Corporate Bitcoin buying slowed sharply in the third quarter, and a revival in late 2026 or 2027 may depend less on Bitcoin’s price alone than on whether listed treasury companies can restore premiums in their own shares, according to figures cited by Rasmussen and comments from Kooner.
Strategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder, added a net 1,666 BTC during Q3, down from 83,901 BTC in the previous quarter based on its company filings. Other public companies collectively added a net 5,617 BTC, compared with 45,725 BTC in Q2, according to figures provided by Rasmussen.
The falloff points to a financing constraint across the sector. Many treasury companies built their Bitcoin positions by selling stock when their shares traded above the market value of the Bitcoin held on their balance sheets. That premium gave companies a route to raise capital and buy more BTC without diluting the Bitcoin exposure attached to each share.
When those premiums fade, the same strategy becomes harder to sustain. Issuing stock at or below the value of a company’s underlying Bitcoin holdings can dilute existing shareholders and weaken the appeal of further share-funded purchases. A higher Bitcoin price could help reopen that channel, but only if it also lifts treasury-company valuations relative to their holdings.
Treasury premiums determine access to fresh capital
Kooner said renewed corporate accumulation could emerge if Bitcoin treasury firms regain stock-market premiums to their net asset values. Under that setup, companies can issue equity, add Bitcoin to their reserves and potentially maintain or increase Bitcoin backing per share.
The model gained momentum during the 2025 Bitcoin treasury boom, when a growing number of public companies adopted strategies modeled on Strategy’s long-running accumulation program. The trade relied on an unusually favorable equity-market environment: traders were willing to value some companies at more than the spot value of their Bitcoin reserves, often because they viewed the companies as leveraged or actively managed vehicles for Bitcoin exposure.
That valuation gap narrowed during Q3. Bitwise’s October market report said the number of Bitcoin treasury companies declined during the quarter as smaller firms abandoned the approach after their share premiums disappeared.
Rasmussen said 12 companies that entered the sector during the 2025 boom sold their entire Bitcoin holdings. Most liquidated their reserves to repay debt or return cash to shareholders, illustrating how quickly a balance-sheet strategy can reverse when financing costs rise or the equity-market rationale weakens.
A recovery in purchases would likely be uneven. Kooner expects capital to return first to larger, established operators with deeper trading liquidity and a longer record of managing Bitcoin reserves. Those companies may find it easier to issue shares or debt, while smaller entrants face greater pressure to demonstrate why their stock should trade above the value of the Bitcoin they hold.
A new round of treasury-company listings would more likely appear later in a rally, Kooner said, when higher Bitcoin prices and wider share premiums make the structure more attractive. That sequence would favor existing operators before opening the door to companies seeking to copy the model.
Operating businesses provided a smaller source of demand
Not every corporate purchase relies on equity issuance. Rasmussen said many of the largest buyers outside Strategy were operating companies using cash flow from their core businesses to acquire Bitcoin.
That approach carries fewer direct dilution concerns, but it has also produced a smaller pool of demand than share-funded accumulation. Operating companies must balance Bitcoin purchases against payroll, capital expenditure, debt servicing and shareholder-return plans. Their ability to buy can therefore be limited even during periods when Bitcoin’s price is rising.
The Q3 slowdown suggests the corporate treasury sector is becoming more selective after the rapid expansion of 2025. Companies that entered with weak balance sheets, expensive debt or limited business cash flow have less room to continue buying through a downturn in their shares.
ETFs remain a separate and volatile demand channel
Spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds added another layer to the market’s demand picture. Rasmussen pointed to $6.4 billion in net inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs during Q3, providing support while corporate treasury buying slowed.
ETF flows should not be treated as a direct substitute for treasury-company purchases. ETFs give market participants exposure to Bitcoin through fund shares, while corporate treasury companies use their own balance sheets and capital-markets access to accumulate the asset. The two channels can respond differently to price volatility, interest rates and equity-market conditions.
Kooner cautioned that part of ETF activity can be tied to basis trades, in which market participants seek to capture price gaps between spot Bitcoin and derivatives markets. Such positions can unwind quickly when those spreads narrow, creating abrupt changes in reported fund flows without necessarily reflecting a lasting shift in directional demand.
SoSoValue data showed U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded roughly $229 million in net outflows last week, their second consecutive week of withdrawals. The supplied figures also cited $910 million of outflows during a two-week stretch in mid-October, including $82.4 million on one day.
Despite those withdrawals, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs held $104.3 billion in total net assets, according to the same data. The scale of those holdings means weekly flow reversals can affect market sentiment and liquidity conditions, though they do not automatically indicate sustained selling pressure.
Bitcoin briefly fell below $80,000 during the recent weakness and moved under an $82,300 mean cost-basis level cited by Kalchev. For corporate buyers, a lower price can make Bitcoin more attractive in nominal terms, but it can also reduce the value of existing reserves and compress the equity premiums needed to finance fresh purchases.
That leaves corporate demand tied to two moving prices: Bitcoin itself and the market value assigned to companies holding it. A price rally could improve both, but the Q3 data shows that higher Bitcoin prices alone may not be enough to restore the aggressive corporate buying seen earlier in the cycle.
As corporate Bitcoin treasuries evolve, stay ahead of institutional flows by exploring ETF demand dynamics shaping future price moves.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
