The wave of corporate coin holding sweeps the globe! The number of listed companies with Bitcoin treasury has surged to 134, and the regulatory game in the Asia-Pacific region hides risks.

K33 research shows that the number of listed companies holding Bitcoin (BTC) surged from 70 to 134 in the first half of 2025, with an additional holding of 245,000 BTC. Eight Japanese companies joined the "on-chain treasury" initiative, marking Asia's transition from sideliner to active participant. The "corporate holding" model pioneered by Strategy has sparked global imitation, with Amina Group reporting total BTC reserves of listed companies reaching 962,000 (valued at $110 billion). However, risks remain high with regulatory arbitrage, NAV premium collapse, and the looming $12.8 billion convertible bond maturity wall. The APEC "Digital and AI Ministerial Statement" signals an accelerated restructuring of the global regulatory framework.

The scale of corporate holdings has doubled in half a year, and Asian forces are rising.

Once regarded as a marginal experiment, the "Bitcoin treasury company" is becoming a core force in the digital asset market. K33 research data shows that between December 2024 and June 2025, the number of listed companies holding BTC surged from 70 to 134, with a total increase of 245,000 BTC. Among them, 8 Japanese companies have entered the market, marking Asia's transformation from sideliner to an active participant in on-chain asset allocation. Amina Group statistics show that the total BTC reserves of listed companies have reached 962,000 (valued at over 110 billion USD), with Bitcoin deeply integrated into mainstream corporate financial management. Market dynamics confirm the rise of Asia's strategic position: The American mining company American Bitcoin, backed by the Trump family, is seeking acquisition targets in Japan and Hong Kong, intending to replicate the MicroStrategy model to establish an Asian version of an "on-chain treasury." Cases like Hong Kong's Zhaozheng International and Japan's Metaplanet show that traditional financial institutions are leveraging regional policy benefits to position themselves in crypto assets.

NAV Premium and Financing Cycle Hide Risks, Regulatory Framework Accelerating Construction

Bitcoin treasury companies are increasingly adopting similar operational models: signing advisory agreements with professional asset management institutions → financing in the public market → allocating funds to BTC → providing investors with non-custodial on-chain asset exposure. This model attracts both institutions and retail investors; however, differences in leverage, accounting standards, and governance criteria pose potential risks. The core risks focus on two points:

1. NAV premium collapse crisis: Galaxy research points out that companies like Metaplanet often trade at 2-3 times their net asset value (NAV). Investors pay a premium to gain exposure to BTC and participate in financing cycle rights (such as market price issuance of ATMs). Matthew Sigel, head of digital asset research at VanEck, warns: "When stock prices fall to NAV, issuance shifts from strategy to bloodletting." If the premium disappears, the growth flywheel relying on "financing → buying coins → pushing up single stock BTC content" will collapse.
2. Debt maturity wall pressure: Companies generally finance coin purchases through convertible bonds, with a maturity scale reaching $12.8 billion before 2028. Analysts warn that when the debt ratio exceeds 30%, a 20% drop in BTC price could trigger defaults. MicroStrategy (now Strategy), Marathon Digital, and others face refinancing risks. On the policy level, the 21 member economies of APEC issued the "Ministerial Statement on Digital and AI" in July, emphasizing the need to build a framework of "trust and security" for emerging digital financial models. The Hong Kong Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau clearly encourages traditional institutions to "participate in the virtual asset market through compliant channels," while Japan and Singapore have reinforced disclosure requirements, and Southeast Asia has left some regulatory gray areas.

The sustainability of growth is in doubt, and market fluctuations may amplify risks.

Motivations for companies entering the market are diverging: some companies view BTC as a financing tool (such as American Bitcoin leveraging political resources to expand in Asia); while micro-cap companies attract speculative funds with the "treasury" label. Industry reports indicate that consultant agreements have "incentive mismatches": "Asset management parties can collect fees regardless of performance, which may encourage excessive risk-taking." Historical lessons are worth being vigilant about: Although the current scale far exceeds the first wave led by MicroStrategy in 2020, the risk characteristics are similar to the retail-driven bubble of 2021—price momentum obscures fundamental risks. When market conditions reverse, shareholder pressure and quarterly performance requirements may force companies to sell BTC, amplifying market volatility. BeInCrypto's analysis in August pointed out: "Bitcoin treasury companies have demonstrated the ability to trigger widespread market sell-offs, shake confidence, and deepen the bear market."

Conclusion

The wave of corporate asset holding is reshaping the on-chain asset allocation ecosystem, injecting tens of billions of dollars of institutional liquidity into Bitcoin. However, the surge in participants and complex financial engineering are turning individual asset strategies into systemic risk variables. APEC regulatory coordination and regional policy differences will determine the survival form of the "on-chain treasury" model in Asia. For newcomers, the ability to balance NAV premium maintenance, debt management, and regulatory compliance will be crucial for navigating through the cyclical challenges. The conclusion of this experiment may redefine the symbiotic relationship between corporate balance sheets and the crypto market.