Shares in bitcoin‑hoarding companies have skidded from summer highs as an overcrowded trade unwinds. Fundraising rolls on anyway.

After a feverish summer in which dozens of listed companies rushed to raise cash for the express purpose of buying crypto, September has delivered the first real gut‑check. Shares in so‑called “bitcoin hoarders” — businesses that sell stock or issue debt to acquire digital assets and hold them on balance sheet — have slumped sharply in recent weeks, marking a break in the momentum that turned a niche financing tactic into a market‑wide phenomenon.

The reversal is most visible in the biggest of the cohort. The best‑known listed bitcoin buyer has slid from a July peak near the mid‑$400s to the low‑$300s this week, its lowest since April. In Japan, Metaplanet — a hospitality group reborn as a crypto‑treasury vehicle — has fallen more than 60% from its June high, even after a staggering run‑up earlier this year. Smaller copycats have dropped even harder: The Smarter Web Company in the UK is down roughly 70% from June, while Alt5 Sigma, connected to a Trump‑linked token project, has tumbled more than 60% from its own summer spike. The pattern is the same across the pack: when bitcoin cools, these equities melt faster.

Yet the fundraising machine shows few signs of fatigue. On Wednesday, Metaplanet said it would raise roughly ¥204 billion — about $1.4 billion — via an international share sale, with the bulk earmarked for additional spot bitcoin purchases over the next two months. It is only the latest in a string of offerings this summer as companies lean on at‑the‑market programs and deeply discounted placements to fuel their digital‑asset buying sprees.

This “crypto‑treasury” model, popularized during bitcoin’s record‑setting rally, is straightforward: raise public capital; buy a volatile token; trumpet the purchase; repeat. In rising markets, the loop can be self‑reinforcing. Share prices frequently trade at a premium to the value of the underlying coins — a multiple to net asset value, or mNAV — because the equity offers embedded leverage and, in theory, operational upside. But premiums can flip to discounts in a hurry when the music slows.

That is what appears to be happening now. Analysts who track the sector say a growing number of crypto‑treasury names are changing hands below the value of their token holdings, a warning sign that enthusiasm has overreached fundamentals. The dynamic is especially stark among companies that pivoted away from their original businesses in recent months in order to ride the wave — from website makers and niche manufacturers to media groups that rebranded themselves as digital‑asset vehicles.

The market structure helps explain the speed of the turn. Because many of these companies are effectively levered proxies for crypto prices, their shares can fall three to five times as much as the underlying tokens on down days. Retail investors, who chased stunning triple‑ and quadruple‑digit year‑to‑date moves earlier in the summer, often capitulate quickly when the charts crack — compounding the decline. Meanwhile, continual equity issuance can dilute existing holders right when multiples are compressing.

Even so, fresh money keeps arriving. Bankers say the pipeline of mandates remains busy, particularly outside the U.S., where issuers perceive a receptive audience for international placements. In Japan, corporate buyers continue to view bitcoin as a hedge against a weak yen and a way to tap global liquidity. And in the U.S., a parade of micro‑ and small‑cap companies has pitched crypto treasuries as a growth plan in lieu of traditional investment — often with little overlap between their core operations and the assets they are buying.

How crowded is the trade? Over the summer, data compiled by sell‑side desks and advisory firms showed dozens of companies announcing plans to raise cash specifically for crypto accumulation. Several high‑profile market makers and asset managers seeded vehicles dedicated to buying ether and solana as well as bitcoin, broadening the field and stoking a perception of inevitability. The result was a flywheel: rising token prices lifted treasury stocks, which enabled more issuance, which financed more token purchases, which pushed the narrative and, for a time, prices.

Now the flywheel is catching. Bitcoin’s pullback from record territory has pared paper gains and exposed how dependent the model is on a benign backdrop. Premiums to NAV are narrowing or inverting; borrowing costs are elevated; and the supply of me‑too issuers is testing investor patience. “There are too many of them and very little differentiation,” as one fund manager put it this week. When a trade becomes this crowded, even small shocks can trigger outsized moves.

The implications extend beyond a handful of speculative tickers. Because many companies buy on‑exchange, their activity can intensify short‑term liquidity swings in the underlying tokens. On days when the biggest buyer steps in, market‑impact studies suggest the flow can meaningfully nudge prices; on days when several treasury stocks are forced sellers (or pause buying amid volatile conditions), the absence of that bid can be felt just as acutely. To the extent retail investors treat these equities as leveraged substitutes for exchange‑traded crypto funds, synchronized drawdowns can ripple through structured products and options markets as well.

None of this means the trade is finished. Corporate adoption of digital assets remains deeper than during prior cycles, and some treasuries have layered on income strategies — from covered calls to lending — that can cushion drawdowns. A handful of operators with genuine cash‑generating businesses and conservative issuance policies may emerge as durable proxies for the asset class. But those names are likely to be few, and they may still live and die by bitcoin’s path.

What should investors watch from here? Three clues stand out. First, issuance discipline: companies that slow or suspend at‑the‑market sales when their shares fall to or below NAV are signaling a measure of stewardship. Second, transparency: detailed disclosures on token purchases, hedging and custody arrangements help investors evaluate risk. Third, breadth: if bitcoin remains range‑bound while the number of would‑be treasury vehicles keeps climbing, pressure will build for a deeper shakeout.

There is also a policy undertow. Political support in Washington has buoyed sentiment this year, but agency rule‑making and court challenges still shape how treasuries can raise money, account for holdings and market their strategies. Outside the U.S., a patchwork of regimes—from Tokyo to Brussels—has encouraged cross‑border capital raises that blur jurisdictional lines. Any hint of tighter disclosure or tougher custody rules could further separate credible operators from fair‑weather issuers.

The bigger question is whether the crypto‑treasury boom has made the broader crypto market more fragile or more resilient. On the one hand, permanent‑capital buyers can dampen selling pressure during routine squalls, and the visibility of listed vehicles has drawn new pools of capital into digital assets. On the other hand, layering public‑equity dynamics on top of already volatile tokens adds a second source of instability — momentum‑driven flows into and out of stocks that are themselves claims on volatile balance sheets.

For now, September looks like a healthy if uncomfortable reset. The mania of midsummer has given way to tougher questions about business models, governance and valuation. If history is a guide, the shakeout will be uneven: a few disciplined players will survive and perhaps thrive; many will dilute; some will disappear; and a handful will reinvent themselves yet again when the next hot trade arrives.

Market excess: amid the seemingly unstoppable rise of this most speculative of assets, how worried should we be about the crypto crush? Worried enough to separate the durable from the derivative, the financed from the fundamentally sound. The froth has thinned, but the story isn’t over — it’s entering its adult phase, in which capital costs, cash flows and credibility matter as much as coin counts.