In early February in the East Eight Time Zone, the corporate entity Strategy made another move between February 9 and 16, purchasing approximately 168.4 million dollars worth of 2,486 BTC, continuing its high-frequency accumulation trend over the past few years. At the time of this transaction, Bitcoin prices were already at historically high levels, yet this did not weaken the company's financial strategy of viewing BTC as a "core asset." According to a single source, its latest holdings have reached 717,131 BTC, representing approximately 3.41% of the total Bitcoin supply based on the disclosed total cost of 5.452 billion dollars and historical average cost of 76,027 dollars, resulting in a very high concentration of shares. A persistent question regarding this action is: why do companies continue to increase their holdings, deeply tying their balance sheets to Bitcoin's long-term trends while prices are high and volatility remains intense? This tension between obsession and market volatility is intensifying.
710,000 Chips in Hand: Whale Concentration Position Game
● Capital and chip volume: Based on the latest data, Strategy currently holds approximately 717,131 BTC, corresponding to a disclosed total cost of about 5.452 billion dollars. The average purchase price for the newly added 2,486 BTC was 67,710 dollars, completed during a high volatility period from February 9 to 16. According to this average price, this move appears more like an additional "top-off" after breaking past previous price ranges, continuing the approach of integrating Bitcoin into the core asset side of the company's balance sheet.
● Cost dilution effect: Prior to this increase, the historical average holding price reported by a single source was 76,027 dollars, while the newly purchased average was 67,710 dollars, significantly lower than the average cost of existing holdings, further diluting the overall holding cost. Although the exact position and cost structure before the increase were not disclosed, based on hundreds of thousands of BTC, the impact of adding 2,486 BTC on the nominal average price is limited but clear in direction — each additional purchase below the historical average cost allows for a larger buffer against long-term volatility.
● Chip concentration pattern: Based on an estimated single source of approximately 3.41% of the total Bitcoin supply, Strategy has become one of the most influential enterprise-level holders on the blockchain, forming a highly concentrated position in a limited asset of 21 million coins. This concentration means: on one hand, its continued purchases provide stable bulk demand for the spot market; on the other hand, large holdings also invisibly amplify the systemic impact of a single enterprise's decision, and should a reduction in holdings or adjustment of the balance sheet occur in the future, it could potentially disrupt price expectations and market sentiment.
● Data metrics and interpretation boundaries: It should be emphasized that the information regarding 3.41% share and part of the historical average cost mainly comes from a single statistical source, with details still needing multi-party cross-validation. Due to prudence, such data is better suited as a reference for observing the trend of chip concentration rather than as hard inputs for precise valuation or risk models, as over-relying on a single source for derivative inference could overstate a single entity's decisive weight on the overall network supply.
From DDC to Bank ETF: Forking of Institutional Paths
● Comparison of smaller volumes: During the same period, another corporate entity DDC Enterprise only increased its holdings by approximately 80 BTC, with a total holding of 2,068 BTC, sharply contrasting with Strategy in terms of absolute volume and pace of accumulation. DDC's operations resemble more of a "gradual trial" — maintaining limited exposure to Bitcoin assets while controlling risk exposure, rather than restructuring the balance sheet with a significant concentrated allocation. This also reflects a more conservative and step-by-step approach typically taken by small and medium enterprises when facing BTC.
● Banks preferring ETFs: Unlike companies that directly hold coins, traditional banks tend to obtain Bitcoin exposure indirectly through regulated financial products like ETFs. Public information shows that the Italian banking giant Intesa Sanpaolo currently holds approximately 96 million dollars in Bitcoin ETFs, aligning with accounting treatments and compliance frameworks closer to traditional securities investments. For these institutions, ETFs are easier to incorporate into existing systems regarding custody, safety, internal compliance review, and capital usage, making them significantly more "institution-friendly" than directly buying and holding BTC.
● Accounting and regulatory considerations: Companies directly holding BTC face asset impairment tests, immediate impacts from price fluctuations on financial statements, as well as non-traditional risks, such as custody security and private key management, with accounting often viewed as intangible or long-term assets. Fluctuations will be reflected through asset impairment in profit and loss. In contrast, holding through ETFs can integrate into existing financial asset classification systems, with mature rules regarding regulatory capital, liquidity ratio assessments, and audit disclosures, significantly lowering the explanation costs for the board and regulatory bodies.
● Chain of capital transmission: Multiple pathways of participation are reconstructing the flow of funds into Bitcoin — corporate direct holdings increase the "dead warehouse" on-chain and long-term locked chips, while banks and asset management institutions allocate through ETFs, amplifying demand for financial derivatives linked to the BTC price in traditional securities markets. The former strengthens the tightening effect on spot supply, while the latter quickly switches increased funds between spot, futures, and options via mechanisms such as ETF subscriptions/redemptions and futures hedging, forming a more complex secondary market and derivative market fund transmission network.
VC Retreat and Accelerated Financialization: The Next Narrative After DeFi
● New funds targeting financialization: In the primary market, the leading crypto fund Dragonfly Capital has established a new fund with a scale of 650 million dollars, publicly emphasizing an inclination towards fintech and financialization of crypto assets. This contrasts with the earlier approach focused on broad investments in public chains, infrastructure, and application layers; the new fund emphasizes how to build various financial products and services around mainstream assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum, highlighting the idea of "creating finance around existing assets."
● Clearing and migration: Accompanied by market sentiments stating "the blockchain venture capital industry is undergoing large-scale clearance," many early projects face valuation corrections and financing obstacles, pushing VCs to migrate from high-risk, long-cycle infrastructure projects to financial applications closer to cash flows and institutional needs. This migration indicates that capital no longer seeks to reshape an entire new technology stack but is more willing to create "overlay layers" on existing mainstream assets, enhancing asset turnover efficiency and yields through trading, custody, compliance structures, and financial engineering.
● Capital path redistribution: Against this backdrop, VC funding is likely to shift from supporting new public chains and new token issuances towards positioning related to BTC in areas such as custody, market-making, lending, derivatives trading, and compliance services. On one hand, it serves the coin-holding needs of companies like Strategy and DDC; on the other hand, it also provides infrastructure support for banks and family offices entering through ETFs or structured products, thereby bringing more traditional capital into the financial system built around BTC.
● Bitcoin's evolution into a "financial base asset": When one side sees corporate whales like Strategy continually increasing their spot purchases and the other side sees VCs like Dragonfly directing resources to financialization tracks, Bitcoin is being rewritten as a "financial base asset" — no longer just a speculative target or payment tool, but a core collateral for various structured products like trusts, ETFs, futures, and yield certificates. The accumulation of chips and financialization combine, bringing its role in global asset allocation closer to "programmable gold," while also raising the complexity of constructing financial leverage and risk transmission chains around its volatility.
Obsession in Volatility: Is High-Level Accumulation Belief or Hedge?
● Nominal risk exposure: Using 717,131 BTC and historical average price of 76,027 dollars for rough estimation, Strategy's nominal holding scale exhibits a high linear relationship with price; at the current 67,710 dollars accumulation range, its paper loss and gain can showcase fluctuations in the tens of billions of dollars in elasticity with price changes. From the position volume perspective, the company has effectively bound a considerable proportion of its balance sheet to a single asset, Bitcoin, with tolerable drawdown ranges depending on its financing structure, cash flow, and shareholder risk appetite.
● Amplified statement volatility: Positioning Bitcoin as a "core asset financial strategy," in bull markets can rapidly amplify profit statements and market performance, but during price correction periods can also sharply magnify fluctuations in net assets and earnings per share. From an accounting perspective, a decline in BTC price may trigger impairment loss recognition, while increases may not proportionally reflect in current profits, blurring the lines between a company's operational business and its financial holdings, requiring investors to evaluate both the company's core operations and its dual role as a "quasi-asset manager."
● Narrative of macro risk hedge: From the original intent of strategy design, long-term dollar-cost averaging can be packaged as a hedge against fiat currency inflation, sovereign debt risks, and concentration in tech stocks, whereby holding scarce digital assets serves to mitigate potential imbalances in the traditional financial system. Regardless of how valid this narrative is from a macroeconomic perspective, at least from a marketing and capital market communication standpoint, it offers a relatively cohesive discourse system for companies to justify high-level accumulation, making investors more willing to regard short-term volatility as "noise in a long-term allocation process."
● Emotional demonstration and single-point dependence: Continuous buying itself has become a strong narrative signal — from a bullish perspective, it reinforces optimistic expectations for "institutional bull markets" and "corporate treasury allocations," attracting other companies and funds to imitate; however, from a risk perspective, excessive reliance on continuous purchases from a few whales can make market structures more sensitive to single-point actions, and should the pace of accumulation slow down, shift to waiting, or even reduce holdings, the speed of emotional reversal may also be amplified. Whether high-level accumulation is a long-term belief or a financial engineering hedge against traditional asset risks will ultimately be validated by price cycles and the company’s financial constraints.
The Era of Corporate Whales: The Shift in Bitcoin Pricing Power
● Resonance of chip concentration and financial properties: From the direct holdings of enterprises like Strategy to banks like Intesa Sanpaolo engaging indirectly through ETFs, the chips in Bitcoin are becoming concentrated between companies and traditional financial institutions. A large amount of spot is locked in balance sheets and fund portfolios, compounded by the amplification effect of ETFs, futures, and other products, making Bitcoin increasingly resemble a financial asset priced by institutional capital rather than merely a "chain-based chip game" driven by speculative retail investors.
● Acceleration of narrative migration: The clearance and shifting at the VC level, as exemplified by Dragonfly’s 650 million dollar fund focusing on fintech and financialization, combined with continued accumulation from corporate whales, together accelerate Bitcoin's transition from a high-volatility speculative target to a base asset in global asset allocation. Infrastructure and new public chains are no longer the sole focus; constructing compliant and scalable financial products and services around BTC is becoming the new intersection of capital and narratives, with the weight of financial engineering in Bitcoin's ecosystem steadily rising.
● Key observables: Going forward, three main lines need to be closely monitored: first, the regulatory stance on large-scale corporate holdings and the expansion of overall ETF scales will determine the depth of institutionalization; second, whether entities like Strategy can maintain sustainable financing sources and costs is crucial for the continuation of their accumulation pace; third, the potential selling pressure risk from large-scale holdings in future cycles — whether macro conditions or company operations will trigger systemic reductions. The era of corporate whales has arrived, and the pricing power of Bitcoin is gradually shifting from retail investors and miners to balance sheets and fund quarterly reports.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX welfare group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance welfare group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
