On January 19, Eastern Standard Time, Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) disclosed its investment of approximately $2.13 billion to acquire 22,305 bitcoins between January 12 and 18, reigniting market sentiment. According to the company's disclosures and statistics from several media outlets, the average purchase price for this round of accumulation was approximately $95,284 per coin. Combined with historical buying records, Strategy currently holds approximately 709,715 BTC, with a total cost of about $53.92 billion, translating to an average cost of about $75,979 per coin. With the approval of Bitcoin spot ETFs, allowing institutions to gain direct exposure to Bitcoin prices through fund channels, the choice of a traditional publicly listed company to continue heavily investing on its balance sheet and further increase exposure at high price levels raises questions about the reasonableness of this decision, becoming the core focus of the controversy surrounding this round of accumulation.

700,000 Coin Milestone and Balance Sheet Reconstruction

The transition of Strategy from a corporate software company to one centered around Bitcoin as a core asset has been ongoing for several years. Initially, the company entered the market with the narrative of "digital gold" and anti-inflation assets, investing part of its cash and financing proceeds into Bitcoin. Over multiple cycles, through several rounds of accumulation, it gradually reshaped its balance sheet, originally dominated by enterprise software business, into a portfolio highly correlated with Bitcoin prices. After this round of accumulation, according to public data, Strategy holds approximately 709,715 BTC, with a historical total investment cost of about $53.92 billion, corresponding to an average purchase cost of $75,979 per coin. This figure not only constitutes a structural reshaping of the risk-return characteristics of the company's overall balance sheet but also marks a new market milestone in absolute terms—officially surpassing 700,000 BTC held by a single publicly listed company. In the absence of real-time market price data, it is impossible to accurately calculate and disclose its current unrealized gains and losses; investors can only compare the aforementioned average cost with the current public market prices to judge the position of this "Bitcoin reserve" on paper.

High-Level Accumulation and Cost Curve Elevation

● Cost Elevation Comparison: The accumulation from January 12 to 18 had a single purchase average price of approximately $95,284 per coin, which is significantly higher than Strategy's historical average cost of $75,979 per coin, indicating a clear elevation in the cost range for this round of accumulation, reflecting the company's risk preference to decisively expand its position at higher price levels.
● Time Dimension Context: Considering the holding cost background of approximately $75,026 per coin at the beginning of 2026 provided in research reports, the price range for this round of accumulation is already well above the overall holding level at the beginning of the year, meaning that after the company's book cost has clearly increased, it continues to add positions at higher price levels.
● Cost Curve Impact: With total holdings reaching the 700,000 coin level, continuing to accumulate at nearly $100,000 per coin will marginally elevate the overall cost curve, making the company's Bitcoin asset portfolio more sensitive to price fluctuations concentrated in the high range, thus raising the future breakeven point.
● Price Difference Measurement Constraints: Due to the current lack of authoritative data supporting real-time Bitcoin price ranges, the potential price difference between the average purchase price and the current price, as well as the derived unrealized gains and losses, can only be estimated by readers based on public market conditions; related figures should not be speculated or simply extrapolated.

Continuation of Company-Level Bitcoin Strategy in the ETF Era

The approval of Bitcoin spot ETFs is seen as a key threshold for traditional institutional funds to enter this asset class on a large scale and in compliance. From a pathway perspective, institutions can gain exposure to Bitcoin prices by subscribing to ETF products without directly holding private keys or participating in on-chain operations. However, Strategy's large-scale accumulation indicates that the direct holding path at the company level has not retreated due to the advent of the ETF era. On the contrary, the market's focus on this operation is amplifying its demonstrative effect on the logic of ETF fund entry. On one hand, ETFs provide a "fund-based" allocation sample for traditional funds; on the other hand, Strategy demonstrates another institutional participation method by incorporating Bitcoin into its balance sheet and using company equity as a secondary market vehicle. For traditional publicly listed companies, direct holding means a high exposure of the asset side to the volatility of a single major asset, while also bearing higher pressure in accounting treatment, regulatory communication, and market expectation management. In contrast, ETF allocation offers more flexibility in liquidity management, asset diversification, and daily valuation. Therefore, Strategy's choice to strengthen its company-level heavy investment in Bitcoin during the ETF era is seen by many market participants as a signal to other listed companies: whether to incorporate Bitcoin into the balance sheet, gain indirect exposure through ETFs in asset management, or continue to observe, will become a necessary consideration in corporate capital allocation decisions in the near future.

Sample of Traditional Capital's Indirect Exposure

Behind Strategy, traditional financial capital is also adjusting its Bitcoin-related exposure structure. According to public reports, BlackRock's PFF ETF holds approximately $380 million in Strategy preferred shares, which constitutes a typical example of traditional asset management institutions being indirectly exposed to Bitcoin price fluctuations. By holding Strategy preferred shares, the PFF ETF does not directly hold Bitcoin or spot ETF shares, but the underlying asset value already embeds the price sensitivity of Strategy's massive Bitcoin holdings. This path presents distinctly different characteristics in the transmission of returns and risks compared to directly holding Bitcoin or ETFs: on one hand, preferred shares typically have a relatively prioritized dividend and repayment order in the company's capital structure, theoretically providing traditional institutions with some downside protection when sharing the upside dividends related to Bitcoin; on the other hand, the price of preferred shares will still be influenced by Strategy's operational status, financing costs, corporate governance, and overall equity market fluctuations, with Bitcoin price being just one important but not the only variable. For traditional institutions, holding Strategy equity compared to directly holding Bitcoin or ETFs constitutes a completely different distribution of returns and risks in terms of asset pricing logic, regulatory attributes, and risk diversification, which explains why some institutions choose to participate in this round of Bitcoin assetization process indirectly through "holding shares."

Comparison of Family Funds and Company Heavy Holdings

Regarding how traditional capital allocates crypto assets, there are also typical examples of family funds in the market. According to a single source report, about one-fifth of the Trump family's approximately $6.8 billion wealth is allocated to crypto assets, a piece of information that awaits further verification from more channels. Even without extending too much on specific figures, this case forms an interesting juxtaposition with Strategy's Bitcoin heavy holdings at the company level: the former more represents the allocation decisions of family offices and high-net-worth individuals in private wealth management, while the latter reflects a proactive reconstruction of the balance sheet structure by a publicly listed company within the framework of the public capital market. Family funds typically face looser regulatory constraints and information disclosure obligations, allowing for more flexible adjustments based on individual or family risk preferences, asset inheritance planning, and political-economic judgments, with their market signals often leaning towards expressions of sentiment and preferences at the "wind direction" level. In contrast, publicly listed companies must fulfill information disclosure obligations under the securities regulatory framework, subject to multiple supervision from shareholders, auditing institutions, and regulatory bodies, with their risk preferences constrained by board structure, financing environment, and stock price performance. This difference means that when family funds and publicly listed companies simultaneously make high allocations to crypto assets, the latter is often interpreted in the market as a choice with stronger signal intensity, greater complexity in sustainability, and more intricate constraints.

Key Observational Dimensions After Heavy Holdings

In the era of Bitcoin spot ETFs, Strategy continues to choose to place Bitcoin at the core of its balance sheet through ongoing large-scale accumulation. This action not only strengthens the high correlation between the company's stock price and Bitcoin price, providing shareholders with more leveraged upside and downside exposure but also boosts overall market sentiment, reinforcing the narrative that "institutions are still betting real money on Bitcoin's long-term value." It is important to emphasize that there is currently insufficient information to make any definitive judgment on the sustainability of Strategy's future holdings, nor should passive reductions or extreme scenarios be extrapolated in the absence of data support. A more cautious approach is to qualitatively assess this heavy holding strategy from dimensions such as its risk tolerance, funding source structure, and capital market acceptance. For market participants attempting to interpret Strategy's actions, at least three dimensions are worth continuous tracking: first is the cost curve, including changes in historical average costs and new position costs over time and their impact on the breakeven point; second is the financing dependence, i.e., whether the company will need to provide ongoing funding support for its Bitcoin positions through bond issuance, additional share offerings, or other means in the future, and the potential impact on equity dilution and debt structure; third is the long-term narrative surrounding Bitcoin, including macro liquidity cycles, regulatory environment evolution, and ETF product development, which support the company's strategic logic of insisting on Bitcoin as a core reserve asset. Only by forming clearer judgments on these three dimensions can the market more comprehensively understand the true meaning behind Strategy's multi-billion dollar bet on Bitcoin.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits 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。