Opinion by: Patrick Ngan, chief investment officer of Zeta Network Group
Strategy continues to buy Bitcoin (BTC). Meanwhile, dozens of other public companies hold their investments and remain silent.
The silence is the story. Corporate Bitcoin’s first act — a brave accumulation in the face of skepticism — is over. What got companies into the game won't keep them competitive.
Buying Bitcoin in 2020 was a statement. Sitting on it in 2026 is a mistake.
The market has moved past declarations of faith. Corporate Bitcoin treasuries now need to show they can actually use the asset, not just warehouse it. Passive holding isn't cautious anymore; it's lazy capital management.
Passive holding becomes a capital liability
Holding Bitcoin outright was a necessary first step, and the price appreciation has validated that bet for early movers. Passive holdings do not generate yield. Traditional treasury operations don't tolerate assets that produce zero income.
Idle cash gets deployed into T-bills, commercial paper, money markets — anything that generates yield and maintains liquidity. A static Bitcoin position sits outside this framework It locks up capital, produces no cash flow and contributes zero to operational strategy.
The opportunity cost is glaring. Chief financial officers sweat over every basis point on their cash reserves, running models on overnight rates and short-term instruments. Somehow, a $50 million Bitcoin position gets a pass? It sits there, generating no yield, while every other dollar on the balance sheet is being actively optimized.
Over 172 public companies now hold Bitcoin on their balance sheets, with 48 new entrants in just one quarter. Yet few are doing more than sitting on their coins. The hodl era made sense when Bitcoin was a contrarian bet. It makes less sense when it becomes a consensus.
The infrastructure for active management is here
Institutional decentralized finance infrastructure has matured. A new generation of Bitcoin-backed instruments enables treasuries to deploy Bitcoin as productive collateral within regulated frameworks. These aren't the unsecured lending protocols that blew up in 2022. They're fully collateralized systems built for audit committees and compliance teams.
As highlighted in a recent analysis of regulated Bitcoin yield platforms, these frameworks create Bitcoin-backed assets held under regulated custody with onchain proof-of-reserves. The audit trail exists. The risk controls exist. The regulatory building blocks have converged. Active Bitcoin strategies are no longer experimental; they’re viable.
The question is no longer whether it’s technically possible; it’s whether treasury leadership has the appetite to move past passive accumulation.
A blueprint for the modern treasury
This isn't theoretical anymore. Public companies are starting to move portions of their Bitcoin into yield-generating instruments — fully collateralized, auditable and built for institutional risk standards. It’s not a gamble. It’s the same logic that puts cash into money markets instead of checking accounts.
Related: Strategy’s Bitcoin dominance slips in October as corporate treasuries expand
A Nasdaq-listed company can allocate part of its Bitcoin treasury to a structured, yield-generating investment without compromising its governance standards. The capital stays within a controlled environment. It now actually works for the balance sheet rather than just sitting there. Firms applying financial discipline to their digital reserves are earning investor credibility and, in some cases, materially outperforming passive peers.
This is the blueprint. Listed companies can integrate Bitcoin into treasury operations without treating it like a hands-off museum piece.
The coming market divergence
The market will split. Fast. Companies that actively manage their Bitcoin will trade differently from those that just hold it. The question shifts from “Do you hold Bitcoin?” to “What are you doing with it?” Static reserves generating zero income will get discounted just like any underutilized asset on a balance sheet.
This growing divide is a “credibility race” among firms using crypto reserves strategically rather than symbolically. Corporate leadership now faces a clear choice. Buying Bitcoin was easy. Managing it productively is harder. The next wave of adoption won’t be measured by holdings size but by strategy sophistication.
Metaplanet recently became the world’s fifth-largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, with over $633 million in BTC. Impressive. Whether they remain passive or become productive will determine whether that position creates lasting value or merely headline risk.
Treasuries that evolve will unlock yield and efficiency. Those that don’t will watch their early-mover advantage erode into irrelevance. The question isn’t who bought Bitcoin first; it’s who figured out what to do with it.
The size of holdings won’t matter if the strategy behind them is stagnant.
Opinion by: Patrick Ngan, chief investment officer of Zeta Network Group.
This opinion article presents the contributor’s expert view and it may not reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. This content has undergone editorial review to ensure clarity and relevance, Cointelegraph remains committed to transparent reporting and upholding the highest standards of journalism. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the company.
