Key Highlights
- Michael Saylor said Bitcoin treasury companies do not necessarily compete for the same pool of capital.
- His framework divides the market into Digital Capital, Digital Credit, and Digital Equity.
- Strategy’s STRC and Strive’s SATA fall under Digital Credit in his framework.
Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor has argued that the growing number of Bitcoin treasury companies does not necessarily mean they are competing for the same investors.
In a September 30 article on X, Saylor grouped Bitcoin-related investment products into three categories: Digital Capital, Digital Credit, and Digital Equity. The framework comes as public companies increasingly use different financing structures to build Bitcoin-heavy balance sheets, including common shares, preferred securities, and debt.
Saylor’s three-part framework
Under Saylor’s framework, Bitcoin represents Digital Capital, preferred securities such as Strategy’s STRC and Strive’s SATA fall under Digital Credit, while common shares of Bitcoin treasury companies represent Digital Equity.
Saylor said each category serves a different investment objective.
“Digital Credit competes for income allocations.”
He described Bitcoin as a longer-term capital allocation asset and common equity as an instrument linked more directly to company growth.
The categorization reflects Saylor’s view of how the market can be segmented rather than an independent measure of investor demand for each type of asset.
Saylor says treasury firms can benefit from a larger market
Saylor’s view was also reflected in his repost of commentary from Alexis Nakamoto, which described his position as supporting the growth of other Bitcoin treasury and credit issuers.
The repost said Saylor wants Strive and other well-managed Bitcoin credit issuers to succeed, arguing that greater adoption and outside capital could expand the overall Bitcoin treasury market.
The commentary described this as a shared Bitcoin foundation rather than a market in which every treasury company must compete directly for the same investors.
Saylor’s repost does not establish that the companies will benefit equally from such growth, but it provides additional context for his argument that different Bitcoin-linked securities can serve different parts of the capital market.
SIFMA data shows size of traditional markets
Saylor also compared the Bitcoin treasury market with the broader global capital markets. Citing data from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), he put global equity market capitalization at approximately $157.8 trillion at the end of 2025.
Global fixed-income debt outstanding stood at approximately $160.7 trillion, according to the same data. The figures describe the size of existing equity and debt markets and do not indicate how much capital could flow into Bitcoin-related investments.
Saylor’s comparison instead supports his argument that different Bitcoin-linked securities can be aimed at different parts of the wider investment market.
Strategy uses several financing structures
Strategy’s capital structure provides an example of the distinction Saylor outlined. The company has financed its Bitcoin purchases through common equity, convertible debt, and preferred securities.
Its STRC preferred stock differs from MSTR common stock in both its position within the company’s capital structure and its potential return profile. STRC is structured around dividend payments, while MSTR represents common equity.
Strategy introduced its Digital Credit Capital Framework in June as part of its approach to preferred securities and related financing. The company said its preferred securities raised approximately $7.53 billion during the first half of 2026.
These instruments give investors different forms of exposure to Strategy’s Bitcoin-heavy balance sheet, with differences in income, seniority, equity participation, and risk.
Strive’s STRC investment shows cross-holdings
Saylor also pointed to Strive’s $50 million investment in STRC as an example of one Bitcoin treasury company investing in another company’s securities. Strive operates its own Bitcoin treasury strategy while holding Strategy’s preferred stock.
The transaction illustrates that companies pursuing Bitcoin treasury strategies can also participate in each other’s financing structures, rather than relying exclusively on direct Bitcoin purchases or their own equity issuance.
Bitcoin holdings do not tell the whole story
Comparisons between Bitcoin treasury companies often focus on metrics such as mNAV, which compares a company’s market value with the value of its Bitcoin holdings.
That measure does not capture the entire capital structure.
Debt, preferred securities, cash reserves, financing costs, share issuance, and dilution can all affect the value and risk of common equity.
As a result, two companies with similar Bitcoin holdings can have materially different financial structures and different levels of exposure for common shareholders.
Strategy reported approximately 846,000 BTC in its second-quarter results, alongside its debt, and preferred-security obligations.
Bitcoin treasury exposure takes several forms
The expansion of Bitcoin treasury companies has created several ways for investors to gain exposure to corporate Bitcoin strategies. These include direct ownership of Bitcoin, preferred securities designed around income and seniority, and common shares of companies whose balance sheets are heavily weighted toward BTC.
Saylor’s framework treats these instruments separately based on their role within the capital structure.
Demand for each category will depend on factors including Bitcoin’s price, financing costs, liquidity, dividend terms, dilution, and the structure of individual securities.
The range of financing options means Bitcoin treasury companies can raise capital through different instruments while providing investors with different forms of exposure to Bitcoin-related balance sheets.
Also Read: Polymarket Rolls Out Self-Exclusion, Deposit Limits in New Trust & Safety Push
