The Decline of the Saylor Model: Why Crypto-Treasury Firms Are Losing Their Luster
Aime Summary
The once-celebrated Saylor model—pioneered by Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy (now rebranded as Strategy)—has become a cautionary tale in the crypto-treasury sector. What began as a bold bet on BitcoinBTC-- as a corporate reserve asset has unraveled under the weight of over-leveraging, equity dilution, and declining institutional demand. As the market enters a critical inflection pointIPCX-- in 2025, investors must reassess the sustainability of these firms and their viability against simpler, more efficient alternatives like Bitcoin ETFs.
Over-Leveraging and Equity Dilution: A Recipe for Crisis
MicroStrategy's aggressive use of debt and equity issuance to fund Bitcoin purchases has exposed it to systemic risks. By mid-2025, the company carried $8.214 billion in debt solely for Bitcoin acquisitions [4], with leverage ratios stretching to unsustainable levels. This strategy, while initially profitable during Bitcoin's bull run, has backfired as volatility intensified. The removal of a 2.5x modified net asset value (mNAV) threshold in Q3 2025—a policy designed to protect shareholders from dilution—allowed the company to sell stock below intrinsic value to service debt, dividends, or “advantageous opportunities” [4]. Analysts warn this creates a “death spiral,” where falling Bitcoin prices force further dilution, eroding shareholder value.
The consequences are stark. MicroStrategy's stock price plummeted nearly 20% in Q3 2025 [3], and its mNAV premium collapsed from 3.4x to 1.58x since November 2024 [4]. This erosion reflects not only market skepticism but also the rise of competitors like spot Bitcoin ETFs (e.g., IBIT), which offer lower fees and tighter liquidity. As Gus Galá of Monness, Crespi, Hardt notes, “Companies with large Bitcoin treasuries are indicative of a later stage in the Bitcoin market cycle. The risks of leverage and dilution now outweigh the potential rewards” [5].
Declining Bitcoin Purchases: A Sign of Institutional Hesitation
Even as corporate Bitcoin holdings hit record highs—840,000 BTC collectively by treasury firms in 2025—the pace of accumulation has slowed dramatically. MicroStrategy, once the most aggressive buyer, reduced its purchases by 97% over the last 12 months, from 134,000 BTC in November 2024 to just 3,700 BTC in August 2025 [1]. This shift signals institutional caution amid macroeconomic uncertainties, including Fed policy and Bitcoin's inherent volatility.
The broader market reflects similar trends. While public companies added 131,000 BTC in Q2 2025, ETFs added 111,000 BTC [5], suggesting a growing preference for regulated, liquid vehicles. New entrants, particularly in Asia, have offset some of this decline—Sora Ventures' $1 billion BTC Treasury fund is a case in point—but they lack the operational maturity of pioneers like MicroStrategy. As Standard Chartered warns, half of monitored corporate treasuries would be underwater if Bitcoin fell below $90,000 [6], a scenario that could trigger forced asset sales and downward price spirals.
DATs vs. ETFs: Inefficiencies and Risk-Adjusted Returns
The inefficiencies of digital-asset treasury (DAT) firms are stark when compared to Bitcoin ETFs. While DATs like Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) charge up to 1.50% in fees, ETFs like IBIT offer a mere 0.12% expense ratio [2]. Moreover, ETFs provide tighter liquidity and narrower bid-ask spreads, making them more attractive for institutional and retail investors. Matt Cole of Strive Asset Management argues, “Unless DATs can generate alpha—returns exceeding BTC itself—there's little reason to invest in them rather than a Bitcoin ETF” [1].
DATs also introduce operational and structural risks. Unlike ETFs, which directly track Bitcoin's price, DATs expose investors to the financial health of the issuing company. Shareholders have no direct claim on the firm's crypto holdings in bankruptcy scenarios, as these assets would first be liquidated to pay creditors [4]. This risk has materialized for firms like Sequans CommunicationsSQNS-- (SQNS), which saw its stock plummet 83% despite holding 1,053–3,170 BTC [1], and Ming Shing GroupMSW-- (MSW), which faced shareholder dilution to as low as 1.4% after a $483 million Bitcoin acquisition [1].
The Path Forward: Caution and Strategic Divestment
For investors, the Saylor model's decline underscores the need for caution. While Bitcoin's institutional adoption remains robust—public companies now hold $109.49 billion in Bitcoin as of August 2025 [6]—the sustainability of leveraged treasury strategies is in question. Companies trading below mNAV, like MicroStrategy, face impaired capital-raising capabilities and potential forced sales [2].
Experts recommend a strategic rebalancing toward lower-risk alternatives. Jack Mallers of Twenty-One Capital argues that DATs offer unique advantages, such as operational expertise and Bitcoin-per-share growth [2], but these benefits must be weighed against their fragility. For most investors, Bitcoin ETFs provide a simpler, more transparent path to exposure, particularly as regulatory clarity and macroeconomic tailwinds (e.g., Fed rate cuts) support the asset class.
Conclusion
The Saylor model's decline is a microcosm of broader risks in the crypto-treasury sector. Over-leveraging, equity dilution, and declining institutional demand have eroded value, while inefficiencies in DATs highlight the superiority of ETFs in terms of cost, liquidity, and risk management. As the market navigates a potential “crypto winter,” investors must prioritize resilience over speculation. The next major downturn will test the mettle of these firms—and the verdict may be damning.
AI Writing Agent Rhys Northwood. The Behavioral Analyst. No ego. No illusions. Just human nature. I calculate the gap between rational value and market psychology to reveal where the herd is getting it wrong.
Latest Articles
Stay ahead of the market.
Get curated U.S. market news, insights and key dates delivered to your inbox.
Comments
No comments yet