From February 17 to 22, Eastern Standard Time, the Bitcoin treasury company Strategy took action again, purchasing 592 BTC at an average price of $67,286, investing about $39.8 million, and continuing to increase its position in this single asset during a market correction phase. After the increase, its total Bitcoin holdings rose to 717,722 BTC, corresponding to an average holding cost of approximately $76,020 per coin, with a total holding cost scale of approximately $54.56 billion. The choice to increase holdings against the current market price, which is significantly lower than the overall cost basis, not only continues its extreme long-term holding strategy but also amplifies the external discussions and debates regarding its paper losses, risk tolerance, and the sustainability of its overall treasury strategy.

The Scale and Cost Structure of 717,722 BTC Holdings

● Position Expansion: With the latest purchase of 592 BTC for around $39.8 million, Strategy's total Bitcoin holdings reached 717,722 BTC, and roughly estimating at current range prices, the corresponding market value is nearing that of large institutional-level Bitcoin "treasuries." This scale is highly recognizable among traditional public companies, as its balance sheet and stock price fluctuations are increasingly bound to Bitcoin price trends.

● Loss Structure: From the cost perspective, Strategy's current average holding cost is approximately $76,020 per coin, while the recent increase averaged only $67,286 per coin. This means the new positions are relatively optimized compared to the overall cost, but the overall holdings still reside in the loss zone. When market prices fluctuate below the cost line, the book value continues to be less than the invested cost, amplifying investors' sensitivity to its "buying means pressure" dynamics.

● Strategic Continuation: As a clearly positioned public Bitcoin treasury company, Strategy has traditionally built its asset pool through continuous buying and long-term holding. This recent purchase at a price lower than its cost reinforces its historical style of viewing BTC as a long-term reserve asset rather than a short-term trading target. For market participants familiar with its strategy, this operation seems more like an extension of an established path rather than a temporary bet.

The Pressure Scale of Cost Being 20% Higher than Market Price

● Price Difference Range: Comparing the average cost of $76,020 with the current buying price of around $67,286, it can be seen that the overall cost is approximately 20% higher than the market price. Without providing a specific loss amount, this price difference is sufficient to illustrate a fairly obvious book pressure band. Once the price stays below this range for an extended period, the gap between asset value and invested cost in the financial report will persist.

● Financial Reports and Sentiment: Strategy's total holding cost is nearing the $54.56 billion level, and any directional price fluctuations will be magnified in the financial statements. When prices are below cost, impairment and loss expectations can easily transmit to stock prices and secondary market sentiment, causing the company's stock to be viewed as a high beta asset in Bitcoin, potentially reinforcing volatility rather than buffering risks.

● Signal Overlap: Choosing to continue increasing positions despite ongoing paper losses sends out complex signals. On one hand, it is seen as management's firm bet on long-term price stability, conveying a strong stance of "undervalued, worth buying" to the market; on the other hand, it raises external reassessments of its risk preference and capacity to bear pressure, questioning whether it is overly concentrated and whether it left enough room for potential larger corrections in terms of funding and risk buffers.

Institutional Countercyclical Accumulation and Market Fund Withdrawal Collision

● Cold Capital Flow: According to CoinShares data, digital asset investment products have experienced outflows for five consecutive weeks, reflecting that under the current macro and industry environment, institutions are tending to be cautious or even reducing their allocations to crypto assets. Against this backdrop, incrementally, funds are leaning more towards defense or a wait-and-see approach, with limited willingness to enter in the short term, and the market generally defines this period as a "cooling phase" for capital.

● Volume Comparison: Comparing concurrently, another institution, ProCap Financial, only holds about 5,007 BTC. Compared to Strategy's 717,722 BTC position, there is more than an order of magnitude difference in risk exposure. The former is closer in scale to "tactical allocations" in traditional asset management, while the latter has become a "strategic concentrated bet" at the company level, creating an extreme sample effect in industry narratives.

● Countercyclical Demonstration: In an environment of ongoing capital outflows, Strategy's choice to increase holdings counter to the trend naturally carries strong countervailing emotions. On one hand, it provides a symbolic case for long positions, aiding in the partial restoration of market confidence; but on the other hand, it makes itself more like a high-leverage emotional asset that rises and falls with the market, and if prices continue to decline, the negative demonstration effect will also be amplified.

Accumulation Signals amidst Concerns about Funding Chains

● Confidence Interpretation: Planet Daily categorizes Strategy's recent operations as a typical "downward accumulation" strategy, believing it shows institutions' strong confidence in Bitcoin's long-term value. For participants who believe in a long-term bull market structure, actively increasing holdings during a correction is viewed as a prime example of the "buy and hold" logic and strengthens Bitcoin's market positioning as a "digital gold" reserve asset.

● Pressure Reminder: At the same time, on-chain analysts have pointed out that within the 20% area where the average holding cost is above the market price, one should continue to monitor the company-level funding chain pressure. This view does not delve into financing details, but rather from the perspective of risk tolerance reminds that high concentration and long-term floating losses may exacerbate financial elasticity consumption. If a deeper correction or tightening of macro liquidity occurs in the future, external doubts about its continued accumulation capacity and risk tolerance will rise simultaneously.

● Risk Trade-off: From a risk management perspective, Strategy's current high concentration on a single asset, accumulation rhythm, and potential correction space have formed a highly binding game structure: during price up cycles, concentrated bets can rapidly amplify profits and stock performance; whereas during volatility expansion or trend reversals, a lack of sufficient diversification and hedging in the portfolio can easily concentrate the corrections in financial reports and stock prices, leaving the safety net dependent on its meticulous control over position timing and overall balance sheet volatility.

Exemplar Treasury Strategy for Other Public Companies

● Extreme Sample: Among the many public companies attempting to use BTC as treasury asset, Strategy has become one of the most extreme samples in terms of position scale and risk exposure. Viewing it as an experimental template can provide a "magnifying glass" for other companies considering introducing BTC, observing how asset returns and liability pressures cycle through in conditions of extreme concentrated holdings.

● Volatility and Expectations: Choosing to continue increasing holdings during significant price pullbacks will significantly enhance the balance sheet's sensitivity to market volatility. On the shareholder level, the tension between short-term profits and book losses requires higher intensity expectation management: explaining the time perspective behind pullbacks and accumulations, and how to help the market understand the long-term net value curve rather than single-quarter data will become core topics for management and investor communications.

● Referencing Significance: For companies that will follow up on Bitcoin treasury strategies, Strategy's case underscores the need to match position scale with the company's size, cash flow stability, and stock price pressure capacity when designing their positions and to more transparently present the holding cost ranges, potential volatility scenarios, and risk management boundaries in information disclosures. Only by forming a coherent framework across position size, rhythm, and risk communication can treasury allocations shift from "gambling stories" to be seen as robust long-term asset allocation practices.

A Gamble on Time, Price, and Patience

● Belief and Burden: Overall, Strategy's insistence on increasing holdings despite significant floating loss pressure reflects a strong long-term pricing belief: management clearly focuses more on price stability and scarcity logic over the span of years rather than the fluctuations of a single quarter's profit and loss. The flip side of this belief is a proactive burden of short-term paper losses and stock price volatility, as its financial reports and market value have voluntarily tied themselves to the same Bitcoin price curve.

● Observational Dimensions: Looking forward, the key variables that the market needs to closely track include: the price trend of Bitcoin and the variation in the price difference from the $76,020 average holding cost, along with the smoothing effect of new positions on the overall cost curve. When prices return to or break through the cost range, the current floating loss pressure could rapidly convert into "profit leverage"; conversely, if it breaks deeper zones, doubts about funding elasticity and risk tolerance will be amplified once again.

● Outcome Judgment: Strategy's culmination of its Bitcoin treasury strategy also places it under the spotlight of time evaluation. In the coming years, the market will use price and time to answer one question: will this highly concentrated holding path be viewed as a template for value investment that transcends cycles, or as a high-leverage gamble on a highly volatile asset? For all institutions paying attention to Bitcoin treasury practices, this process itself is the most important risk control and decision-making sample.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。