The day has arrived when companies have begun adopting Bitcoin on their balance sheets even if their core business does not involve cryptocurrency.
Approximately 200 companies hold Bitcoin on balance sheets as of this summer. While most of them are pure crypto/blockchain companies or serve that community, others are grounded unrelated fields such as healthcare, hotels, software and social media.
Sean Stein Smith, Associate Professor of Accounting and crypto asset expert at the City University of New York’s Lehman College, notes that attitudes are evolving on the idea. It stands to reason that blockchain companies were the first to embrace Bitcoin as an appropriate balance-sheet asset. Strategy (formerly known as MicroStrategy), DeFi Technologies and Blockchain Group are among the best-known.
Now corporations with little previous connection to the crypto sphere are adopting Bitcoin. These include healthcare firms Semler Scientific and Basel Medical Group, Truth Social owner Trump Media & Technology Group, and video gaming retailer GameStop.
“While still a fringe practice, there is a slow but noticeable shift in how corporations view Bitcoin as a treasury asset,” Stein Smith tells Treasury Today. “Most companies currently holding Bitcoin are either directly involved in blockchain activities or operate in crypto-adjacent sectors, such as mining or digital finance. Firms like MicroStrategy, Tesla, and several crypto-native platforms were early adopters, but the broader market remains cautious.”
The total amount of Bitcoin held on corporate balance sheets surpassed three million BTC in May, worth about US$345bn today, according to crypto native venture fund Breed. The total “is rapidly accelerating,” Breed writes in a July report.
These companies already have a metric for investors to gauge their success.
“The next phase in Bitcoin’s evolution is here: corporate adoption on balance sheets,” Breed writes. “Companies whose primary purpose is to hold Bitcoin will be valued as Bitcoin holding companies, similar to Strategy. To survive, these firms must command a premium known as the multiple on net asset value (MNAV).”
Not only are non-crypto companies getting into the Bitcoin act, they are also bragging about it.
In reporting quarterly earnings this week, Semler Scientific highlighted its medical device that aids early detection of cardiac arrhythmia. That was the second executive quote in the press release. The first quote mentioned that the company held US$586.2m worth of Bitcoin as of the end of July.
Others seem to have ditched their original commercial purpose to become solely or mostly a Bitcoin holder.
Metaplanet, formerly a Japanese hotel chain, now bills itself as a “leading Bitcoin treasury company.” Nakamoto Holdings, a Bitcoin investment firm founded by President Donald Trump’s crypto mentor David Bailey, this month plans to complete its acquisition of healthcare provider KindlyMD.
“Our shareholders now have the opportunity to be part of a groundbreaking shift in how public companies approach treasury management, with Bitcoin at the centre,” said KindlyMD Founder Tim Pickett, who had created his company as a plant-based medicine clinic in Utah.
Stein Smith notes that investors are rewarding such transformations.
“These moves often stem from a desire to increase their visibility, boost valuation or align with investor sentiment that favours digital asset exposure,” the accounting professor explains. “Their stock prices surged in response.”
The accumulation of cryptocurrency “can potentially serve as a hedge against macroeconomic instability,” adds Smith Stein, who chairs the Accounting Working Group at Wall Street Blockchain Alliance. However, “the risks are substantial. Volatility can erode cash reserves, and firms may face reclassification by regulators – from operating companies to investment entities – which brings stricter compliance burdens. Ultimately, this strategy may be best suited to companies with surplus cash, high risk tolerance and a desire to reinvent their corporate narrative.”
Breed argues that company-specific risk is centred mostly around excessive borrowing – not exactly a novel concept.
“The existential threat is an extended bear market that erodes the MNAV premium just as sizeable debt maturities come due,” Breed warns. Systemic risk and contagion are “muted because most financing is equity-based,” the report adds.
