The number of public companies holding Bitcoin in treasury has nearly doubled in the first half of 2025, according to K33 Research, indicating a new wave of acceptance from businesses.
The trend is expanding into Ether and some altcoins due to staking yields and ecosystem collaborations, but sustainability heavily depends on market conditions and the legal framework of each country.
MAIN CONTENT
In the first half of 2025: the number of public companies holding BTC increased from 70 to 134, totaling 244,991 BTC (K33 Research).
Divergence signals: some businesses use strategic cryptocurrency treasury, while others may be 'window dressing' short-term.
ETH attracts due to staking, programmability, and compliance roadmap; however, accounting, volatility, and legal risks remain significant.
What is happening with corporate BTC treasuries in the first half of 2025?
K33 Research notes that from December 2024 to June 2025, the number of listed companies holding BTC increased from 70 to 134, totaling 244,991 BTC, reflecting the demand for access to underlying assets through the balance sheet.
The main motivation comes from the need to diversify treasury, access scarce assets, and easily track listing mechanisms. K33's aggregated data helps standardize the overall market picture, while independent sources like BitcoinTreasuries.net provide a list of top holders for practical reference.
In the context of increasingly digital financial markets, adding BTC to treasury allows companies to express a stance on digital assets but also entails higher governance and compliance responsibilities.
Why is this trend compared to the previous corporate gold rush?
The core similarity is that businesses help investors access underlying assets that are difficult to reach directly. BTC's scarcity and global liquidity make the comparison with gold understandable.
Companies have used gold as a layer of value preservation during uncertain times. With BTC, the argument of 'digital scarce asset' creates a similar motivation, especially as custody infrastructure and disclosure standards become clearer. However, BTC's volatility is higher than gold, requiring stringent risk governance discipline.
"There are clear similarities, especially in terms of providing a means for investors to access underlying assets that were previously difficult to reach."
– Mike Foy, CFO AMINA Bank, 2025, Cointelegraph
Is the corporate crypto treasury trend sustainable?
Sustainability depends on market specifics and legal frameworks. According to Mike Foy, the first-mover advantage is clear, especially in areas with restricted institutional investment products.
Deciding factors include: maturity of custody infrastructure, accounting standards, transparency of information disclosure, and legal stability. In places where fund products/ETPs are common, businesses may choose indirect channels instead of holding directly. Conversely, areas with restricted products may encourage direct holding on the balance sheet.
Companies need a sufficiently strong internal governance framework to withstand cyclical volatility and avoid turning crypto treasury into a timing tool.
Do struggling companies use digital assets as a 'PR lifeline'?
Some cases suggest that short-term motivations can exist. Mike Foy acknowledges the temptation to 'beautify' the image with digital assets when companies are under pressure.
Investors should be cautious of flashy communication strategies lacking a foundation of risk governance or not tied to core business strategies. In such scenarios, the price volatility of digital assets may amplify financial risks instead of supporting long-term.
Carefully studying profiles, reports, and disclosures from leadership helps differentiate substantive strategy from short-term maneuvers.
What lessons does Windtree Therapeutics illustrate?
Windtree Therapeutics announced a $60 million acquisition agreement with Build and Build Corp. to initiate its BNB treasury plan, subsequently adding a $500 million equity cap and a $20 million stock purchase agreement to expand holdings.
Stocks surged in mid-July when announcing the BNB strategy but then dropped more than 90% from the peak. Nasdaq announced delisting for failing to maintain a minimum bid price of $1.00 under Listing Rule 5550(a)(2).
This case highlights the risks when a digital asset strategy does not accompany a sustainable financial foundation, and the market will quickly reflect if there is a lack of strategic consistency.
How to identify signs of short-term 'window dressing'?
Foy advises checking the risk expertise of the executive board, leverage levels, focus on core business, and insider selling. Anomalies may indicate a non-long-term strategy.
Investors should compare strategic statements with actions: risk policy, custody choices, accounting disclosures, transaction transparency, and independent audits. Discrepancies between words and actions are often an early sign of 'storytelling' rather than strategy.
A transparent risk portfolio and board approval processes are fundamental to differentiate substantive strategy.
Why are companies experimenting with Ether and altcoins for treasury?
BTC still dominates, but some companies are exploring Ether and some altcoins due to staking yields and opportunities to collaborate with blockchain foundation funds.
Potential benefits include staking rewards, on-chain application integration, and technical collaboration. However, liquidity, smart contract risks, and legal frameworks regarding staking need thorough assessment, especially for listed organizations.
"Ethereum is starting to resemble a hybrid between tech stocks and digital currency. This appeals to treasury strategies looking to go beyond passive storage."
– Ray Youssef, CEO NoOnes, 2025, Cointelegraph
What makes ETH attractive for treasury compared to BTC?
ETH stands out in programmability, staking yields, and a compliance-friendly roadmap, suitable for digital businesses. BTC, on the other hand, is strong in the scarcity narrative, simplicity, and brand positioning.
Treasury managers can use BTC as a core layer due to its simplicity and deep liquidity while exploring a small allocation with ETH for technology collaboration and yield optimization. Staking risks, asset locking, and custody control requirements should be evaluated before implementation.
The measurement framework should delineate objectives: value preservation (BTC) and innovation/collaboration (ETH), avoiding uniform expectations.
What accounting and regulatory risks must businesses consider?
Regarding IFRS, the Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) concluded that cryptocurrencies are generally classified as intangible assets unless they are inventory for sale, affecting recognition and depreciation (IFRIC Update, 6/2019, IFRS Foundation).
Regarding US GAAP, FASB issued ASU 2023-08 requiring fair value measurement and reporting gains/losses in earnings for certain cryptocurrency assets, effective 2025 (FASB, ASU 2023-08). This improves value reflection but increases reporting volatility.
Simultaneously, businesses need to comply with securities, tax, and anti-money laundering regulations in each jurisdiction; risks of custody, key loss, and internal control are critical.
Recommendations for implementing controlled cryptocurrency treasury?
Prioritize governance framework: define objectives, risk limits, board approval processes, and stress testing scenarios. Choose custodians with SOC audit standards, multi-sig policies, and strict decentralization.
Apply a stepwise approach: small pilot, assess liquidity and accounting, then scale up. Transparent disclosure: pricing policy, reporting frequency, independent audits.
Diverse access channels: direct holding or through managed products if consistent with local legal frameworks. Always cross-check with legal, audit, and risk advisors.
BTC and ETH for treasury: what are the main differences?
BTC is suitable as a core layer with its scarcity and liquidity narrative; ETH provides collaborative tools and staking yields but carries higher technical and compliance risks.
Criteria Bitcoin (BTC) Ether (ETH) Common Purpose Core layer, treasury diversification Pilot collaboration, yield optimization Intrinsic Yield No native staking Has staking, requires risk governance Ecosystem Collaboration More limited Programmability, strong developer community Accounting Framework IFRS: intangible assets; US GAAP 2025: fair value (ASU 2023-08) Similar to BTC Regulatory Risks Volatility, custody, disclosures Additional staking and smart contract risks Reference Data K33 Research, BitcoinTreasuries.net Project reports, company disclosures
What reputable sources and reference data should be monitored?
K33 Research provides a summary of companies holding BTC for H1/2025. BitcoinTreasuries.net records the top holding entities for comparison. The IFRS Foundation and FASB have published accounting guidance to help businesses standardize their reporting.
Businesses also need to monitor announcements from stock exchanges, local regulatory agencies, and audited financial reports of peer companies to set industry standards.
Source: K33 Research H1 2025 Round-up (k33.com/research/articles/h1-2025-round-up), BitcoinTreasuries.net, IFRIC Update 6/2019 (ifrs.org), FASB ASU 2023-08 (fasb.org).
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the reasonable allocation for BTC/ETH in a treasury?
Start with a small pilot and gradually increase according to the risk framework approved by the board. Avoid short-term yield expectations, prioritize custody and accounting controls.
Should ETH be staked in corporate treasury?
Should only be implemented when there is a risk policy, a compliant custodian partner, and clear legal compliance. Trade-offs between yield and the risks of locking assets, operations, and smart contracts.
Why do some stocks surge sharply when announcing crypto strategies then drop significantly?
Short-term market expectations may drive prices, but a lack of financial foundation and long-term plans will quickly be discounted. The Windtree case is a typical warning.
Where should one monitor data on companies holding BTC/ETH?
Refer to K33 Research for an overview, BitcoinTreasuries.net for a reference list, along with audited financial reports and disclosures from companies.
Is it better to hold directly or through fund products?
Depending on the legal framework and objectives. Direct holding increases control but requires high custody and compliance; fund products reduce operational burden but come with fees and limitations.
Source: https://tintucbitcoin.com/du-tru-crypto-co-thanh-phao-pr/
Thank you for reading this article!
Please Like, Comment, and Follow TinTucBitcoin to stay updated on the latest news in the cryptocurrency market and not miss any important information!
