Bitcoin treasury strategy, explained
When a company holds Bitcoin on its balance sheet, it is referred to as a corporate Bitcoin treasury. Instead of only holding traditional financial assets and cash, organizations can also own Bitcoin as an alternative store of value or investment strategy.
The approach of converting cash holdings into cryptocurrency is a new shift in corporate finance strategy. The concept has gained huge media coverage in recent years, with Strategy’s consistent Bitcoin treasury growth sparking debates.
A growing number of companies are discussing moving value from traditionally safe assets into this more volatile digital asset class. The upside is attractive for many investors, with top bulls predicting prices anywhere between $130,000 and $1.5million.
Although on the flip side, establishing a corporate crypto strategy exposes companies to substantial risk. Traditional treasury management relies on capital preservation. In contrast, Bitcoin (BTC) treasury management introduces speculation and volatility into balance sheets.
VanEck’s head of digital assets, Matthew Sigel, cautioned that companies like Metaplanet aggressively raising capital to buy Bitcoin risk crossing from strategic growth into shareholder harm.
“Once you are trading at net asset value, shareholder dilution is no longer strategic,” he said. “It’s erosion.”
This means that if a company’s stock no longer trades at a premium, issuing more shares to buy Bitcoin dilutes value instead of adding it — a red flag for investors.
Thus, the way businesses manage their capital reserves has a direct effect on company value and the ability to withstand economic downturns. For public companies, this means gaining shareholder approval for the introduction of a Bitcoin treasury. Major tech companies like Meta, Amazon and Microsoft have all proposed the idea in recent months.
The Meta, Amazon and Microsoft Bitcoin treasury stance
Microsoft, Amazon and Meta shareholders have overwhelmingly rejected proposals to establish strategic Bitcoin reserves.
At the Meta 2025 annual shareholder meeting, there was a conclusive pushback against the introduction of a Bitcoin treasury. Over 90% of shareholders voted to reject a Meta Bitcoin treasury vote proposal. Ethan Peck from the National Center for Public Policy Research initially introduced the proposal. It sought to consider converting a portion of the $72-billion cash stockpile into Bitcoin.
The voting results are noted in the table below:
Here’s an explanation of these voting results:
- For (3,916,871 votes): This is the number of shareholders who voted in favor of Meta adding Bitcoin to its treasury.
- Against (4,980,828,562 votes): These shareholders voted against the proposal. This large number shows that the overwhelming majority rejected the idea.
- Abstentions (8,857,588 votes): These shareholders chose not to vote either for or against the proposal. Their votes don’t count toward the outcome.
- Broker non-votes (204,772,865 votes): These are shares held by brokers for clients who didn’t provide voting instructions. In some cases, brokers are not allowed to vote on certain matters without specific direction from the shareholder.
As seen above, nearly 5 billion votes were against the proposal, meaning Meta shareholders decisively rejected adding Bitcoin to the company’s balance sheet.
Bitcoin advocates highlighted the potential outsized returns due to the leading cryptocurrency’s fixed supply as a better long-term store of value. During the Bitcoin 2025 conference in Las Vegas, high-profile supporters such as Matt Cole, CEO of Strive Asset Management, urged Mark Zuckerberg to back the Meta shareholder Bitcoin proposal.
“You have already done step one. You have named your goat Bitcoin. My ask is that you take step two and adopt a bold corporate bitcoin treasury strategy,” said Cole.
Still, the vote didn’t even manage 1% support, as 4.98 billion shares voted against and only 3.9 million in favor after the board recommended against the resolution.
“While we are not opining on the merits of cryptocurrency investments compared to other assets, we believe the requested assessment is unnecessary given our existing processes to manage our corporate treasury,” noted Meta’s Board.
This result aligns Meta with Amazon and Microsoft shareholders, who also rejected previous proposals to allocate reserves into Bitcoin. All three tech giants have undeniably abandoned cryptocurrency in their financial operations, instead seeking to avoid volatility and retain financial stability.
Although this is the current stance for the big three, ongoing developments and digital asset regulation improvements may mean the door reopens in the future as investor sentiment evolves in future years.
Did you know? Meta is looking at integrating stablecoin payments into its platforms. The Facebook parent company is reported to have held talks with crypto firms, which could see them take a multi-token approach. So, while a Bitcoin treasury has been rejected, users could see stablecoins like Tether’s USDt (USDT) incorporated into the Meta platform portfolio.
Why companies reject Bitcoin
There are several factors that the Meta board and shareholders outlined for the rejection, including risk, regulation and business focus.
- Volatility concerns: Bitcoin is still a volatile asset with significant price fluctuations. Adding the asset to balance sheets would lead to volatility in earnings and financial positions for public companies. This uncertainty in financial planning becomes alarming for traditional investors.
- Regulatory uncertainty: Cryptocurrency assets lack clear and consistent regulation. With the legal and tax goalposts always moving, it adds another risk layer for public companies.
- Business focus: Major tech company shareholders are showing a preference to maintain predictability and stability. Both the tech and crypto industries are evolving quickly in the face of AI and digital transformation, so organizations appear keen to focus on the core business rather than being distracted by speculative assets.
- Fiduciary responsibility: Corporations need to balance innovation with commitment to their shareholders. A legal obligation to manage assets responsibly doesn’t align with Bitcoin, which many people view as a speculative investment category. Boards are wary of breaching their duty and prefer a cautious wait-and-see approach.
Did you know? Strategy is often heralded for its corporate Bitcoin treasury. Its stock has soared since adopting the policy in 2020, outpacing the likes of Nvidia, Tesla, Google and Microsoft. At least 72 other companies have added Bitcoin in 2025, but they remain smaller firms seeking to boost their stock price.
Strategy is the Bitcoin outlier
Strategy has built a warchest of over 500,000 BTC since 2020, costing over $33 billion (based on 1 BTC = $66,279 on average).
The American corporation originally made its name as a business intelligence service; while this is still its core business, since 2020, the company has often been considered a Bitcoin proxy due to its growing treasury.
Strategy chairman Michael Saylor now says he is focusing on the company’s Bitcoin acquisition strategy. So far, the strength of adding a Bitcoin treasury has seen Strategy move into the Nasdaq 100 as of Dec. 23, 2024.
With Strategy holding over 2% of Bitcoin’s total supply (as of June 2025), it has drawn considerable media attention. The continued growth in Bitcoin price through late 2024 and early 2025 has led to inflated share prices and company valuation for Strategy.
By June 12, 2025, the MSTR share price had soared 3,180% in the last five years, rocketing to $387 from $11. The stock performance is highly correlated with Bitcoin’s price movements, effectively transforming shareholder exposure. However, this tight correlation also means investors face amplified volatility tied to crypto market swings.
Regardless, this demonstrates the potential upside that can transform a company through Bitcoin treasury adoption. But this is a risk that most corporations are unwilling to take.
Did you know? As of May 2025, around 19.6 million BTC has been mined. That only leaves 1.4 million left to be added to the circulating supply. With its deflationary design, if the world’s biggest companies and governments do decide to establish Bitcoin reserves, demand combined with dwindling supply could lead to a severe upward price shock.
The future of Bitcoin corporate treasuries
Meta, Amazon and Microsoft continue to focus on core business missions. For now at least, they are waiting for clearer regulations and more predictable risks from digital assets. Until then, they’re not likely to make any bold moves.
Bitcoin treasuries continue to remain the exception, not the norm. The Meta shareholder rejection is an indication that the concept is still hype rather than reality. Even innovative tech organizations aren’t risking the volatility and distraction despite potential payoffs. US tech giants remain wary of copying Strategy’s Bitcoin-as-a-reserve-asset strategy, sticking with the traditional, safe treasury strategies.
The core tenets of corporate treasury management, including risk minimization, liquidity assurance and alignment with operational needs, run counter to the high-risk, high-volatility profile of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin’s price swings can exceed 50% in a matter of months, which is far outside the volatility tolerance of most corporate finance departments.
Tech giants like Meta, Amazon and Microsoft continue to focus their treasuries on cash equivalents, short-term securities and diversified holdings aligned with their core missions. Even among innovators, crypto exposure is seen more as a liability than a differentiator. The 2024 collapses of several crypto-adjacent companies, combined with renewed scrutiny from the US SEC and global regulators, have only reinforced corporate caution.
Until clearer regulatory frameworks, accounting standards and custody solutions are established, Bitcoin treasuries will remain an exception.
In the short term, Bitcoin advocates hoping for mass corporate adoption may have to wait. The risk-reward profile simply doesn’t align with how most chief financial officers are judged: on capital stability, not capital speculation.
