Under the same narrative label, Metaplanet and BoYa Interactive have been categorized by Chinese encrypted media as "Bitcoin treasury companies" with Bitcoin as their core asset, yet in 2026, they have taken two nearly opposite market paths: on one side, Metaplanet stirred up a trust controversy surrounding governance structure and equity incentives - starting with the incentive plan established in December 2022, originally equating to a reward pool of 20% of fully diluted equity, to issues of insufficient transparency and the relationship with shareholder MMXX Ventures being brought to the forefront, culminating in CEO Simon Gerovich having to issue a public statement on September 8, 2026, admitting to inadequate information disclosure and explaining that his role in MMXX's parent company is merely "a significant but non-controlling shareholder" and does not participate in trading decisions, yet the controversy has not fully subsided; on the other side, BoYa Interactive, with ample idle cash generated from operations, chose to publicly increase their holdings to strengthen its "Bitcoin treasury" positioning - from June 24 to September 4, 2026, they gradually bought approximately 205 BTC, spending around HKD 110 million (about USD 14.3 million), increasing their holdings to approximately 4,316 BTC, and maintaining relative clarity regarding data disclosure and sources of funds. Both listed companies, similarly labeled as "Bitcoin treasury companies," are betting on Bitcoin in asset allocation, yet their distinct market narratives stem from differences in corporate governance and information transparency, raising an increasingly sharp question: whether Bitcoin can become a long-term core asset on companies' balance sheets depends not just on price and macro cycles, but also on the extent to which management is willing to exchange verifiable governance norms for market trust in their treasury strategies.

Incentive Plan and Relationship with MMXX: The Starting Point of Governance Controversy

The true spark igniting the governance controversy at Metaplanet is an arrangement planted as early as December 2022 - the Series 10 stock option incentive plan. According to a single source, this plan was initially designed as a reward pool equivalent to 20% of the company's fully diluted equity, which is a staggering amount of "shadow equity" for any listed company. With Metaplanet being labeled a "Bitcoin treasury company" by Chinese encrypted media and operating under the narrative framework of holding Bitcoin as a core asset, such a large proportion of potential dilution is naturally interpreted by the market as management reserving space for future control and incentive boundaries, thus making them particularly sensitive to details of information disclosure and the logic of benefit distribution.

One of the core controversies revolves around the relationship between this incentive plan and shareholder MMXX Ventures. The outside questioning is not simply whether to implement an incentive, but rather asking: does this 20% fully diluted equity corresponding to the rights place any special arrangements related to MMXX, and to what extent does the company explain this relationship to the market? Until September 8, 2026, Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich publicly acknowledged that information disclosure was insufficient regarding the Series 10 stock option arrangement and the structure of MMXX, adding that he is only a "significant but non-controlling shareholder" of MMXX’s parent company and does not participate in MMXX's trading decisions. However, according to a single source, some shareholders were not satisfied with this response, believing key issues have not been sufficiently addressed, and thus viewed the Series 10 option plan as a test to see if this "Bitcoin treasury company" can exchange a higher level of governance transparency for market trust.

Admitting Inadequate Disclosure but Denying Manipulation: Simon's Subtle Position

In the public statement on September 8, 2026, Simon Gerovich opted for a posture between admitting fault and distancing himself from responsibility. He acknowledged that the company "did not do enough" in the design explanation of the Series 10 stock option incentive plan, particularly regarding the scale of the reward pool, dilution effects, and the relationship with shareholder MMXX Ventures, failing to provide the market with sufficiently clear explanations; he also recognized the previous lack of disclosure about the specific organizational structure of MMXX, making it difficult for outsiders to gauge the company's true weight in Metaplanet's governance. This acknowledgment does not directly assign blame to "manipulation," but rather serves as a technical self-review of the superficial issue of information opacity, meant to respond to market pressure without addressing deeper allegations of conflicts of interest.

Following this, he drew a boundary between his personal equity and role to distance himself from the core of the controversy. Simon emphasized in the statement that he is merely a "significant but non-controlling shareholder" of MMXX's parent company, lacking control and not participating in MMXX's specific trading decisions, implying that even if the arrangements between Metaplanet and MMXX are questioned, he himself is not one of the "designers" or "executors" behind the scenes. However, according to a single source, some shareholders do not accept this narrative, arguing that amidst inadequate information disclosure, merely stating "significant but non-controlling" is not enough to dispel concerns over potential related transactions and the fairness of the incentive pool distribution, let alone restore confidence in the board structure and decision-making processes of this "Bitcoin treasury company." This subtle position of acknowledging disclosure issues while denying manipulative responsibility highlights the embarrassing situation at Metaplanet of having insufficient transparency in key equity arrangements coexisting with governance trust gaps.

BoYa Interactive Continuously Acquires Bitcoin with Idle Cash

In contrast to Metaplanet's path of controversy over equity incentives and related structures, BoYa Interactive chose the most direct way to explain its stance on Bitcoin to the market: using cash generated from its operations to buy in the open market, transaction by transaction. From June 24 to September 4, 2026, in less than three months, BoYa Interactive gradually purchased about 205 BTC, investing a total of approximately HKD 110 million, equivalent to around USD 14.3 million. This was not a one-time financial maneuver but a buying trajectory that can be clearly traced in announcements.

More critically, this round of increase was explicitly stated by the company as "using idle cash generated from business operations," which means utilizing liquid funds from its core gaming operations for Bitcoin allocation, rather than relying on debt or complex structural arrangements. This ongoing practice of switching positions with operating cash flow has resulted in BoYa Interactive's Bitcoin holdings reaching approximately 4,316 BTC as of September 4, 2026, creating a considerable single asset exposure on the balance sheet, and firmly placing itself in the narrative camp of "listed companies related to the Bitcoin treasury model": maintaining normal business turnover while disciplinedly converting surplus cash into on-chain tokens, participating in the long-term game of Bitcoin treasury with verifiable buying records instead of conceptual packaging.

Both are Bitcoin Treasuries: Diverging Paths of Increasing Holdings and Controversy

Upon being labeled "listed companies related to Bitcoin treasury," Metaplanet and BoYa Interactive have walked completely different narrative paths within the same time window. On one side is Metaplanet's controversy surrounding the insufficient disclosure of the Series 10 stock option incentive plan and the relationship with shareholder MMXX Ventures: originally designed as a reward pool equivalent to 20% of fully diluted equity, it is now seen as an amplifier of governance risk due to information opacity. On September 8, 2026, CEO Simon Gerovich publicly acknowledged that the company did not provide adequate explanations about the incentive arrangements and MMXX's organizational structure while emphasizing that he is merely a "significant but non-controlling shareholder" of MMXX's parent company and does not participate in MMXX's trading decisions, but some shareholders still believe that key doubts have not been genuinely dismantled and remain skeptical about whether management has other layouts behind the Bitcoin treasury narrative. On the other side, BoYa Interactive acquired approximately 205 BTC in segments between June 24 and September 4, using idle cash generated from business operations, with a total consideration of around HKD 110 million, and simultaneously disclosed its latest holding of approximately 4,316 BTC, placing the sources of funds, buying pace, and position size in the sunlight, making "increasing Bitcoin holdings" appear more like a trackable strategy in the market than an abstract concept.

This contrast clearly exposes the core vulnerabilities of the Bitcoin treasury model: when a company actively chooses to concentrate surplus value on on-chain assets, any gaps in governance transparency will be magnified by the market into trust risks. The more aggressively the asset allocation story is told, the more investors will question who controls the authorization, who shares the appreciation, and who bears the consequences of dilution and related transactions; if these questions remain unclear, Bitcoin will shift from a "joint betting chip" to suspicions about whether management is designing an exit for themselves. Metaplanet's current predicament is that the narrative of the Bitcoin treasury is offset by equity incentives and related party structures, making the treasury itself a backdrop for governance disputes; BoYa Interactive, on the other hand, has temporarily aligned the stories of asset allocation and corporate governance by maintaining a continuous, verifiable record of increases and clear funding explanations, allowing the market to see a relatively understandable decision and responsibility allocation mechanism when assessing its Bitcoin exposure risks.

The Cost of Transparency: The Next Step for Bitcoin Treasury Companies

The differentiation between Metaplanet and BoYa Interactive essentially answers the same question: when a company places Bitcoin at the center of its asset narrative, how will the market price "transparency." On Metaplanet's side, the Series 10 stock option incentive plan was originally equivalent to a pool of 20% of fully diluted equity, yet it still lacks public details on specific terms, exercise prices, and the number issued; the specific trading interactions between MMXX Ventures and the company, along with Simon's stake in MMXX's parent, remain opaque, and even when he emphasizes in the September 8, 2026 statement that he is a "significant but non-controlling shareholder" who does not participate in trading decisions, some shareholders still view this information void as a governance risk premium. This implies that any further disclosure regarding the execution of the incentive plan, the structure of MMXX, and decision-making boundaries will directly change the valuation discount and narrative credibility of Metaplanet as a "Bitcoin treasury company." In contrast, BoYa Interactive, from June 24 to September 4, 2026, used idle cash generated from business operations to gradually purchase approximately 205 BTC with a total cost of about HKD 110 million, openly laying out the sources of funds, quantities, and its latest holding of approximately 4,316 BTC, yet has yet to disclose the specific average purchase price, forcing external analysts to base their assessments on existing data rather than self-created pricing models; moving forward, its performance in board operations, information disclosure, and risk management will be as important as whether it continues to increase its holdings. Together, both aspects will shape its long-term image and market recognition as a Bitcoin treasury company, while Bitcoin itself is merely an asset being repriced under this governance coordinate system.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/en-US/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

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。