How this $100M Bitcoin-backed loan could rewrite the corporate treasury playbook

The corporate Bitcoin (BTC) treasury trade that validated itself through the second quarter hit a wall in the fall.

Public companies added 159,107 BTC in the second quarter, pushing total corporate holdings to roughly 847,000 BTC, approximately 4% of the capped supply, and proving that “Bitcoin on balance sheet” worked as a capital-markets play.

Then the easy money stopped. NYDIG-tracked flows into digital asset treasury names fell to their lowest daily clip since mid-June through September and October.

Premiums to net asset value (mNAV) compressed across the cohort, pushing several treasuries toward or below parity. When a stock trades at or below its book value, issuing equity to buy more Bitcoin dilutes the existing holders.

Metaplanet faced that constraint in late October when its mNAV ratio dipped below 1. On October 31, the Tokyo firm drew $100 million from a Bitcoin-backed credit agreement and allocated the proceeds toward acquiring more BTC, its options-premium “Bitcoin income” business, and share repurchases.

Three days earlier, it had announced a $500 million BTC-collateralized credit facility to fund a one-year buyback of up to 150 million shares, about 13% of float, and further Bitcoin purchases as needed.

As of October 31, Metaplanet held approximately 30,823 BTC and remains committed to achieving a 210,000-BTC goal by 2027.

Credit substitutes for equity when markets won’t pay a premium

Metaplanet’s move tests whether BTC-backed credit can substitute for equity premium financing when valuations compress.

The playbook that worked in the second quarter of issuing a stock at a premium to mNAV, using proceeds to buy Bitcoin, and accreting BTC per share, depends on investors paying more than book value for exposure.

When that premium is no longer available, equity issuance becomes dilutive. Securing credit against existing BTC holdings offers a way to continue accumulating without selling the coin or issuing dilutive stock.

The trade-offs are visible. Borrowing against BTC introduces collateral risk: a deeper drawdown increases the loan-to-value ratio and could force deleveraging or asset sales at the worst moment.

Floating-rate exposure adds a second vector: if dollar benchmarks reprice higher, the cost of carry turns negative.

But if BTC stabilizes and equity discounts close, the combination of buybacks and secured credit accretes BTC per share without tapping common equity. Metaplanet is betting it can use the credit line as bridge financing while it waits for equity premiums to rebuild.

The prepayment flexibility matters: if BTC rallies and the stock rerates, the firm can refinance or retire the loan and revert to equity issuance.

How the broader treasury cohort responds

Strategy disclosed additional BTC purchases in July and highlighted its Bitcoin balance sheet again in the third-quarter reporting. Still, the firm built its treasury over a multi-year period when equity premiums were more stable.

Newer entrants that ramped up holdings during the second quarter surge now confront the same valuation pressure Metaplanet faced, which consists of compressed premiums, mNAV discounts that have opened, and the equity issuance lever having stopped working.

The question for the rest of the cohort is whether Metaplanet’s approach becomes a template or a cautionary tale. If the loan is successful, as measured by buybacks closing the mNAV discount and BTC stabilizing, other treasuries facing similar valuation gaps will likely follow.

Infrastructure and potential repercussions

BTC-collateralized credit isn’t new, but its application to corporate treasury strategy is relatively new. Custodians and prime brokers built the infrastructure to lend against Bitcoin over the past several years, initially serving hedge funds and proprietary trading desks.

The mechanics are straightforward: post BTC as collateral, draw cash at a loan-to-value ratio that leaves margin for volatility, pay floating interest tied to a dollar-denominated benchmark.

What changed is the borrower profile. Corporate treasuries bring different incentives than trading desks. They’re optimizing for BTC per share rather than absolute profit and loss, and they’re borrowing not to trade but to accumulate or buy back stock.

That shift turns collateralized credit into a capital structure tool rather than a margin facility.

If Metaplanet’s approach is successful and other treasuries adopt BTC-backed credit to defend per-share metrics, the supply of unencumbered corporate BTC will shrink.

That tightens float and could amplify volatility if multiple treasuries face simultaneous margin calls during a drawdown.

For allocators, the implication is that treasury premiums become less about pure Bitcoin exposure and more about leverage and capital structure. A company trading at 1.2x mNAV with no debt is a different bet than one trading at one mNAV with $500 million in BTC-collateralized loans.

If credit serves as a substitute for equity issuance, treasuries can continue to accumulate during periods when their stock trades below book value. That removes one brake on the accumulation cycle, which consists of equity dilution, and replaces it with a more rigid constraint: collateral coverage.

Constraints that could derail it

The structural risk is reflexivity. If enough treasuries borrow against BTC to continue buying, they create demand that increases collateral values, allowing them to borrow more. That model works until it doesn’t.

A macro shock that drives BTC down 30% or 40% could trigger cascading margin calls across leveraged treasuries, forcing asset sales that accelerate the decline.

Floating-rate exposure introduces a second constraint. If the Fed holds rates higher for longer, the cost of servicing BTC-collateralized debt rises.

At some threshold, interest expense exceeds the appreciation needed to justify the loan, and the treasury either prepays or bleeds cash.

The stakes are whether BTC-backed credit can restart corporate accumulation when equity markets won’t cooperate, or whether it amplifies the downside for treasuries that took on too much leverage at the wrong moment.

Metaplanet’s $100 million draw tests the thesis in real time. If the firm closes its mNAV discount, continues to accumulate, and refinances before collateral or rate risks materialize, the playbook becomes replicable for other treasuries facing similar valuation pressures.

If BTC corrects hard enough to force deleveraging, the lesson is that credit substitutes for equity only when collateral values cooperate.

The answer will arrive over the next six to twelve months, as BTC either stabilizes and allows Metaplanet to compound its way out of leverage, or falls far enough to prove that borrowing against a volatile asset to buy more of it accelerates losses as much as gains.