience — two commodities that can be scarce during drawdowns.
We may also see creative structures emerge: joint ventures, spin-offs, or specialized vehicles that separate BTC holdings from operational liabilities. How regulators respond to these strategies will play a role in determining which models are viable in the long run.
—
What This Means for Retail and Institutional Investors
For investors, the lesson is straightforward but important: owning shares in a Bitcoin treasury company is not the same as holding Bitcoin. DAT equities introduce layers of corporate, governance, and market structure risk that can exaggerate both upswings and downturns.
Retail traders attracted by the promise of “extra upside” are now confronting the possibility of larger losses than if they had purchased BTC directly. Institutional allocators, meanwhile, are reassessing whether these vehicles offer enough strategic value to justify their complexity, especially when regulated spot products or direct custody solutions are available.
A more sober approach may dominate the next phase: evaluating treasury firms like any other public company, with attention to balance sheet strength, debt levels, capital allocation discipline, and management credibility, rather than treating them as pure Bitcoin proxies.
—
Can Bitcoin’s Next Bull Run Save the Weaker Players?
Many struggling DAT firms are, implicitly or explicitly, betting on a renewed Bitcoin bull market. A decisive move to fresh all-time highs could transform today’s unrealized losses back into gains and reopen the window for premium-driven issuance. Yet even a strong BTC rally may not rescue every player.
Some companies are so deeply underwater, or so heavily diluted, that even a powerful price recovery would not restore previous equity valuations. Others may run into liquidity or debt problems before the market turns. In that sense, the “Darwinian” label used by Galaxy is more than a metaphor: survival may depend on a mix of timing, prudence, and adaptability.
The firms best positioned to benefit from a future uptrend will likely be those that preserved flexibility — by keeping manageable leverage, maintaining diversified funding sources, and securing enough liquidity to weather prolonged volatility.
—
From Speculation to Sustainability: The Path Forward
As the issuance-driven boom fades, Bitcoin treasury companies face a strategic crossroads. One path is to double down on speculative exposure and hope for macro tailwinds. The other is to evolve into more robust businesses that treat Bitcoin as a strategic asset within a broader, cash-generating operation.
Investors and boards are likely to reward models that pursue sustainable growth, transparent risk frameworks, and realistic capital allocation policies. That could mean slower BTC accumulation in the short run but stronger resilience across market cycles.
In the meantime, the sector will be tested. With premiums gone, leverage exposed, and consolidation on the horizon, the coming months and years will determine which DAT firms can adapt — and which will be remembered as casualties of an overextended experiment in financial engineering.