Bitcoin Treasury Company Comparison
Compare Strategy, Metaplanet, Strive, and other Bitcoin treasury companies. Understand capital structure differences and how CEBE reveals what BPS ignores.
The Challenge: Comparing Unlike Capital Structures
Bitcoin treasury companies are not created equal. Strategy (MSTR), Metaplanet (3350), Strive (ASST), and Smarter Web Company (SWC) all hold Bitcoin, but their capital structures are fundamentally different.
A naive comparison looks like this: "Strategy has 20 BTC per share, Metaplanet has 15 BTC per share, therefore Strategy offers more Bitcoin exposure." This logic fails the moment you account for senior claims.
Strategy has issued five series of preferred equity: STRF (10% fixed, most senior), STRC (variable rate), STRE (10% EUR fixed), STRK (8% fixed, shares or cash), and STRD (10% non-cumulative, most junior). Each series has different terms, seniority, and liquidation preferences. Metaplanet has Mars preferred and Mercury convertible preferred. Strive has 10% perpetual preferred. Each company's capital stack is distinct.
Bitcoin Per Share (BPS) metrics don't account for this drag. Two companies with the same BPS can offer radically different Bitcoin exposure to common shareholders depending on how much senior equity is outstanding and what terms govern it.
Why BPS Yield Alone Is Insufficient
BPS = Total Bitcoin Holdings ÷ Outstanding Common Shares
This metric is mathematically sound but strategically incomplete. It answers: "How much Bitcoin does the company hold per share?" It does not answer: "How much Bitcoin does a common shareholder actually own after accounting for senior claims?"
Example: If Strategy holds 180,000 BTC and preferred equity has claims on 30,000 BTC, common shareholders get exposure to 150,000 BTC, not 180,000. The difference is drag, and it directly reduces common equity Bitcoin exposure.
When comparing across companies:
- Company A: 20 BTC/share, 5 BTC/share drag = 15 BTC actual common exposure
- Company B: 15 BTC/share, 1 BTC/share drag = 14 BTC actual common exposure
Company A looks better on headline BPS (20 vs 15), but common shareholders actually own nearly the same amount (15 vs 14). Without accounting for drag, investors make poor allocation decisions.
How CEBE Accounts for Capital Structure Differences
The CEBE framework -- Common Equity Bitcoin Exposure -- solves this problem by measuring what common shareholders actually own after accounting for senior claims.
CEBE calculates:
- Total Bitcoin Holdings: The company's headline BTC balance from SEC/LSE filings
- Senior Claims: Dollar value of convertible notes, preferred equity liquidation preferences, and warrant exercise values
- Drag: Senior claims ÷ total Bitcoin (at Bitcoin's current price), expressed as a percentage
- Common Equity Exposure: Total BTC holdings × (1 - drag percentage)
- Drag Compression: How fixed-dollar senior claims shrink as a percentage of total BTC as Bitcoin price appreciates
This framework accounts for the fact that preferred equity and convertible notes are fixed-dollar obligations. When Bitcoin appreciates, these fixed claims become a smaller percentage of total holdings, reducing drag over time. This drag compression is especially powerful for companies with large positions and high senior claim values.
Practical Comparison: Strategy vs Metaplanet
Let's compare two major Bitcoin treasury companies using traditional BPS metrics and CEBE analysis.
| Metric | Strategy (MSTR) | Metaplanet (3350) |
|---|---|---|
| Bitcoin Holdings | ~180,000 BTC | ~45,000 BTC |
| Preferred Equity Series | 5 series (STRF, STRC, STRE, STRK, STRD) | 2 series (Mars, Mercury) |
| Senior Claims Complexity | High (mixed terms, currencies, seniority) | Moderate (adjustable rate, convertible) |
| Drag Profile | Variable (depends on cumulative vs non-cumulative) | Moderate (4.9% convertible) |
Strategy's capital structure is more complex. STRF is fixed-rate cumulative and most senior. STRD is non-cumulative and junior. The interaction between these series creates a unique drag profile that differs materially from Metaplanet's simpler two-series structure.
A common equity investor needs to understand not just headline Bitcoin holdings but also how each senior security claims against that Bitcoin. CEBE framework does exactly that.
Key Insights for Bitcoin Treasury Investors
- Capital Structure Matters. Two companies with similar BPS can have very different common equity Bitcoin exposure. Always audit the preferred equity stack.
- Seniority Hierarchies Are Real. In a liquidation, senior claims get paid first. Strategy's STRF senior preferred would claim first against Bitcoin before STRD junior preferred or common equity. This creates risk tiers.
- Drag Compression Is Powerful. Fixed-dollar senior claims become less impactful as Bitcoin appreciates. A $100M preferred obligation is more painful when Bitcoin is $40K than when it's $70K. Investors should model drag compression in their multi-year price scenarios.
- Convertible Terms Matter. Mercury preferred is convertible, meaning it could become common equity under certain conditions. This is fundamentally different from non-convertible preferred. Read the indentures.
- Currency Risk Exists. Strategy's STRE (EUR-denominated preferred) introduces currency exposure that dollar-denominated common equity doesn't face. This is a hidden source of volatility.
See the Real Numbers
Stop estimating. View live CEBE analysis, drag calculations, and capital structure breakdowns for every Bitcoin treasury company.
Learn More
Curious about the CEBE framework in depth? Explore our full analysis:
- The CEBE Framework Explained -- Detailed breakdown of how CEBE calculates common equity Bitcoin exposure
- Why BPS Yield Misses the Point -- Research article on why headline metrics are incomplete
- Interactive Modeler -- Build your own drag and Bitcoin appreciation scenarios
- How-To Guides -- Navigate the tracker and understand each column