MicroStrategy has attracted a group of imitators, but what about the leverage risk behind the high premium? Some industry insiders recently expressed potential concerns: these listed investment tools are likened to the Grayscale GBTC in the past - a Grayscale Bitcoin Trust Fund that has long been trading at a premium. The premium turned into a discount that year, becoming the fuse for the collapse of multiple institutions.MicroStrategy has attracted a group of imitators, but what about the leverage risk behind the high premium? Some industry insiders recently expressed potential concerns: these listed investment tools are likened to the Grayscale GBTC in the past - a Grayscale Bitcoin Trust Fund that has long been trading at a premium. The premium turned into a discount that year, becoming the fuse for the collapse of multiple institutions.

There are hidden concerns in the crypto treasury strategies of listed companies. Will the Grayscale GBTC "explosion" scenario be repeated?

2025/06/05 14:27
9 min read

There are hidden concerns in the crypto treasury strategies of listed companies. Will the Grayscale GBTC "explosion" scenario be repeated?

Author: Weilin, PANews

Cryptocurrency treasury has become a "fashionable strategy" for listed companies. According to incomplete statistics, at least 124 listed companies have incorporated Bitcoin into their financial strategies, and as a "weapon" on their balance sheets, it has attracted widespread attention in the crypto market. At the same time, the treasury strategies of Ethereum and Sol and XRP altcoins are also adopted by some listed companies.

Nevertheless, several industry insiders, including Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter, have recently expressed potential concerns: these listed investment vehicles are likened to Grayscale GBTC, a Grayscale Bitcoin Trust fund that has long traded at a premium, which turned into a discount that year and became the fuse for the collapse of multiple institutions.

Geoff Kendrick, head of digital asset research at Standard Chartered Bank, also warned that if the price of Bitcoin falls below 22% of the average purchase price of these crypto treasury strategy companies, it may trigger forced selling by companies. If Bitcoin falls back below $90,000, about half of the companies' positions may face the risk of losses.

MicroStrategy has attracted a group of imitators, but what are the leverage risks behind the high premium?

As of June 4, Strategy held approximately 580,955 bitcoins with a market value of approximately US$61.05 billion, but its company's market value was as high as US$107.49 billion, a premium of nearly 1.76 times.

In addition to MicroStrategy, some of the latest companies to adopt the Bitcoin treasury strategy also have glamorous backgrounds. Twenty One, backed by SoftBank and Tether, went public through Cantor Fitzgerald's SPAC and raised $685 million to buy Bitcoin. Nakamoto Corp, founded by Bitcoin Magazine CEO David Bailey, merged with a listed medical company and raised $710 million to buy Bitcoin. Trump Media & Technology Group has announced that it has raised $2.44 billion to build a Bitcoin treasury.

PANews recently took stock and found that Strategy's Bitcoin treasury strategy has attracted a large number of imitators, including SharpLink, which plans to buy Ethereum, Upexi, which accumulates SOL, and VivoPower, which accumulates XRP, and other listed companies.

However, several crypto industry insiders pointed out that the operation trajectory of these companies is very similar in structure to the GBTC arbitrage model of the year. Once a bear market comes, its risks are likely to be released in a concentrated manner, forming a "stampede effect", that is, when the market or asset prices show signs of falling, investors collectively sell in panic, triggering a chain reaction of further price plunges .

Lessons from Grayscale GBTC: Leverage Collapse and Institutional Investors’ Explosions

Looking back at history, Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) was once very popular in 2020-2021, with a premium of up to 120%. However, after entering 2021, GBTC quickly turned into a negative premium, and eventually became the trigger for the collapse of institutions such as Three Arrows Capital (3AC), BlockFi, and Voyager.

The mechanism design of GBTC can be described as a one-way transaction of "only in and no out": after investors purchase GBTC in the primary market, they need to lock it for 6 months before they can sell it in the secondary market, and they cannot redeem it for Bitcoin. Due to the high threshold for Bitcoin investment in the early market and the heavy tax burden on income payment, GBTC once became a legal channel for qualified investors (through 401(k) US retirement benefit plans, etc.) to enter the crypto market, which promoted the long-term maintenance of its secondary market premium.

But it is this premium that has spawned a large-scale "leverage arbitrage game": investment institutions borrow BTC at ultra-low cost, deposit it into Grayscale to subscribe for GBTC, and then sell it in the premium secondary market after holding it for 6 months to obtain stable returns.

According to public documents, the combined GBTC holdings of BlockFi and 3AC once accounted for 11% of the circulating shares. BlockFi once converted the BTC deposited by customers into GBTC and used it as loan collateral to pay interest. 3AC even used up to $650 million in unsecured loans to increase its GBTC holdings and mortgaged GBTC to DCG's lending platform Genesis to obtain liquidity and achieve multiple rounds of leverage.

In a bull market, this worked fine. But when Canada launched the Bitcoin ETF in March 2021, the demand for GBTC plummeted, the positive premium turned into a negative premium, and the flywheel structure collapsed instantly.

BlockFi and 3AC began to suffer continuous losses in a negative premium environment - BlockFi had to sell off GBTC on a large scale, but still lost more than $285 million in 2020 and 2021. Some industry insiders estimated that its losses on GBTC were close to $700 million. 3AC was liquidated, and Genesis finally issued a statement in June 2022 saying that it had "disposed of the pledged assets of a large counterparty." Although it did not name the counterparty, the market generally believed that the counterparty was 3AC.

This "explosion" that started with premium, flourished with leverage, and was destroyed by the collapse of liquidity became the prelude to the systemic crisis in the crypto industry in 2022.

Will the flywheel of encrypted treasury of listed companies bring about the next systemic industry crisis?

After Strategy, more and more companies are forming their own "Bitcoin Treasury Flywheel", with the main logic being: stock price rises → additional financing → purchase of BTC → boosting market confidence → continued stock price rise. This treasury flywheel mechanism may accelerate in the future as institutions gradually accept cryptocurrency ETFs and cryptocurrency holdings as loan collateral.

On June 4, JPMorgan Chase & Co. plans to allow its trading and wealth management clients to use some assets linked to cryptocurrencies as collateral for loans. According to people familiar with the matter, the company will begin providing financing with cryptocurrency ETFs as collateral in the coming weeks, starting with BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust. People familiar with the matter said that in some cases, JPMorgan Chase will also begin to take its cryptocurrency holdings into account when evaluating the overall net worth and liquid assets of wealth management clients. This means that cryptocurrencies will receive similar treatment to stocks, cars or artworks when calculating the amount of assets available to clients for collateral.

However, some bears believe that the treasury flywheel model seems self-consistent in a bull market, but its essence is to directly link traditional financial means (such as convertible bonds, corporate bonds, and ATM issuance) with the price of encrypted assets. Once the market turns bearish, the chain may break.

If the price of the currency plummets, the company's financial assets will shrink rapidly, affecting its valuation. Investor confidence collapses, stock prices fall, and the company's financing ability is limited. If there is debt or margin call pressure, the company will be forced to liquidate BTC to deal with it. A large amount of BTC selling pressure is released in a concentrated manner, forming a "sell wall" and further depressing the price.

What’s more serious is that when the stocks of these companies are accepted as collateral by lending institutions or centralized exchanges, their volatility will be further transmitted to traditional finance or DeFi systems, amplifying the risk chain. This is exactly what Grayscale GBTC has experienced.

A few weeks ago, well-known short seller Jim Chanos announced that he was shorting Strategy and going long on Bitcoin, also based on a negative view of its leverage. Although MicroStrategy stock has risen 3,500% over the past five years, Chanos believes that its valuation has been seriously detached from fundamentals.

Some crypto treasury consultants pointed out that the current trend of "equity tokenization" may increase risks, especially once these tokenized stocks are also accepted as collateral by centralized or DeFi protocols, it is more likely to trigger an uncontrollable chain reaction. However, some market analysts believe that it is still in the early stages because most trading institutions have not yet accepted Bitcoin ETFs as margin collateral - even issuers such as BlackRock or Fidelity.

On June 4, Geoff Kendrick, head of digital asset research at Standard Chartered Bank, warned that 61 listed companies currently hold a total of 673,800 bitcoins, accounting for 3.2% of the total supply. If the price of bitcoin falls below 22% of the average purchase price of these companies, it may trigger forced selling by companies. Referring to the case of Core Scientific selling 7,202 bitcoins at a price 22% below the cost price in 2022, if bitcoin falls back below $90,000, about half of the companies' holdings may face the risk of losses.

How big is the risk of MicroStrategy exploding? Recently, the discussion of the podcast "Bitcoin Whale MicroStrategy and Its Capital Game" by Web3 101 has attracted market attention. The discussion mentioned that although MicroStrategy has been called the "leveraged version of Bitcoin" in recent years, its capital structure is not a high-risk leverage model in the traditional sense, but a highly controllable "quasi-ETF + leveraged flywheel" system. The company raised funds to purchase Bitcoin by issuing convertible bonds, perpetual preferred stocks, and additional issuance at market price (ATM), building a volatility logic that continues to attract market attention. More importantly, the maturity of these debt instruments is mostly concentrated in 2028 and later, making it almost free of short-term debt repayment pressure in cyclical pullbacks.

The core of this model is not simply hoarding coins, but through the dynamic adjustment of financing methods, under the strategy of "leverage at low premiums and sell stocks at high premiums", a self-reinforcing flywheel mechanism of the capital market is formed. Michael Saylor positioned MicroStrategy as a financial proxy tool for Bitcoin volatility, allowing institutional investors who cannot directly hold crypto assets to "unimpededly" hold a high-Beta (more volatile than the benchmark asset BTC) Bitcoin target with option attributes in the form of traditional stocks. Because of this, MicroStrategy not only builds a strong financing and anti-fragility capability, but also becomes a "long-term stable variable" in the volatility structure of the Bitcoin market.

At present, the crypto treasury strategies of listed companies have become the focus of the crypto market, and have also triggered controversy over their structural risks. Although MicroStrategy has built a relatively robust financial model through flexible financing methods and cyclical adjustments, whether the overall industry can remain stable in market fluctuations remains to be verified by time. Whether this round of "crypto treasury boom" will replicate the risk path of GBTC is a question full of unknowns and unresolved issues.

Market Opportunity
Fuse Network Logo
Fuse Network Price(FUSE)
$0.005241
$0.005241$0.005241
+10.33%
USD
Fuse Network (FUSE) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

The Role of Blockchain in Building Safer Web3 Gaming Ecosystems

The Role of Blockchain in Building Safer Web3 Gaming Ecosystems

The gaming industry is in the midst of a historic shift, driven by the rise of Web3. Unlike traditional games, where developers and publishers control assets and dictate in-game economies, Web3 gaming empowers players with ownership and influence. Built on blockchain technology, these ecosystems are decentralized by design, enabling true digital asset ownership, transparent economies, and a future where players help shape the games they play. However, as Web3 gaming grows, security becomes a focal point. The range of security concerns, from hacking to asset theft to vulnerabilities in smart contracts, is a significant issue that will undermine or erode trust in this ecosystem, limiting or stopping adoption. Blockchain technology could be used to create security processes around secure, transparent, and fair Web3 gaming ecosystems. We will explore how security is increasing within gaming ecosystems, which challenges are being overcome, and what the future of security looks like. Why is Security Important in Web3 Gaming? Web3 gaming differs from traditional gaming in that players engage with both the game and assets with real value attached. Players own in-game assets that exist as tokens or NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens), and can trade and sell them. These game assets usually represent significant financial value, meaning security failure could represent real monetary loss. In essence, without security, the promises of owning “something” in Web3, decentralized economies within games, and all that comes with the term “fair” gameplay can easily be eroded by fraud, hacking, and exploitation. This is precisely why the uniqueness of blockchain should be emphasized in securing Web3 gaming. How Blockchain Ensures Security in Web3 Gaming?
  1. Immutable Ownership of Assets Blockchain records can be manipulated by anyone. If a player owns a sword, skin, or plot of land as an NFT, it is verifiably in their ownership, and it cannot be altered or deleted by the developer or even hacked. This has created a proven track record of ownership, providing control back to the players, unlike any centralised gaming platform where assets can be revoked.
  2. Decentralized Infrastructure Blockchain networks also have a distributed architecture where game data is stored in a worldwide network of nodes, making them much less susceptible to centralised points of failure and attacks. This decentralised approach makes it exponentially more difficult to hijack systems or even shut off the game’s economy.
  3. Secure Transactions with Cryptography Whether a player buys an NFT or trades their in-game tokens for other items or tokens, the transactions are enforced by cryptographic algorithms, ensuring secure, verifiable, and irreversible transactions and eliminating the risks of double-spending or fraudulent trades.
  4. Smart Contract Automation Smart contracts automate the enforcement of game rules and players’ economic exchanges for the developer, eliminating the need for intermediaries or middlemen, and trust for the developer. For example, if a player completes a quest that promises a reward, the smart contract will execute and distribute what was promised.
  5. Anti-Cheating and Fair Gameplay The naturally transparent nature of blockchain makes it extremely simple for anyone to examine a specific instance of gameplay and verify the economic outcomes from that play. Furthermore, multi-player games that enforce smart contracts on things like loot sharing or win sharing can automate and measure trustlessness and avoid cheating, manipulations, and fraud by developers.
  6. Cross-Platform Security Many Web3 games feature asset interoperability across platforms. This interoperability is made viable by blockchain, which guarantees ownership is maintained whenever assets transition from one game or marketplace to another, thereby offering protection to players who rely on transfers for security against fraud. Key Security Dangers in Web3 Gaming Although blockchain provides sound first principles of security, the Web3 gaming ecosystem is susceptible to threats. Some of the most serious threats include:
Smart Contract Vulnerabilities: Smart contracts that are poorly written or lack auditing will leave openings for exploitation and thereby result in asset loss. Phishing Attacks: Unintentionally exposing or revealing private keys or signing transactions that are not possible to reverse, under the assumption they were genuine transaction requests. Bridge Hacks: Cross-chain bridges, which allow players to move their assets between their respective blockchains, continually face hacks, requiring vigilance from players and developers. Scams and Rug Pulls: Rug pulls occur when a game project raises money and leaves, leaving player assets worthless. Regulatory Ambiguity: Global regulations remain unclear; risks exist for players and developers alike. While blockchain alone won’t resolve every issue, it remediates the responsibility of the first principles, more so when joined by processes such as auditing, education, and the right governance, which can improve their contribution to the security landscapes in game ecosystems. Real Life Examples of Blockchain Security in Web3 Gaming Axie Infinity (Ronin Hack): The Axie Infinity game and several projects suffered one of the biggest hacks thus far on its Ronin bridge; however, it demonstrated the effectiveness of multi-sig security and the effective utilization of decentralization. The industry benefited through learning and reflection, thus, as projects have implemented changes to reduce the risks of future hacks or misappropriation. Immutable X: This Ethereum scaling solution aims to ensure secure NFT transactions for gaming, allowing players to trade an asset without the burden of exorbitant fees and fears of being a victim of fraud. Enjin: Enjin is providing a trusted infrastructure for Web3 games, offering secure NFT creation and transfer while reiterating that ownership and an asset securely belong to the player. These examples indubitably illustrate that despite challenges to overcome, blockchain remains the foundational layer on which to build more secure Web3 gaming environments. Benefits of Blockchain Security for Players and Developers For Players: Confidence in true ownership of assets Transparency in in-game economies Protection against nefarious trades/scams For Developers: More trust between players and the platform Less reliance on centralized infrastructure Ability to attract wealth and players based on provable fairness By incorporating blockchain security within the mechanics of game design, developers can create and enforce resilient ecosystems where players feel reassured in investing time, money, and ownership within virtual worlds. The Future of Secure Web3 Gaming Ecosystems As the wisdom of blockchain technology and industry knowledge improves, the future for secure Web3 gaming looks bright. New growing trends include: Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs): A new wave of protocols that enable private transactions and secure smart contracts while managing user privacy with an element of transparency. Decentralized Identity Solutions (DID): Helping players control their identities and decrease account theft risks. AI-Enhanced Security: Identifying irregularities in user interactions by sampling pattern anomalies to avert hacks and fraud by time-stamping critical events. Interoperable Security Standards: Allowing secured and seamless asset transfers across blockchains and games. With these innovations, blockchain will not only secure gaming assets but also enhance the overall trust and longevity of Web3 gaming ecosystems. Conclusion Blockchain is more than a buzzword in Web3; it is the only way to host security, fairness, and transparency. With blockchain, players confirm immutable ownership of digital assets, there is a decentralized infrastructure, and finally, it supports smart contracts to automate code that protects players and developers from the challenges of digital economies. The threats, vulnerabilities, and scams that come from smart contracts still persist, but the industry is maturing with better security practices, cross-chain solutions, and increased formal cryptographic tools. In the coming years, blockchain will remain the base to digital economies and drive Web3 gaming environments that allow players to safely own, trade, and enjoy their digital experiences free from fraud and exploitation. While blockchain and gaming alone entertain, we will usher in an era of secure digital worlds where trust complements innovation. The Role of Blockchain in Building Safer Web3 Gaming Ecosystems was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story
Share
Medium2025/09/18 14:40
Vitalik Buterin Challenges Ethereum’s Layer 2 Paradigm

Vitalik Buterin Challenges Ethereum’s Layer 2 Paradigm

Vitalik Buterin challenges the role of layer 2 solutions in Ethereum's ecosystem. Layer 2's slow progress and Ethereum’s L1 scaling impact future strategies.
Share
Coinstats2026/02/04 04:08
USAA Names Dan Griffiths Chief Information Officer to Drive Secure, Simplified Digital Member Experiences

USAA Names Dan Griffiths Chief Information Officer to Drive Secure, Simplified Digital Member Experiences

SAN ANTONIO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–USAA today announced the appointment of Dan Griffiths as Chief Information Officer, effective February 5, 2026. A proven financial‑services
Share
AI Journal2026/02/04 04:15