Why Strategy can trade at a 19 percent discount and an 8 percent premium on the same\u00a0day.<\/em><\/p>\n On 5 September 2026, the tracker BitcoinTreasuries.net showed Strategy, the world\u2019s largest corporate holder of bitcoin, trading at 0.81x mNAV<\/strong>. The same page, on the same day, also showed it at\u00a01.08x<\/strong>.\u00b9<\/a><\/p>\n One number says the market values the company at a 19 percent discount<\/strong> to the bitcoin it owns. The other says the market values it at an 8 percent premium<\/strong>. Neither is a mistake. They are two of the three formulas in circulation, all wearing the same\u00a0name.<\/p>\n Anyone trying to understand bitcoin treasury companies runs into mNAV within about five minutes and into the confusion above within about ten. What follows is an attempt to make the metric legible, including where to find the raw numbers so you never have to take a dashboard\u2019s word for\u00a0it.<\/p>\n Net asset value is a dollar amount.<\/strong> For a treasury company, it is roughly the value of the crypto it holds, plus cash, minus debt. A company with 1,000 bitcoin at $100,000 each and $20 million of debt has a NAV of $80\u00a0million.<\/p>\n mNAV is a ratio built on top of that idea.<\/strong> It divides what the market says the company is worth by what the company\u2019s crypto is\u00a0worth.<\/p>\n Notice the sleight of hand in that sentence. The denominator is the gross<\/strong> value of the crypto, not the net asset value just defined. Nothing is subtracted from it. Every argument in this piece is about the numerator, and the debt that a real NAV would net off has to be smuggled into the top of the fraction instead. Strategy says as much in its own glossary, which states that although the metric carries the label NAV, it is not net asset value in the traditional financial sense.\u00b2<\/a><\/p>\n The acronym also has two competing expansions. Bitcoin Magazine\u2019s glossary entry, the most detailed explainer currently available, defines mNAV as \u201cmarket net asset value\u201d and presents it as a per-share dollar figure. Its page also discloses that the publisher is a subsidiary of a company that is itself a bitcoin treasury vehicle, which readers can weigh as they see fit.\u00b3<\/a> Strategy, Metaplanet, and every major tracker use \u201cmultiple of net asset value\u201d and present it as a ratio.\u00b2<\/a> If the number has a dollar sign in front of it, you are looking at the first kind. If it ends in an x, you are looking at the second.<\/strong> The rest of this piece uses the\u00a0ratio.<\/p>\n The simplest\u00a0version:<\/p>\n mNAV = market capitalization \u00f7 (coins held \u00d7 spot price)<\/p>\n A company holds 1,000 bitcoin. Bitcoin is $100,000, so the crypto is worth $100 million. The company has 10 million shares trading at $12, so its market capitalization is $120\u00a0million.<\/p>\n mNAV = $120 million \u00f7 $100 million = 1.2x<\/p>\n Buyers are paying $1.20 for every dollar of bitcoin the company\u00a0owns.<\/strong><\/p>\n The number moves constantly, because both halves move independently. The stock reprices all day, and so does the coin. mNAV is a live figure, not a quarterly one.<\/p>\n Everyone agrees on the bottom half of the fraction. The argument is about the top half, and specifically about what counts as the company\u2019s value. Three answers are in common circulation, and on 5 September 2026 Strategy had all three at once: 0.81x, 0.82x and\u00a01.08x<\/strong>.\u00b9<\/a><\/p>\n Basic mNAV<\/strong> uses market capitalization, meaning today\u2019s share price multiplied by the shares that exist today. It answers a shareholder\u2019s question. If I own the common stock, what am I paying for each dollar of the company\u2019s bitcoin? Strategy\u2019s basic figure of 0.81x says the common stock was priced 19 cents below every dollar of bitcoin behind\u00a0it.<\/p>\n Fully diluted mNAV<\/strong> keeps the same idea but enlarges the share count to include shares that could exist. Employee options, warrants and convertible bonds all turn into stock under the right conditions, and each new share carves the same pile of bitcoin into thinner\u00a0slices.<\/p>\n Strategy\u2019s diluted figure of 0.82x sits almost on top of its basic figure, and the reason is worth spelling out. A convertible bond only becomes stock if the share price rises above an agreed level.<\/strong> Below that level, the conversion right is worthless, the bond stays a bond, and the company has to repay it in cash. Bonds in that state are described as out of the money<\/em>. Most of Strategy\u2019s convertibles were out of the money in September 2026, so the extra shares existed only on paper, and counting them barely moved the\u00a0ratio.<\/p>\n Enterprise-value mNAV<\/strong> widens the numerator instead of the share count. It adds total debt and the value of preferred stock, then subtracts cash, which is the standard way of asking what the whole business costs rather than what one slice of it\u00a0costs.<\/p>\n The choice of default matters because it changes what the public sees. BitcoinTreasuries.net, a widely cited public tracker of corporate bitcoin holdings, switched its default to enterprise value in June 2026. It defines the numerator as the market value of all share classes, plus total debt, plus the notional value of perpetual preferred shares, minus cash.\u00b9<\/a> Metaplanet, the Tokyo-listed company that has followed Strategy\u2019s playbook most closely, publishes a similar version on its own site: market capitalization plus total debt, divided by bitcoin\u00a0NAV.\u2074<\/a><\/p>\n The gap between the equity-only figure and the enterprise-value figure comes down to who has a claim on the coins before shareholders do<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Scale the bitcoin down to $100 to make the arithmetic readable. Enterprise value counts everything, meaning the stock plus what the company owes minus the cash it holds, and at 1.08x, the market priced all of that at $108<\/strong> against $100 of bitcoin. Basic mNAV counts only the stock, and at 0.81x the market priced the shares at\u00a0$81<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Subtract one from the other, and the difference is $27<\/strong>. The $27 is what the company owes bondholders and preferred shareholders, net of its cash. Lenders sit ahead of shareholders in the queue, so $27 of every $100 of bitcoin is spoken for before common shareholders get anything, leaving\u00a0$73<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The result is worth sitting with. The shares trade at $81 against a residual claim of roughly $73. The stock that looked like a 19 percent discount to bitcoin is, once the debt is counted, priced at about 1.11 times the bitcoin actually left for shareholders.<\/strong><\/p>\n Two things cut the other way. Preferred stock enters the enterprise-value numerator at its notional<\/strong> amount, which is what it says on the certificate rather than what it trades for, so if the preferred changes hands below par, the real senior claim is smaller than $27. And shareholders own the operating software business, which sits in neither figure. The residual is therefore somewhat larger than $73, and how much larger is exactly the question mNAV is not built to\u00a0answer.<\/p>\n The choice depends on what you are asking, and the most useful information is in the gap between them rather than in either\u00a0one.<\/p>\n Use enterprise value to judge the business.<\/strong> It asks what the market thinks the whole enterprise is worth against the coins it holds, without caring how the claims on it are divided. For comparing one treasury company to another, it is the fairer number, which is why the main public tracker adopted it as its\u00a0default.<\/p>\n Use the basic or fully diluted figure to judge the stock<\/strong>, because it describes the thing you would actually be buying. Just do not read it alone. On its own, it flatters a heavily indebted company, as the $ 81-against-$73 example above\u00a0shows.<\/p>\n Use the gap between the two to size the leverage.<\/strong> A company where the two figures nearly touch has little debt. A company where they are far apart has a lot, and the wider the gap, the more the shareholder\u2019s outcome depends on what happens to the debt rather than on what happens to\u00a0bitcoin.<\/p>\n Worth noticing what all of this implies. A treasury company with no debt, no preferred stock, and no options, warrants, or convertibles would have all three figures land on the same number.<\/strong> The whole argument exists only because these companies are leveraged, so the spread between the definitions is not really a flaw in the metric. It measures how much the company\u00a0owes.<\/p>\n A single treasury stock can look like a bargain or a bubble depending on nothing but the share count in the denominator. DefiLlama, a crypto data aggregator that publishes three share-count lenses side by side rather than picking one, showed one such stock reading either 0.06x or 5.27x<\/strong>. Both were arithmetically correct.\u2075<\/a><\/p>\n The disagreement is not confined to obscure stocks either. On 5 September 2026, two widely read trackers reported Metaplanet on the same day. BitcoinTreasuries.net had it at 0.60x<\/strong>. mnav.com had it at 1.21x<\/strong>.\u2076<\/a> One of those figures says the market values the company at a steep discount to its bitcoin, and the other says it commands a healthy premium. The likely causes are different coin counts, different share counts, yen conversion and timing, and anyone quoting one figure without the other is presenting a choice as a\u00a0fact.<\/strong><\/p>\n Convertible debt is the sharpest disagreement of all, because it can land in either half of the fraction depending on who is calculating. Many trackers treat it as equity automatically and fold it into the share count. Greg Cipolaro is Global Head of Research at NYDIG, an institutional bitcoin financial services firm, which makes his objection notable because the criticism comes from inside the bitcoin industry rather than from a skeptic outside it. He argues the automatic treatment is wrong on both accounting and economic grounds, because a holder of an out-of-the-money convertible wants cash back, not\u00a0shares.\u2077<\/a><\/p>\n The practical rule: an mNAV figure means nothing without a method and a date attached.<\/strong><\/p>\n Everything above concerns disagreements between outside trackers. There is a second problem, and it is why you should be careful with any figure a treasury company publishes about itself. Strategy has redefined mNAV twice, and both times the new definition produced a higher number than the old\u00a0one.<\/strong><\/p>\n Strategy\u2019s basic mNAV fell below 1.0x first. The company then moved to the enterprise-value definition, which folds debt and preferred stock into the numerator and therefore reports a larger figure, keeping its published mNAV above 1.0x for a while longer. Enterprise-value mNAV then crossed below 1.0x too, around late June\u00a02026.\u2078<\/a><\/p>\n On 23 July 2026<\/strong>, the company changed the formula again, this time to share price divided by net bitcoin per share. The new denominator strips out everything owed to senior claimants before counting the\u00a0bitcoin:<\/p>\n bitcoin reserve ~ $55.6 billion The $22.3 billion of convertible debt and preferred is what Strategy calls its senior claims, the money that ranks ahead of common shareholders if the company is ever wound up. A smaller denominator produces a bigger ratio, so under the new formula Strategy\u2019s mNAV read just above 1.0x, while outside trackers using the basic method still showed roughly\u00a00.68x.\u2079<\/a><\/p>\n Here is the awkward part, and it cuts against reading the change as pure spin. The new formula is the same calculation as the $ 81-against-$73 comparison earlier.<\/strong> Both put the share price over the bitcoin that survives the senior claims. The definition Strategy adopted to keep its number above 1.0x is also, arguably, the most honest of the three for a shareholder deciding what a share is worth. Whether the company arrived at it for that reason or for the number it produced is not something the filings can\u00a0settle.<\/p>\n The same notional problem applies here too, and Strategy\u2019s flagship preferred series was trading below its $100 par at the time, so the deduction is larger than the market\u2019s own view of that claim.\u00b9\u2070<\/a> Strategy\u2019s own glossary also states that figures published before and after 23 July 2026 are not comparable, so every mNAV the company put out before that date sits on a different basis from the one on its website today.<\/strong>\u00b2<\/a> A company-published mNAV and a tracker-published mNAV are not the same measurement and should never be plotted on the same\u00a0chart.<\/p>\n Strategy and Metaplanet both trade at a discount today, but for most of the last three years they did not. Understanding why the premium existed is the fastest route to understanding why it went\u00a0away.<\/p>\n If you can buy a spot bitcoin ETF, paying $1.50 for a dollar of someone else\u2019s bitcoin needs a reason. Four have been\u00a0offered.<\/p>\n A company trading above 1.0x can sell new shares, spend the proceeds on coins, and leave every existing shareholder with more bitcoin per share than they started\u00a0with.<\/p>\n What matters here is that the mechanism is circular. The premium is worth something because it can be converted into bitcoin per share, and only for as long as the premium lasts. A rising price justifies the issuance, and the issuance justifies the price, on the way up and on the way down\u00a0alike.<\/p>\n An ETF holds one dollar of bitcoin for every dollar you put in<\/strong>. A treasury company borrows, so it holds\u00a0more.<\/p>\n Say a company raises $1,000 from shareholders, borrows another $500, and spends all $1,500 on bitcoin. Your $1,000 is now backing $1,500 of\u00a0coins.<\/p>\n If bitcoin doubles, the pile is worth $3,000. The company repays the $500 it borrowed, and $2,500 is left for shareholders. You turned $1,000 into $2,500 while the ETF holder turned $1,000 into\u00a0$2,000.<\/strong><\/p>\n The same arithmetic runs the other way. If bitcoin halves, the pile is worth $750, the $500 loan still has to be repaid, and $250 is left. You lost 75 percent while the ETF holder lost 50 percent.<\/strong> Borrowed money magnifies both directions, which is the entire\u00a0trade.<\/p>\n The borrowing was also unusually cheap. Treasury companies raised most of it through convertible bonds<\/strong>, which lenders can swap for shares instead of taking cash back if the price climbs above an agreed level. The swap right is worth more the more the stock jumps around, and Treasury stocks jump around a great deal, so some of these bonds were issued at zero interest<\/strong>. Shareholders got the leverage without paying a coupon for\u00a0it.<\/p>\n Leverage does not create a premium by itself. In the example above, the market capitalization is $1,000, and the gross bitcoin is $1,500, so the basic mNAV on day one is 0.67x. Borrowing raises the denominator without raising the numerator, so leverage mechanically pushes the basic figure down<\/strong>, which is the same effect visible in Strategy\u2019s $81 against $108. What leverage justifies is paying more than a dollar for each dollar of the residual<\/em> claim. It cannot on its own explain a market capitalization above the gross value of the coins, which is what a premium\u00a0means.<\/p>\n Plenty of money is not allowed to touch crypto directly. Pension mandates, index funds, and various institutional rules block\u00a0it.<\/p>\n A treasury company is an ordinary listed stock, so it slips past those rules. Once it joins a major index, funds that track the index have to buy it whether they wanted crypto exposure or\u00a0not.<\/p>\n Analysts at JPMorgan made the same point about smaller investors, noting that Strategy shares offered bitcoin exposure to people who were barred from buying spot bitcoin ETFs.\u00b9\u00b9<\/a> A premium is what you pay for a door that is otherwise closed to\u00a0you.<\/strong><\/p>\n Once a stock is popular and volatile, other funds get built on top of it. Several exchange-traded funds exist for no purpose other than to deliver twice the daily move of Strategy\u2019s share price, and to do that they have to own the stock. Every dollar that goes into one of those funds becomes a dollar buying Strategy\u00a0shares.<\/strong><\/p>\n The amounts are not small. Analysts at JPMorgan found that those funds took in $3.4 billion in November 2024 alone<\/strong>, and credited them with much of the near 60 percent rise in Strategy\u2019s share price that month.\u00b9\u00b9<\/a> A higher share price let Strategy sell new stock on better terms and buy more bitcoin with the money. Demand for the funds fed the company, and the company\u2019s buying fed the story that made the funds popular in the first\u00a0place.<\/p>\n The flywheel stalls below 1.0x. Lenders can stop offering cheap terms. Index providers can drop the stock. Funds can shrink as fast as they grew. The premium lasted exactly as long as the reasons behind it\u00a0did.<\/strong><\/p>\n Above 1.0x, selling shares to buy coins makes every existing shareholder richer in coin terms. Below 1.0x, the same action makes them\u00a0poorer.<\/strong><\/p>\n To see it, take a company simple enough that the numbers stay clean. It holds 1,000 bitcoin<\/strong>, has no debt, and has 1,000 shares<\/strong>. Each share therefore backs exactly 1 bitcoin<\/strong>. With bitcoin at $100,000, each share is worth $100,000.<\/p>\n Now the company sells 100 new shares and spends everything it raises on bitcoin. The only difference between the two cases below is the price the shares\u00a0fetch.<\/p>\n At 1.5x mNAV<\/strong>, the market values each share at $150,000, even though only $100,000 of bitcoin sits behind\u00a0it.<\/p>\n sell 100 shares at $150,000 = $15,000,000 raised bitcoin held 1,000 \u2192 1,150 At 0.8x mNAV<\/strong>, the market values each share at $80,000, against the same $100,000 of bitcoin behind\u00a0it.<\/p>\n sell 100 shares at $80,000 = $8,000,000 raised bitcoin held 1,000 \u2192 1,080 Same company, same action, opposite result for the people who already owned\u00a0it.<\/p>\n The reason is in the second case. Each new share entitles its buyer to roughly a bitcoin\u2019s worth of the company, but the cash it brings in only buys 0.8 of a bitcoin. The missing 0.2 has to come from somewhere, and it comes out of the shares that already\u00a0existed.<\/strong><\/p>\n Nothing about 1.0x is arbitrary. It is simply the point where the cash a new share raises buys exactly the bitcoin that share is entitled to, and the whole curve pivots around\u00a0it.<\/p>\n The knock-on effects are what actually hurt. The growth story stops, because bitcoin per share can no longer rise through issuance. Interest payments and preferred dividends still come due in cash regardless. And the rational move flips from buying coins to buying back stock, which consumes cash that would otherwise buy\u00a0coins.<\/p>\n Both major treasury companies have said as much in writing. Strategy filed its capital allocation policy with the SEC in August 2025, and it reads as a straightforward map of what the company does at each level of the metric. Above 4.0x, it actively issues stock to buy bitcoin. Between 2.5x and 4.0x, it does so opportunistically. Below 2.5x it issues stock only tactically, to cover debt interest and preferred dividends. Below 1.0x, it says it will consider issuing credit to buy back its own shares.<\/strong>\u00b9\u00b2<\/a><\/p>\n Metaplanet followed the same logic in practice, announcing a repurchase of up to 150 million shares, about 13 percent of shares outstanding, backed by a $500 million credit facility, explicitly to address its declining mNAV.\u00b9\u00b3<\/a><\/p>\n Every input is\u00a0public.<\/p>\n Coin holdings come from company filings.<\/strong> Strategy files a Form 8-K roughly weekly, the filing type used for events rather than fixed reporting dates, stating exact holdings, purchase price, and shares sold under its at-the-market program. The filing covering the week to 19 July 2026 reported no purchases and holdings of 843,775 bitcoin at an aggregate purchase price of $63.69 billion.\u00b9\u2074<\/a> All of it is free through SEC EDGAR full-text search. Metaplanet discloses this through the Tokyo Stock Exchange and its own\u00a0site.<\/p>\n Worth pausing on those two figures together. The same 843,775 coins were worth about $55.6 billion four days later, against $63.69 billion paid for them. The company was roughly 13 percent underwater on its bitcoin<\/strong>, which helps explain why the discount has been so stubborn.<\/p>\n Share count comes from the cover page of the most recent quarterly or annual report<\/strong>, the 10-Q and the 10-K, both of which state shares outstanding as of a specific date on the first page. Reaching a fully diluted figure means going further in, to the convertible notes footnote, for conversion prices and share counts. Debt, preferred stock, and cash come from the balance sheet<\/strong> in the same filing, with preferred face values also repeated in the weekly 8-Ks. Spot price and market capitalization come from anywhere\u00a0live.<\/strong><\/p>\n For company-published figures, Strategy maintains a dashboard at strategy.com showing mNAV, net bitcoin per share, bitcoin yield, and its full debt and preferred stack, with definitions under a Notes section.\u00b9\u2075<\/a> Worth knowing: Strategy formally designated that dashboard as an official disclosure channel in its SEC filings, so its self-defined mNAV carries regulatory weight while remaining a number the company itself defines.\u00b9\u2076<\/a><\/p>\n One honest limitation applies to everyone, including the trackers. Filings are point-in-time, and markets are not, so any hand-calculated mNAV uses last quarter\u2019s share count against today\u2019s\u00a0price.<\/strong><\/p>\n mNAV values the coins and ignores everything else. Strategy still runs an enterprise software business. Bitcoin miners own physical infrastructure worth real money. Cipolaro\u2019s fuller critique is that the metric is, at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous, and that it should be replaced by an analysis that values the operating business separately.\u2077<\/a> BitcoinTreasuries.net now removes mNAV entirely for miners and for companies where crypto is a secondary holding, because the comparison is not meaningful.\u00b9<\/a><\/p>\n A discount is also not automatically a bargain.<\/strong> It can be the market pricing in refinancing risk, dividend obligations, or the simple fact that the accumulation engine has stopped. Galaxy Research, the research arm of the crypto financial services firm Galaxy Digital, warned in 2026 that mNAV-driven capital formation resembles the leveraged investment trusts of the 1920s closely enough to make the sector structurally fragile.\u00b9\u2077<\/a><\/p>\n There is a direct historical precedent, and it is the most useful thing in this article. The Grayscale Bitcoin Trust traded at a premium until February 2021, flipped to a discount, reached nearly 50 percent below the value of its own bitcoin in December 2022, and stayed at a discount for three years. The gap closed to zero only on 11 January 2024, when conversion to a spot ETF finally created a redemption mechanism.\u00b9\u2078<\/a><\/p>\n Treasury companies have no such mechanism.<\/strong> You cannot hand back your shares and receive bitcoin. Without a way to close the gap by arbitrage, a premium or a discount can persist for\u00a0years.<\/p>\n BitcoinTreasuries.net, \u201cHow BitcoinTreasuries.net Calculates mNAV\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/bitcointreasuries.net\/news\/how-bitcointreasuriesnet-calculates-mnav<\/a>Strategy, \u201cNotes\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.strategy.com\/notes<\/a>Bitcoin Magazine, \u201cWhat is mNAV? The Investor\u2019s Guide to Valuing Bitcoin Treasuries\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/glossary\/what-is-mnav<\/a>The Block, \u201cMetaplanet\u2019s enterprise value dips below Bitcoin holdings for first time\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.theblock.co\/post\/374509\/metaplanet-mnav-below-1<\/a>DL News, \u201cWhat is mNAV? Your DefiLlama guide to the metric for digital asset treasuries\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.dlnews.com\/articles\/llama-u\/hype-dat-ecosystem-case-study-for-mnav\/<\/a>mNAV.com, Metaplanet page\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.mnav.com\/mnav\/metaplanet<\/a>CoinDesk, \u201cBitcoin Treasury Stocks: How to Read \u2018mNAV\u2019 and Why NYDIG Says It Falls Short\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.coindesk.com\/business\/2025\/11\/30\/what-mnav-really-tells-you-about-bitcoin-treasury-companies-and-where-it-falls-short<\/a>Protos, \u201cStrategy has lost two-thirds of its mNAV in two years\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/protos.com\/strategy-has-lost-two-thirds-of-its-mnav-in-two-years\/<\/a>CoinDesk, \u201cStrategy overhauls bitcoin metrics to account for senior claims\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.coindesk.com\/markets\/2026\/07\/24\/saylor-and-team-overhaul-strategy-s-bitcoin-metrics-as-bear-market-persists<\/a>Decrypt, \u201cStrategy Overhauls Bitcoin Metrics, Debuting\u2019 Net Bitcoin Per Share\u2019\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/decrypt.co\/374281\/strategy-overhauls-bitcoin-metrics-debuting-net-bitcoin-per-share<\/a>CoinDesk, \u201cLeveraged MicroStrategy ETFs Are Having a Larger Impact on Market: JPMorgan\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.coindesk.com\/markets\/2024\/12\/05\/micro-strategy-leveraged-etfs-impact-on-crypto-markets-is-growing-jp-morgan<\/a>Strategy Inc, Form 8-K Exhibit 99.1, August 2025, SEC EDGAR\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/1050446\/000095017025109566\/mstr-ex99_1.htm<\/a>The Block, \u201cMetaplanet starts share buyback program to address mNAV decline\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.theblock.co\/post\/376464\/metaplanet-share-buyback<\/a>Strategy Inc, Form 8-K, 20 July 2026, SEC EDGAR\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/1050446\/000119312526308369\/mstr-20260720.htm<\/a>Strategy, bitcoin dashboard\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.strategy.com\/btc<\/a>Strategy Inc, Form 8-K Exhibit 99.1, Regulation FD dashboard designation, SEC EDGAR\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/1050446\/000095017025100916\/mstr-ex99_1.htm<\/a>The Defiant, \u201cGalaxy Digital Warns Crypto Treasury Firms Create \u2018Structurally Fragile\u2019 Market\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/thedefiant.io\/news\/research-and-opinion\/galaxy-digital-warns-crypto-treasury-firms-create-structurally-fragile-market<\/a>CoinDesk, \u201cGrayscale\u2019s GBTC Discount Closes to Zero for First Time Since February 2021\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200ahttps:\/\/www.coindesk.com\/markets\/2024\/01\/11\/grayscales-gbtc-discount-closes-to-zero-for-first-time-since-february-2021<\/a><\/p>\n One Company, Two Numbers: A Guide to mNAV<\/a> was originally published in Coinmonks<\/a> on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One Company, Two Numbers: Guide to\u00a0mNAV Why Strategy can trade at a 19 percent discount and an 8 percent premium on the same\u00a0day. On 5 September 2026, the tracker BitcoinTreasuries.net showed Strategy, the world\u2019s largest corporate holder of bitcoin, trading at 0.81x mNAV. The same page, on the same day, also showed it at\u00a01.08x.\u00b9 One […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":225052,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-225051","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-interesting"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225051"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=225051"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225051\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/225052"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=225051"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=225051"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=225051"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}What NAV is, and what mNAV\u00a0is<\/h4>\n
The formula and a worked\u00a0example.<\/h4>\n
Why there is more than one\u00a0answer<\/h4>\n
Why 0.81x and 1.08x are both\u00a0true<\/h4>\n
So which one should you\u00a0use?<\/h4>\n
How far the definitions can\u00a0drift<\/h4>\n
When a company changes the definition mid-game<\/h4>\n
plus USD reserve ~ $3.2 billion
minus out-of-the-money convertible debt ~ $6.8 billion
minus notional preferred stock ~ $15.5 billion
= net reserve ~ $36.6 billion<\/p>\nWhy a premium existed at\u00a0all<\/h4>\n
Reason one: above 1.0x, the premium pays for\u00a0itself<\/h4>\n
Reason two: the equity is a leveraged claim<\/h4>\n
Reason three:\u00a0access<\/h4>\n
Reason four: products built on top of the\u00a0stock<\/h4>\n
All four reasons can go\u00a0away.<\/h4>\n
Why below 1.0x is the number that\u00a0matters<\/h4>\n
buy bitcoin at $100,000 = 150 bitcoin<\/p>\n
shares 1,000 \u2192 1,100
per share 1.000 \u2192 1.045 +4.5%<\/p>\n
buy bitcoin at $100,000 = 80 bitcoin<\/p>\n
shares 1,000 \u2192 1,100
per share 1.000 \u2192 0.982 -1.8%<\/p>\nHow to check the numbers\u00a0yourself<\/h4>\n
What the metric does not tell\u00a0you<\/h4>\n
Sources<\/h4>\n