According to a recent study by crypto investment firm Keyrock on July 10, Bitcoin fund managers only account for 0.59% of daily BTC price volatility.
The report indicates that Bitcoin fund managers have a very minimal impact on price volatility despite holding a total of 847,000 BTC, equivalent to about 4% of the total Bitcoin supply.
Keyrock's report is based on data from public and private companies that disclose their Bitcoin holdings in financial reports or legal filings.
In this regard, Strategy, the company holding the largest amount of Bitcoin, controlled more than 1% of the total BTC supply. Interestingly, in Q2 2024, the amount of Bitcoin held by companies increased by over 159,000 tokens, marking the highest quarterly increase to date.
However, the report shows that this has little effect on the short-term market volatility of Bitcoin, and there is no significant correlation between purchasing tokens and the price trend of the leading asset. Most companies act as long-term holders and do not frequently move BTC.
Therefore, Bitcoin, held in corporate treasuries, does not affect trading behavior or market dynamics. Price volatility is still driven by the spot market, ETP products, derivatives, and retail activity. Treasury growth, while a positive sign, does not translate into volatility or upward price pressure.
High premium charge
Meanwhile, the new report shows that publicly traded companies holding large Bitcoin reserves often trade at a premium higher than the actual value of this asset.
MicroStrategy is currently leading with a premium charge of 91.3% over the market value of the Bitcoin held. This means investors have to pay $191 for every $100 invested in Bitcoin through the company's stock.
Other fund management companies also show a similar premium charge, ranging from 20% to 60%, depending on the market cycle and investor demand. This premium reflects that company stocks with exposure to Bitcoin are priced higher than the value of the assets they hold.
The report tracked several companies with publicly disclosed Bitcoin holdings and found that stock prices are consistently overvalued compared to the underlying assets. This trend persists even when Bitcoin is flat or declining.
The company notes that this premium charge fluctuates independently of Bitcoin prices. They often react faster to market sentiment, news, or speculation. The premium decreases sharply during price drops but increases again during price rises.
The gap between stock prices and BTC value indicates a cost differential when investors use stock from companies to invest in Bitcoin.
Although treasury bills may seem passive, the stock prices of companies are not. As of July 2025, MicroStrategy remains the company that is overvalued compared to the amount of Bitcoin they hold. The report does not name all the companies reviewed but confirms that this model is very common.
Most BTC treasuries are not used as collateral.
Interestingly, the report also highlights why Bitcoin held by companies may not significantly impact price volatility, noting that most of this BTC is inactive.
The report confirms that most holdings are stored offline and are not used as collateral or in financial products.
Companies holding BTC rarely use their reserves for lending purposes, strategic yield generation, or derivative products. Their internal rules and custody structures limit the use of assets in operations, meaning that although companies hold large amounts of BTC, they are not used to create leverage or liquidity.
Keyrock notes that only a small percentage of treasury assets are moved or deployed after acquisition. Most remain unchanged, even during periods of market volatility.
This approach helps safeguard holdings but also limits strategic flexibility. Treasury companies do not benefit from yields or lending profits, even as other platforms generate revenue from actively using BTC.
However, the report notes that unless these companies take adaptive measures, they may lose market share to organizations with more dynamic strategies, as treasury growth without creating use cases is not the best way to maximize financial resources.