Disclaimer: The analyst who wrote this piece owns shares of MicroStrategy (MSTR) and Semler Scientific (SMLR). As interest in digital assets continues to rise, a new phase of corporate adoption for bitcoin (BTC) appears to be taking shape, with publicly listed firms following MicroStrategy’s lead by adding BTC to their balance sheets. It all started with MicroStrategy (MSTR) adopting BTC as Treasury asset in 2020. Since then, its share price has jumped almost 2,500%. Over the years, the company has boosted its coin stash through cash, at-the-market (ATM) equity offerings, convertible debt or, more recently they said they would also use preferred stock offerings. In 2024, we saw multiple companies follow suit and adopt a bitcoin treasury strategy, such as Metaplanet (3350), Semler Scientific (SMLR), MARA Holdings (MARA), as well as many other publicly traded miners that have also achieved great success. Now more firms are joining the party. The first company emerging from the second wave is KULR Technology Group (KULR), which trades on the NYSE, announced a $21 million bitcoin purchase on Monday. This takes its total bitcoin holding to 430 BTC at an average weighted price of $98,393 per token. KULR has leveraged a combination of an ATM equity program and surplus cash to fund its purchase. Like the other pioneers of this strategy, they have adopted a BTC yield strategy, coming in at 93.7% from December 2024 to January 2025. KULR’s share price has been up 847% since Nov. 19. As of Jan. 7, there also seems to be an emergence of publicly traded companies that have announced a bitcoin treasury strategy, but have yet to acquire any bitcoin. First up, Acurx Pharmaceuticals (ACXP), trading on the Nasdaq, whose board approved a purchase of up to $1 million in bitcoin on Nov. 20. The share price has been down 35% since Nov. 19, but it is up 30% year-to-date. The same is true for Hoth Therapeutics (HOTH), also on the Nasdaq. Its board approved a $1 million bitcoin purchase, back in Nov. 20 but there has been no acquisition yet. However, the share price is up 2% since Nov. 19. The third company to have approved a $1 million bitcoin treasury strategy is Nasdaq-listed LQR House (YHC). On Nov. 19, the firm made the announcement that they have also accepted cryptocurrency payments and adopted a policy to retain up to $10 million of these payments in bitcoin. The share price is up 56% since Nov. 19. NYSE-listed SOS Limited (SOS) approved a $50 million purchase of bitcoin on Nov. 27. The announcement was made when bitcoin was $93,000 a token. The share price has been down 30% since Nov. 19. The last company, also on the Nasdaq, Enlivex Therapeutics (ENLV), announced on Nov. 20 that it was approved to purchase $1 million of bitcoin for its treasury strategy. The share price has been up 18% since Nov. 19. In the second wave, KULR has seen massive share price appreciation compared to the other companies, which can be down to purchasing bitcoin along with the strategy announcement. Wave 2 BTC Adoption UPDATE (Jan. 7, 16:33 UTC): Updates: adds Enlivex Therapeutics and comments about adopting a bitcoin treasury strategy.
Wave 1: The Genesis of a New Corporate Bitcoin Treasury Era
The MicroStrategy Milestone and the First Movers
The corporate adoption of BTC as a treasury asset traces back to MicroStrategy’s bold strategic pivot in 2020. The company embraced bitcoin not as a speculative instrument but as a core treasury reserve, signaling a shift in how corporations think about cash, liquidity, and long-term value preservation. This decision did not happen in isolation; it reflected a broader recognition among public-market participants that digital assets could serve as an inflation-hedging, growth-oriented layer within corporate balance sheets. In the years that followed, MicroStrategy’s approach became a reference framework for others evaluating how to deploy capital in volatile macro environments.
MicroStrategy’s journey has been widely cited in market commentary and investor discussions. The company steadily expanded its BTC holdings through a mix of financing channels that included not only existing cash reserves but also capital-raising mechanisms designed to minimize dilution and optimize leverage on assets with pronounced upside potential. Among the mechanisms cited are at-the-market (ATM) equity offerings, which provide a flexible method to raise capital over time in response to market conditions. In addition, MicroStrategy has utilized convertible debt and, more recently, explored the use of preferred stock offerings as means to fund further acquisitions of BTC or strengthen liquidity positions in the face of volatility. The cumulative impact of these choices has been substantial: the company’s stock price climbed by approximately 2,500% from the outset of the BTC treasury strategy, underscoring how market participants interpreted BTC holdings as a strategic asset class rather than a pure risk-on bet.
Importantly, MicroStrategy’s philosophy was not simply to accumulate BTC in a vacuum. The company integrated its BTC treasury strategy into a broader capital allocation framework that considered diversification, risk management, and potential liquidity needs. This meant that the BTC holdings were managed with visibility into target allocation ranges, hedging considerations where applicable, and a discipline around rebalancing assets in line with corporate cash flow profiles. The approach also reflected a longer-term orientation: BTC was positioned as a store of value and a strategic reserve that could complement, rather than replace, traditional cash and marketable securities. In this context, MicroStrategy’s success served as a case study for other companies exploring the viability of a bitcoin treasury as part of a diversified corporate treasury.
As the years progressed, MicroStrategy continued to expand its BTC reserve, sometimes leveraging the sale of equity or other financial instruments to fund purchases. The use of ATM programs allowed the company to incrementally scale its holdings in response to bitcoin price movements and corporate cash generation, providing a flexible and scalable approach to balance-sheet management. The combination of raising capital through non-dilutive or limited-dilutive means, along with strategic use of cash reserves, contributed to a positive narrative around bitcoin as an asset class capable of supporting corporate balance-sheet resilience and potential upside exposure. This narrative helped catalyze a broader wave of corporations to reassess their treasury strategies and consider BTC holdings as part of a long-term strategic framework.
The Early Momentum: 2020–2024
The initial adoption by MicroStrategy established a blueprint that other companies could adapt to their own needs and risk tolerances. The early adopters often cited reasons grounded in macroeconomic uncertainty, potential inflationary pressures, and the desire to align corporate treasury policies with the evolving digital asset landscape. The initial wave of corporate BTC treasury adoption in the 2020s thus created an information environment in which investors, auditors, and regulators began scrutinizing the practicalities of owning digital assets at scale. Questions around custody, security, liquidity, accounting treatment, and tax implications gained prominence, yet the momentum did not waver. Instead, the market observed a growing cohort of public companies that leaned into bitcoin holdings with defined governance structures, risk controls, and clear funding plans.
From a performance perspective, MicroStrategy’s result set—while subject to the broader volatility of BTC and equities markets—demonstrated that BTC accruals could accompany meaningful equity market gains under certain conditions. The company’s stock trajectory, in tandem with BTC price movements, reinforced the perception that the two could operate as complementary components of a total-return strategy for savvy investors. It is crucial to note that this period also featured heightened scrutiny from investors and analysts about how to account for crypto assets on balance sheets, how to report gains and losses, and how to communicate the treasury policy to stakeholders with confidence and transparency.
The Broader 2024 Adoption Wave
By 2024, a broader cohort of publicly traded firms had begun embracing a bitcoin treasury approach, signaling a second wave of corporate adoption that broadened the geographic and sectoral footprint of BTC in corporate finance. Among the notable entrants were Metaplanet (3350), Semler Scientific (SMLR), and MARA Holdings (MARA). Each of these entities approached BTC holdings through their own lenses—reflecting variations in liquidity needs, risk appetites, and corporate governance frameworks. The 2024 wave was characterized by a mix of technology, healthcare, and mining-focused companies, underscoring the versatility of bitcoin as a treasury instrument across different industrial contexts. The attention paid to these entrants reflected not only the novelty of the strategy but also the growing evidence—at least anecdotally—that BTC can serve as a strategic reserve beyond traditional cash management.
Metaplanet, identified here with the ticker notation 3350, joined the cohort of corporations exploring a focused Bitcoin strategy, signaling the increasing acceptance of BTC as part of a measured, strategic asset allocation rather than as a speculative vehicle. Semler Scientific, traded under SMLR, and MARA Holdings, trading under MARA, contributed distinctive narratives to the wave. Semler Scientific’s engagement reflected a focus on leveraging digital assets in a manner that could complement the company’s core business strategy and capital management goals, while MARA’s involvement resonated with the mining sector’s intrinsic alignment with bitcoin as a core commodity and balance-sheet asset. The broader takeaway from this wave is that the BTC treasury strategy was evolving from a niche experiment into a more mainstream corporate finance instrument, with multiple companies across sectors validating the approach through tangible actions and reported results.
It is also worth noting that the 2024 wave included a proliferation of miners that achieved notable success alongside the non-mining corporate entrants. The mining subsector’s involvement illustrated a natural synergy between BTC as a mined asset and the corporate treasury goals of maintaining asset resilience and potential upside in a highly volatile macro environment. The collective actions of these companies added to the narrative of BTC as part of an optimal treasury mix for certain balance sheets, expanding the scope and depth of corporate crypto adoption beyond the early pioneers.
Section 2: The Second Wave Emerges: KULR Technology Group and the BTC Purchase
KULR Technology Group’s Bold BTC Acquisition
In the early stages of the second wave, KULR Technology Group (KULR), listed on the New York Stock Exchange, announced a significant bitcoin purchase that drew notable attention from investors and industry observers. The announcement disclosed a purchase of $21 million worth of BTC, a substantial increment to the company’s existing crypto reserve. This transaction elevated KULR’s total BTC holdings to 430 BTC, acquired at an average weighted price of $98,393 per token. The scale of the acquisition underscored a decisive commitment to BTC as a treasury asset, signaling to the market that the company was willing to deploy a meaningful portion of its liquidity into digital assets as part of a broader strategic framework.
KULR funded this purchase through a combination of an ATM equity program and the company’s surplus cash reserves. This financing strategy mirrors the mechanisms utilized by earlier adopters, leveraging market-accessible capital channels to fund BTC accumulation without imposing immediate or excessive dilution pressure on existing shareholders. The ATM program provides ongoing capital-raising flexibility, enabling the company to scale its BTC stake over time in response to liquidity needs and market conditions. Meanwhile, the use of surplus cash reflects a discipline around capital allocation, balancing the desire for exposure to BTC with the necessity of maintaining liquidity for operational needs and growth initiatives.
Critically, KULR’s BTC strategy included a clear BTC yield component. The company reported a BTC yield of 93.7% during the period from December 2024 to January 2025. This yield figure, which reflects the effective return associated with the BTC holdings over that span (whether through price appreciation, capital deployment efficiency, or other BTC-related returns), provided an affirmative signal to investors regarding the potential upside and the efficiency of BTC allocation within the corporate treasury. Since the announcement, KULR’s share price has surged, rising approximately 847% from its level on November 19, underscoring how the market responded to both the BTC purchase and the broader narrative of BTC as a strategic asset class in corporate finance.
The Significance of Funding Mechanics and Market Perception
The KULR case highlights key mechanics that other firms in the wave may have emulated or adapted. The ATM equity program allows for scalable capital raises that can be aligned with the company’s liquidity needs and stock price dynamics. In practice, this means that a company can incrementally accumulate BTC over time, smoothing purchases to avoid abrupt balance-sheet shocks or adverse timing effects. The use of surplus cash indicates a commitment to preserving operational flexibility while pursuing strategic asset allocation, particularly in a market environment where the cost of capital and the expected return on BTC purchases can vary significantly over short periods. The 93.7% BTC yield reported over a defined window provides a tangible performance signal to investors, even though BTC yields are inherently volatile and sensitive to the day-to-day movements in BTC price and the timing of purchases.
From a market perspective, KULR’s purchase and the accompanying yield metrics contributed to a broader narrative about the viability of BTC treasury strategies in the public markets. The stock’s strong performance after the announcement suggested that investors valued not only the BTC holdings themselves but also the disciplined approach to funding and governance around the treasury allocation. This kind of market response can influence the expectations of other companies contemplating similar moves, potentially driving a feedback loop in which more firms consider BTC as a core part of their capital-allocation framework.
Wave 2: Contracts Via Announcement-Only: Public Companies That Approved BTC Purchases but Had Yet to Acquire
In parallel with KULR’s decisive action, a number of public companies entered the second wave by publicly approving BTC purchases or treasury strategies but had not yet completed any acquisitions as of the reporting window. The pattern here reflects a transitional phase in corporate crypto strategy, where boards authorize the framework and funding channels, but the actual mechanics of acquiring BTC may hinge on market timing, treasury policy governance, and operational readiness. The following entities illustrate this wave: Acurx Pharmaceuticals (ACXP), Hoth Therapeutics (HOTH), LQR House (YHC), SOS Limited (SOS), and Enlivex Therapeutics (ENLV). Each company operated under the Nasdaq or NYSE umbrella, illustrating the cross-exchange spread of this strategic shift.
Acurx Pharmaceuticals, listed on the Nasdaq under ACXP, saw its board approve a purchase authorization of up to $1 million in BTC on November 20. The stock’s performance during the period from November 19 to the reporting date showed a material decline of 35%, followed by a rebound in the current year-to-date period of approximately +30%. This pattern reflects the broader market’s sensitivity to crypto-related disclosures and the ongoing recalibration of risk in healthcare technology and biotech firms that are exploring crypto treasury concepts. The announcement itself did not coincide with an immediate BTC acquisition, but rather signaled a readiness to pursue a BTC treasury strategy in due course, subject to governance, risk management, and market conditions.
Hoth Therapeutics, another Nasdaq-listed company, similarly approved a $1 million BTC purchase on November 20, but, as of the reporting period, had not completed any acquisition. The stock’s trajectory showed modest gains—about +2% since the Nov. 19 reference date—indicating that investors may have priced-in the policy direction, but the absence of a completed purchase cooled expectations relative to those entities that had already executed BTC acquisitions. The situation underscores the potential for a lag between board-level authorization and practical execution, particularly in biotech firms where financial and regulatory considerations can be more complex.
LQR House, trading on Nasdaq under YHC, announced on November 19 that it had both embraced cryptocurrency payments and adopted a policy to retain up to $10 million of those payments in bitcoin. This stance signaled the company’s willingness to integrate crypto into its operating and financial processes, while retaining exposure to BTC as a treasury asset. Since the November 19 announcement, LQR House’s stock had risen by about 56%, indicating a moderate market response that acknowledged the strategic pivot but did not reflect immediate BTC accumulation momentum at the time of reporting.
SOS Limited, listed on the NYSE, approved a substantial $50 million BTC purchase on November 27. This decision occurred when bitcoin was priced around $93,000 per token. The market response, as reflected in the stock price, showed a decline of roughly 30% since November 19, suggesting that the market had concerns or at least differentiation in expectations about the timing, execution, and governance around the BTC adoption. The size of the commitment signaled ambition and the potential scale of bitcoin treasury initiatives within a diversified crypto-focused company, but the market’s reaction indicated a careful, perhaps cautious, reception to the timing of the actual BTC acquisition and the broader implications for the company’s financials.
Enlivex Therapeutics, listed on Nasdaq under ENLV, announced on November 20 that it was approved to purchase $1 million of bitcoin for its treasury strategy. The share price performance since November 19 had risen by about 18%, suggesting that investors recognized the strategic intent but that execution risk and market conditions remained central considerations for biotech firms pursuing crypto treasury arrangements.
This second-wave, announcement-only cohort illustrates a critical dynamic: boards are willing to authorize BTC treasury strategies, but the actual deployment of capital into BTC hinges on a confluence of timely market conditions, liquidity management, risk governance, and the company’s ability to report on the strategy in a way that satisfies auditors and investors. The divergence in outcomes—ranging from significant price appreciation in KULR to more modest or negative stock moves in some of the announcement-only firms—reflects the nuanced and context-dependent nature of corporate crypto adoption. It also underscores the importance of execution, timing, and governance practices in shaping investor perceptions.
Wave 2: Market Dynamics and Stock Performance Across the Cohort
The wave that began with KULR’s decisive BTC purchase introduced a spectrum of market outcomes that highlight how timing and execution influence stock performance in the context of bitcoin treasury strategies. Among the wave-2 participants, KULR’s substantial BTC acquisition stood out, driving pronounced share price appreciation relative to peers that announced plans but did not immediately acquire BTC. The 847% rally observed since November 19 for KULR reflects both the market’s enthusiasm for a tangible commitment to BTC as a treasury asset and the perception that the ATM funding approach could deliver scalable growth with controlled dilution. This performance underscores the potential for BTC-related strategies to be rewarded when paired with a disciplined funding plan, a transparent governance framework, and measurable yields on BTC holdings.
In contrast, the companies that approved a bitcoin treasury strategy but had not yet completed acquisitions displayed a more mixed performance. Some stocks experienced modest gains, while others faced declines or muted reactions. The differing outcomes illuminate the complexity of evaluating crypto treasury initiatives within diverse corporate contexts. For healthcare and biotech firms, where stock price drivers often hinge on clinical milestones and regulatory timelines, a BTC treasury strategy intersects with a set of additional considerations, including capital budgeting, debt management, and investor confidence in non-operating assets. The market’s response to these announcements, rather than to BTC purchases themselves, can sometimes reveal the degree to which investors value governance clarity, risk control, and credible funding plans.
An overarching takeaway from Wave 2 is that the market rewards explicit, funded actions in which a company demonstrates the ability to convert strategic intent into measurable asset growth. BTC purchases funded through ATM programs and surplus cash can symbolize financial discipline and long-term resilience, especially when paired with reported yield metrics. Conversely, announcements without immediate execution may be insufficient to sustain momentum if investors perceive execution risk, liquidity concerns, or governance uncertainties. The evolving narrative around BTC treasury strategies thus remains highly sensitive to the balance between strategic ambition and prudent risk management.
Section 3: The Mechanics of BTC Treasuries: Funding, Yields, and Governance
How ATM Programs Enable Flexible BTC Accumulation
At-the-market (ATM) equity programs have emerged as a central tool for corporations seeking to scale BTC holdings without triggering abrupt balance-sheet shocks. In practice, an ATM program allows a company to issue new shares into the open market over time, raising capital in a way that is reactive to stock price trends and liquidity needs. For BTC treasury strategies, this means that capital can be raised incrementally to fund Bitcoin purchases as opportunities arise, with the ability to adjust the pace of accumulation in response to market conditions. The impact is twofold: it mitigates dilution concentration risk relative to large, one-off equity offerings, and it provides a predictable funding stream that can be synchronized with BTC market dynamics, purchase timing, and treasury goals.
The ATM approach is particularly attractive for companies seeking to maintain flexibility in a volatile macro environment. By aligning funding with favorable market windows, management can optimize the mix of cash, debt, and equity to support BTC acquisitions while preserving liquidity for operations, growth initiatives, and balance-sheet resilience. The strategic use of ATM programs—especially in tandem with a growing BTC reserve—can signal to investors that the company intends to manage capital with an eye toward both BTC upside and overall financial health. As observed in MicroStrategy’s and KULR’s cases, the ATM mechanism has functioned as a practical instrument to facilitate incremental BTC purchases without incurring abrupt equity dilutive effects.
Surplus Cash as a Stabilizing Resource
Surplus cash, beyond its routine role in funding day-to-day operations, serves as a crucial resource for companies pursuing BTC treasury strategies. The prudent deployment of excess liquidity for BTC purchases reflects a deliberate position that prioritizes strategic asset allocation while maintaining operational buffers. Surplus cash offers an immediate funding source that can be channeled toward BTC acquisitions when price dynamics and balance-sheet considerations align with the company’s treasury policy. This approach underscores the importance of liquidity management within the broader treasury framework and highlights how BTC can be integrated into a multi-asset strategy that also accounts for debt service, working capital needs, and capital expenditure plans.
The combination of ATM funding with surplus cash creates a flexible, scalable model that can accelerate BTC accumulation as a company’s liquidity profile improves or as BTC price movements offer favorable entry points. It also emphasizes governance discipline: treasury policies typically define exposure limits, risk controls, and reporting protocols to ensure that BTC holdings remain a strategic asset rather than an uncontrolled speculative exposure. The disciplined integration of surplus cash into BTC acquisitions reduces the likelihood of sudden balance-sheet shocks, while maintaining the potential for upside exposure to BTC price appreciation.
BTC Yield: Measuring the Returns on Bitcoin Holdings
BTC yield is a key performance metric that investors monitor to gauge the effectiveness of a company’s BTC treasury strategy. In the KULR example, the reported yield of 93.7% from December 2024 to January 2025 implies a robust period of BTC performance and efficient capital deployment. While BTC yield metrics can arise from price appreciation, they also reflect how efficiently a company has allocated capital to BTC purchases and how the timing of those purchases aligns with price movements. A high yield in a short window can signal that a company has utilized favorable entry points or has constructed a treasury framework that captures BTC upside while preserving liquidity for operational needs.
It is important to interpret yield metrics in the context of BTC’s inherent volatility. A 93.7% yield over a single month, even when impressive, does not guarantee similar performance in subsequent periods. Investors typically examine longer horizons to assess the sustainability of BTC yield and to evaluate the reliability of the enterprise’s treasury governance, including risk controls, hedging practices (where applicable), and the consistency of funding flows. The BTC yield concept, while valuable for illustrating performance, should be considered alongside broader indicators such as total BTC allocated, average cost basis, and the company’s ability to meet other financial obligations.
Governance, Disclosure, and Regulatory Context
Governance plays a central role in the success or failure of BTC treasury strategies. Boards must articulate clear treasury policies, including target BTC allocations, risk management frameworks, capital-raising plans, and disclosures that provide investors with transparency about the rationale and expected outcomes of crypto holdings. The regulatory environment surrounding corporate crypto assets continues to evolve, with accounting standards, tax treatment, custody requirements, and audit considerations shaping how BTC is reported on financial statements. Companies that implement BTC treasury strategies typically develop robust custody arrangements, multi-signature controls, and independent verification processes to reassure investors, auditors, and regulators that the crypto assets are secured and properly accounted for.
Investor communications around BTC treasury programs must balance the allure of BTC upside with the realities of volatility and risk. Clear disclosures regarding the funding sources, governance oversight, risk tolerance limits, liquidity implications, and potential impact on earnings and cash flows are essential to maintaining investor confidence. In addition, auditors and regulators increasingly scrutinize the treatment of crypto assets on balance sheets, including the classification of BTC as either a cash equivalent or a non-current asset, depending on the relevant accounting framework. As more companies publicly articulate their BTC treasury strategies, the emphasis on robust governance and transparent reporting is likely to intensify, shaping how the market evaluates the strategic merit of these initiatives.
Section 4: Announced but Not Yet Acquired: A Closer Look at Wave 2 Precursor Companies
Acurx Pharmaceuticals (ACXP): Nasdaq Announcement and Market Reception
Acurx Pharmaceuticals, trading on Nasdaq as ACXP, became part of the wave of companies that approved a bitcoin purchase plan of up to $1 million. The board’s approval signaled intent, but as of the reporting, no BTC had been acquired. The stock’s performance since November 19 showed a decline of about 35%, with a year-to-date increase of around 30%. This trajectory suggests that while investors acknowledged the strategic intent, market participants remained cautious, possibly awaiting actual execution, a clearer governance framework, or better alignment with corporate cash-flow expectations before assigning a premium to the BTC treasury narrative.
From an investor relations perspective, the ACXP case highlights the challenge of converting strategic intent into measurable asset actions in a timeframe that satisfies market participants. The absence of immediate BTC purchases can lead to questions about liquidity, risk tolerance, and governance, particularly for smaller-cap biotech entities where the balance-sheet composition and capital-raising options differ from those of larger, more diversified corporations. However, the mere authorization of BTC purchases can still deliver a signaling effect, influencing future expectations and potentially broadening the discourse around crypto treasury strategies across the sector.
Hoth Therapeutics (HOTH): Nasdaq and the Unexecuted Plan
Hoth Therapeutics, another Nasdaq-listed firm, likewise approved a $1 million bitcoin purchase on November 20, but did not finalize any acquisition within the reporting window. The stock price advanced modestly by around 2% since November 19, indicating a relatively muted market reaction compared with some of the more aggressive BTC-adopter peers. The contrast with KULR’s execution underscores the critical role of timing and the execution risk inherent in turning promises into concrete asset holdings.
HOTH’s experience illustrates how different corporate profiles can influence the reception of crypto treasury strategies. In biotech and specialty healthcare companies, where clinical milestones and regulatory approvals are the primary stock drivers, crypto commitments may act as a supplementary narrative rather than a primary value driver. The absence of actual BTC purchases can dampen the immediate impact on investor sentiment, though the ongoing governance discussions around BTC treasury plans remain relevant for long-term strategy.
LQR House (YHC): Crypto Payments and a BTC Retention Policy
LQR House, listed on Nasdaq as YHC, announced on November 19 that it would not only accept cryptocurrency payments but also retain up to $10 million of those payments in bitcoin. This dual approach suggests a strategic integration of crypto into both revenue channels and balance-sheet management. The stock price rose about 56% since the November 19 reference point, indicating a favorable reception from investors who saw the policy as a signal of adaptive business practices and alignment with the broader BTC treasury trend. However, the absence of a clear, concrete BTC acquisition at that time meant that the market was evaluating the policy’s potential impact on cash flows, addiction to new payment rails, and the long-term implications of integrating BTC into the firm’s financial framework. The LQR House case illustrates how a company can leverage a BTC treasury strategy even when actual purchases have not yet occurred, by signaling intent, governance readiness, and a willingness to participate in the evolving crypto ecosystem.
SOS Limited (SOS): A Battalion-Scale BTC Commitment?
SOS Limited, listed on the NYSE, approved a substantial $50 million BTC purchase on November 27, with the announcement occurring at a time when bitcoin traded around $93,000 per token. The stock subsequently faced a decline of about 30% since November 19, reflecting a combination of market dynamics and the particularities of a crypto-centric business model. The magnitude of the commitment underscored the ambition to establish a significant BTC treasury presence, albeit with execution risk and timing considerations that likely influenced investor expectations. As with other wave participants, SOS’s case provides an illustrative example of how a company can articulate a governance-ready plan for BTC ownership, even when the practical steps toward acquisition remain pending.
Enlivex Therapeutics (ENLV): Nasdaq and the $1 Million Plan
Enlivex Therapeutics, trading on Nasdaq as ENLV, announced on November 20 that it had been approved to purchase $1 million of bitcoin for its treasury strategy. The stock’s performance since November 19 showed an 18% increase, suggesting a modest but positive market reaction to the approval, with investors recognizing the potential strategic value of BTC holdings while awaiting execution. The Enlivex case adds to the broader picture of biotech firms engaging with BTC treasury policies in a cautious, methodical manner, emphasizing governance, risk appetite, and the alignment of crypto investments with corporate objectives.
The second-wave wave of announcement-only BTC treasury strategies demonstrates that boards across varied sectors are becoming comfortable with the concept of BTC as a strategic asset. Yet the successful execution of these strategies remains contingent on several factors, including capital availability, risk management, regulatory clarity, and the ability to deliver timely reports to investors and stakeholders. The diversity of outcomes—from deferred acquisitions to substantial planned commitments—highlights the need for precise treasury policies, robust governance practices, and transparent communication of the rationale, expectations, and risk controls associated with BTC ownership.
Section 5: Market Responses, Valuation Implications, and the Investor Narrative
How Market Sentiment Has Evolved Around BTC Treasuries
The market’s reaction to corporate BTC treasury strategies reflects a nuanced interplay between perceived strategic value and execution risk. Early adopters demonstrated that BTC can function as a long-term store of value and a potential hedge against macroeconomic headwinds. The 2,500% stock-price surge observed in MicroStrategy since the inception of its BTC treasury strategy illustrates the potential for outsized equity returns when investors trust the corporate governance framework and the strategic rationale behind BTC accumulation. This effect can catalyze enthusiasm among investors who view BTC as a ballast asset that complements cash, while also drawing scrutiny from those who worry about volatility and risk management.
As the wave expanded in 2024, investors considered the performance differentials between entities that enacted concrete purchases versus those that announced plans without immediate execution. The outcomes varied: some beneficiaries of execution—like KULR—saw strong share-price appreciation, while others that announced plans but did not acquire BTC experienced more muted or mixed performance. This divergence emphasized the market’s preference for demonstrable commitment and execution, reflecting investor demand for accountability and concrete metrics around the value creation potential of BTC treasury strategies. The market’s reaction thus underscores the importance of not only policy articulation but also practical, timely action and the governance processes that govern implementation.
Sectoral and Strategic Implications
The cross-sector adoption of BTC treasury strategies has implications for corporate governance norms, investor expectations, and sector-specific financial management practices. Tech firms and mining companies, with a natural affinity for digital asset exposure, can leverage BTC to anchor long-term capital allocation strategies, particularly in an environment of rising inflation concerns and uncertain macro dynamics. Healthcare and biotech firms entering the space signal a broader acceptance that crypto assets may be part of a diversified treasury approach, provided robust controls and transparent reporting accompany their deployment. The divergence in sectoral outcomes highlights that the strategic fit of BTC for each company depends on its cash-flow profile, risk tolerance, and the cadence of capital-raising capabilities.
From an investor relations perspective, the BTC treasury narrative requires careful storytelling that balances upside potential with the operational realities of the enterprise. A well-articulated treasury policy should include: (1) the rationale behind BTC as a strategic asset; (2) funding mechanisms, including ATM programs and the role of surplus cash; (3) governance structures, risk oversight, and reporting cadence; (4) expected effects on liquidity, earnings, and capital allocation; and (5) a framework for communicating results and adjustments as market conditions evolve. In addition, developers of crypto treasury strategies should consider the regulatory environment, custody solutions, and tax considerations to ensure a sustainable path forward that aligns with investors’ risk-return preferences.
Section 6: The Strategic Narrative: BTC as a Corporate Finance Instrument
Why Bitcoin Treasury Strategies Resonate with Investors
Bitcoin’s appeal as a treasury asset lies in its potential to act as a store of value and a hedge against inflation in a landscape where traditional cash assets may be eroded by monetary policy dynamics and macroeconomic volatility. For publicly traded companies, BTC can complement existing cash reserves, marketable securities, and other liquid assets. The ability to scale BTC holdings through flexible funding channels (like ATM programs) allows corporations to calibrate exposure according to market conditions and strategic objectives. Investors often view a well-governed BTC treasury strategy as a signal of forward-looking risk management and a disciplined approach to capital allocation, particularly when accompanied by transparent disclosure and measurable performance indicators such as BTC yield.
Corporate Governance and Risk Considerations
A robust BTC treasury strategy requires strong governance, including clear ownership of the policy, documented risk tolerances, incident response strategies, custody controls, and third-party auditing where appropriate. The governance framework should address concerns such as: (1) liquidity management to ensure operational needs are met in the face of BTC price swings; (2) custody and security protocols to protect against theft and loss; (3) accounting treatment and tax implications; and (4) reporting standards that keep investors informed about holdings, cost basis, realized gains or losses, and changes in policy. These governance pillars are essential to maintaining investor confidence and ensuring the long-term viability of BTC treasury programs.
Section 7: Technical and Operational Considerations for BTC Treasuries
Custody, Security, and Operational Readiness
Custody solutions are pivotal for large-scale BTC holdings. Efficient custody must address the secure storage of private keys, multi-signature controls, and access governance to minimize the risk of loss or theft. Operational readiness includes having a well-defined process for claiming or deploying BTC assets in line with treasury strategies, ensuring compatibility with financial reporting systems, and integrating crypto assets into the company’s risk-management framework. The operational complexities of BTC custody are non-trivial and require specialized infrastructure, staff training, and ongoing oversight. Companies that succeed in this area generally benefit from stronger investor confidence, better regulatory alignment, and clearer disclosures of security measures and contingency plans.
Tax and Accounting Implications
Tax treatment of BTC holdings and the financial reporting of crypto assets are highly relevant for companies pursuing BTC treasury strategies. The accounting framework determines how BTC is classified on the balance sheet (as cash equivalents, intangible assets, or other categories) and how gains and losses are recognized in earnings. Tax implications vary by jurisdiction and can influence the net impact of BTC holdings on after-tax income. Effective communication with auditors and regulators about the chosen accounting policy, cost basis tracking, and impairment testing is essential for maintaining transparency and ensuring compliance with applicable standards. Companies should also articulate their expectations for tax treatment of future BTC acquisitions and the potential tax consequences of sale or disposition.
Section 8: Risks, Volatility, and Regulatory Outlook
Volatility and Market Sensitivity
BTC is intrinsically volatile, with price movements driven by macroeconomic dynamics, market sentiment, and evolving regulatory landscapes. For corporate treasuries, this volatility translates into potential gains and losses that can significantly affect earnings volatility, balance-sheet strength, and shareholder value. While BTC yields in some windows can be robust, as observed in KULR’s reported 93.7% yield for a specific period, sustained performance is not guaranteed. The risk profile for BTC treasury strategies is therefore a blend of asset-speculative risk and corporate governance risk, requiring a disciplined approach to funding, risk controls, and communication with investors.
Regulatory and Market Structure Developments
Regulatory developments in the crypto space—ranging from custody standards to tax treatment and disclosure requirements—have a material bearing on corporate BTC treasury strategies. As regulators provide clearer guidelines, corporate treasuries may gain more confidence to deploy BTC holdings at scale. Conversely, tightening regulatory scrutiny could introduce new compliance costs and operational complexities that influence the pace and scale of BTC adoption. The evolving regulatory environment reinforces the need for ongoing governance refinement, transparent reporting, and proactive engagement with auditors and regulators.
Section 9: The Path Forward: Implications for Investors, Companies, and the Crypto Market
Strategic Implications for Corporations
For corporations considering BTC treasuries, the path forward involves a careful balancing act: maximizing upside potential while maintaining liquidity flexibility, governance integrity, and regulatory compliance. The wave of corporate adoption signals a broader willingness to experiment with digital assets at scale. As more firms document their experiences—both successes and challenges—market participants will gain a more nuanced understanding of the conditions under which BTC treasury strategies can contribute to long-term value creation.
Investor Takeaways and Portfolio Implications
Investors can glean several takeaways from the BTC treasury wave: (1) the value of governance discipline and transparent reporting in supporting investor confidence; (2) the importance of a clear funding strategy (ATM programs and surplus cash) to minimize dilution and ensure scalable asset growth; (3) the potential for BTC holdings to influence asset allocation decisions and risk-return profiles; (4) the need to monitor execution outcomes and yield metrics as indicators of how effectively a company is leveraging BTC as a strategic asset. While BTC portfolios may not be suitable for all investors or all corporate contexts, the ongoing proliferation of BTC treasury strategies expands the toolkit available to corporations seeking to manage liquidity, inflation risk, and long-term value.
Section 10: Conclusion
In a landscape where digital assets increasingly intersect with mainstream corporate finance, the BTC treasury strategy represents a strategic instrument that some companies view as part of a broader capital-allocation framework. The narrative has evolved from MicroStrategy’s pioneering 2020 decision to a diversified field of adopters across sectors and market caps, with both completed BTC purchases and announced plans shaping market expectations. The second wave, highlighted by KULR Technology Group’s decisive $21 million BTC acquisition and 430 BTC holdings at an average price around $98,393, underscores that the combination of disciplined funding (ATM programs and surplus cash) and measurable returns (BTC yield) can translate into meaningful stock-price dynamics when executed effectively.
The market’s response to Wave 2 has been varied, reinforcing that execution, timing, governance, and transparency are critical to value realization. Companies that move quickly from authorization to acquisition and maintain robust risk controls tend to garner more favorable investor reception than those that stall at the planning stage. The broader implication is a shift in corporate finance thinking: BTC is increasingly viewed as a strategic asset class that can complement traditional cash reserves, with the potential to contribute to resilience and upside in an uncertain macro environment. As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve and more data points emerge from both successful implementations and thoughtful caution, the corporate world will refine its approach to BTC treasury strategies, seeking to balance ambition with prudent risk management and clear communication to investors.
If you are analyzing these developments for investment decisions, consider the following: the success of a BTC treasury program depends not only on BTC holdings but on how a company funds, governs, and reports those holdings. The most compelling cases are those that pair transparent governance, disciplined funding, and verifiable yield metrics with tangible shareholder value. The next phase of corporate crypto adoption will likely hinge on how convincingly companies can demonstrate that their BTC treasury strategies contribute to long-term earnings stability, capital efficiency, and strategic resilience in the face of an ever-evolving crypto-economy.
