On March 25, 2026, East Eight Time, the debate surrounding who is buying Bitcoin was brought to the forefront by two opposing forces: on one side, veteran Bitcoin investor Simon Dixon publicly criticized MicroStrategy for continuing to accumulate BTC and amplifying centralization risks; on the other side, traditional investment bank AllianceBernstein simultaneously reaffirmed its buy rating for MSTR with a target price of $450 (according to a single source), essentially backing this company with real money. The controversy centers on the fact that MicroStrategy now holds approximately 762,000 BTC, accounting for over 3% of the total Bitcoin supply, and has proposed an unprecedented ATM financing plan of up to $42 billion, reshaping the holding patterns. In an age where "decentralization" is repeatedly written as a core narrative of Bitcoin, the reality is that more and more stakes are quietly being absorbed by a handful of listed companies and spot ETFs: is Bitcoin transitioning from "currency for everyone" to "an asset on the balance sheets of a few"?

The Moment Public Companies Consume 3% of Bitcoin

MicroStrategy was originally a traditional software company, but over the past few years, it has gradually transformed itself into a “Bitcoin treasury.” Since boldly announcing its intention to tilt company asset allocation toward BTC, it has continuously raised funds through bond and stock issuance to purchase Bitcoin, currently holding about 762,000 BTC on its balance sheet. In a system where the total supply is rigidly capped at 21 million coins, this means a NASDAQ-listed company has individually consumed over 3% of the total supply, far exceeding the usual scope of “corporate reserves” and resembling a public, ongoing, and institutionalized hoarding operation.

When this number is put on the table, it carries a symbolic impact: Bitcoin was initially imagined as a decentralized network asset that no one could control, but now, a company’s board and a group of shareholders theoretically hold disposal rights to over 3% of the supply. This obvious concentration has made many early participants seriously consider the possibility of "the network being hijacked by a few large ledgers" for the first time. Meanwhile, on March 25, East Eight Time, the price of Bitcoin briefly surged past $72,000 USDT with a 24-hour increase of approximately 1.23%, combined with about $2.5 billion in net inflows into spot ETFs for the month, creating a resonance of "asset price increase + company market value expansion": as Bitcoin rises, MicroStrategy's holding value skyrockets, its stock price is reassessed, and it exchanges more expensive equity for more coins, thus forming a structural cycle.

$42 Billion ATM: Leveraging...

To sustain this cycle, MicroStrategy’s latest tool is an ATM financing plan of approximately $42 billion. An ATM (At-The-Market) plan essentially grants authorization to issue shares in batches at market price in the secondary market in exchange for cash, to continue buying Bitcoin. The existing information only provides the authorized volume, and the briefing clearly states that we cannot confirm the specific rhythm and structure of this plan; we cannot judge how quickly it will be genuinely converted into BTC positions through what detailed arrangements, but the potential “bullet volume” is already astonishing.

This means MicroStrategy has the capability for a prolonged period to continue amplifying its exposure to Bitcoin through ongoing "issuing shares to exchange for coins." The cost is equally clear: existing shareholders are continuously diluted at the equity level in exchange for an increasingly thicker stack of BTC on the company’s balance sheet. Structurally, this is a strategy of treating shareholder equity as "renewable ammunition" to leverage a single asset; once the price of coins moves upward, this model can yield astonishing returns; however, if a deep retracement occurs, the stock price and holding value may trigger a negative resonance, leading to significant pressure. Thus, Simon Dixon would describe this model as "increased centralization risk," questioning whether MicroStrategy is treating Bitcoin as an asset pool that can be scaled up by a single entity: when you can continuously hold the dominant buying power and influence liquidity expectations, how much meaningful value remains in so-called “decentralized price discovery”?

From Fear to Greed: How Wall Street...

In contrast to Dixon's warnings, Wall Street's growing greed is evident. Within the regulatory framework, many institutions are unable or unwilling to directly hold BTC spot, so MSTR, as a "Bitcoin-like stock," has become a compromise tool. Research briefings show that AllianceBernstein has recently reaffirmed its buy rating for MSTR and set a target price of $450 (according to a single source), with the underlying logic more resembling “If you’re optimistic about Bitcoin, you’re optimistic about this enlarged version of a BTC option,” rather than reverting to cash flow discounts and business prospects of a traditional software company.

From this perspective, MSTR is no longer a company doing enterprise software but a "Bitcoin leverage machine" under a compliant shell. For many fund managers, buying MSTR is easier than directly allocating or custodian BTC: it adheres to the stock market's clearing and compliance rules, can be incorporated into traditional investment portfolios and risk management frameworks, and is easier to execute through conventional brokerage and trading systems. The problem lies here—when the stock price is deeply tied to BTC, emotional fluctuations can be magnified in both directions: during asset price uptrends, MSTR becomes a typical crowded trade, with capital flooding in and out of limited targets, rapidly driving valuations into a bubble; once the trend reverses, fears regarding Bitcoin will be violently expressed through the stock price, forming a cycle of BTC decline—MSTR sell-off—further market sentiment deterioration, elevating the risk of a stampede.

ETFs and Whales Join Forces to Reshape the Bitcoin Landscape

MicroStrategy is not the only force reshaping the Bitcoin landscape. This month, Bitcoin spot ETFs have recorded about $2.5 billion in net inflows, with BlackRock’s IBIT having achieved positive net inflows for the year, indicating that traditional capital is rhythmically and systematically entering the market. The common characteristic of such spot ETFs is that they need to hold real BTC as support in off-chain or custodian addresses, with subscriptions and redemptions completed under a licensed system, backed by asset managers and custodial banks rather than anonymous addresses.

Echoing the data on capital inflows, the briefing also mentioned that BlackRock has recently transferred a large amount of BTC and ETH to a Coinbase Prime address. This action stems from the financial giant's need to pre-position underlying assets for its ETF products and potential client demands: whether for custody assets of the spot ETFs or for liquidity and market-making reserves, they are gradually being concentrated on the balance sheets of a few compliant custodial institutions. Placing this scenario alongside MicroStrategy's role as a company treasury, we find the picture is shifting: on one side, listed companies are consuming coins through their balance sheets, while on the other side, ETFs are consuming coins through custodial accounts, both forms of "whales" are collectively driving the structure of coin holdings from a scattered distribution to a concentration around a few large nodes. The decentralized network remains open and transparent at a technical level, but in terms of asset ownership distribution, the weight is being rewritten at an unprecedented pace.

Decentralization Believers and Institutional Armies...

This also explains why traditional Bitcoin investors like Simon Dixon are so wary of the trend of holding centralization. For them, Bitcoin is not merely a tradable asset but a value storage system that is resistant to censorship and confiscation. Once a large amount of BTC falls under the concentrated control of regulated companies and ETFs, network governance may hardly escape being hijacked by the preferences of these "capital nodes": from voting tendencies during soft forks and hard forks, to the compromise space regarding potential regulatory rules, all will unconsciously lean towards large holders. Moreover, when too many stakes are concentrated in the books of a few custodial institutions and listed companies, there will be "spillover risks" for network security—an institution's compliance, legal, or even political pressure could transform into a systemic impact on the Bitcoin ecosystem.

In stark contrast is the realistic perspective of institutions like AllianceBernstein: they are more focused on price efficiency and liquidity acquisition, viewing Bitcoin as a highly volatile but configurable alternative asset class. As long as the compliance framework permits, how to obtain Bitcoin exposure at the lowest operational cost and the highest capital efficiency becomes the core of investment decision-making; concerning the "sovereign imaginations" and "currency utopias" behind the stakes, they are more regarded as narrative backgrounds rather than decisive factors for asset pricing. This difference in values has ripped a fissure within the community: some choose to embrace the price uptrends and compliance dividends brought by institutions, believing that only with Wall Street's entry can Bitcoin truly enter the mainstream financial system; while others insist on the "fundamentalist" belief in decentralized holdings, thinking that even if it means sacrificing some short-term gains, they cannot hand over the keys to network ownership to a few licensed institutions and listed companies.

When Bitcoin Enters Company Financial Reports

Summarizing these clues, we see a Bitcoin world that is gradually being locked up: on one side, companies like MicroStrategy consume over 3% of the supply through highly leveraged, long-term balance sheet strategies, while selectively granting ATM authorizations up to $42 billion to reserve space for future coin consumption; on the other side, spot ETFs and custodial institutions continuously absorb fiat and asset allocation demands through compliant products and traditional channels. This "resonance of funds and structures" is pushing Bitcoin from the early phase of "ownerless assets" to a new stage of "anchoring by a few giants," forcing all imaginations of decentralization to confront the highly concentrated reality of coin holding structures.

From the current perspective, several variables will determine the direction of this evolution: whether regulators will set clear boundaries and disclosure requirements for concentrated holdings to prevent certain institutions from holding excessive control in secret corners; whether large institutions, considering risk and reputation, will opt for decentralized solutions with multiple custodians and platforms to reduce single points of failure and policy intervention risks; whether retail and early holders will continue to cash out as prices keep rising, further concentrating stakes to an "institutional army." For individual investors, all of this is both risk and opportunity—on one hand, institutional games and centralization trends may bring more volatile shifts and more complex political and regulatory variables; on the other hand, Bitcoin is accelerating its integration into mainstream asset allocation frameworks, with its long-term value space being re-evaluated. How to calmly assess one’s risk tolerance and time horizon beyond emotions and narratives, decide whether to hold Bitcoin exposure through spot, stocks, or ETFs, will become a question that every participant must answer independently.

Join our community to discuss and become 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。