The $60 Billion Crypto Boom: Inside the PCV Gold Rush

Author: Insights4vc. Translation: Shan Ouba, Golden Finance

Public cryptocurrency investment vehicles (PCVs) are publicly listed companies whose primary financing purpose is to purchase cryptocurrencies and hold them on their balance sheets. In effect, they act as quasi-ETFs: they allow stock market investors to invest in digital assets—initially Bitcoin, and more recently Ethereum, Solana, Ripple, and others—without adopting the formal structure of an exchange-traded fund (ETF).

This report reviews the development of the PCV space, from MicroStrategy's first transaction to today's broader group of issuers; sorts out the participants, financing timelines, and operating models; compares metrics such as net asset value (NAV) premiums, leverage levels, and trading liquidity; and outlines the relevant regulatory, accounting, and risk frameworks. In addition, the report provides forward-looking scenario analysis and references for institutional investors.

Core Observations

• PCVs have raised tens of billions of dollars (primarily through zero-interest convertible bonds and PIPE private placements) to purchase crypto assets. MicroStrategy (now renamed "Strategy") alone holds more than 580,000 BTC, with a market value of approximately $60 billion, funded by multiple rounds of debt and equity financing.

• Since 2024, more PCVs are no longer limited to Bitcoin and have begun to diversify their layouts. Some companies combine crypto asset allocation with yield-oriented activities (such as staking, lending, and arbitrage).

• During bull markets, PCVs often trade at premiums to their underlying NAVs (trading at a premium) due to their convenience as a regulated alternative to holding coins; these premiums can turn into discounts during risk-off phases, especially when companies are highly leveraged or have concentrated governance structures.

• Regulatory treatment varies. In the United States, PCVs are subject to general securities rules and do not have a dedicated regime, while countries such as Canada take a more relaxed regulatory stance. There are also differences in crypto-asset accounting standards across markets.

• PCVs are subject to unique risks, including shareholder dilution, downside risk of leverage, liquidity constraints when exiting large positions, and operational challenges in custody and auditing. Nonetheless, PCVs may still exist as a form of "permanent capital" that bridges equity markets and crypto assets, providing opportunities for arbitrage or asset allocation diversification.

Overall, PCVs are located at the intersection of corporate finance and digital asset markets, providing a "quasi-ETF" path for investors who want to participate in crypto assets through regulated channels. Evaluating any PCV requires careful analysis of its structure, asset portfolio and regulatory background. This report provides detailed data and analytical support for this.

Market Map and Classification Methodology

Public Cryptocurrency Investment Vehicles (PCVs) have carved out a unique market space at the intersection of corporate finance and crypto investing. They are listed entities with the core goal of holding crypto assets, usually financed through equity or debt. Unlike the approximately 78 listed companies around the world that use Bitcoin as a "secondary treasury asset", PCVs explicitly set crypto asset accumulation as their primary strategy. The following is an overview of the PCV universe and its classification framework.

Classification by Asset Focus:

PCVs are first classified based on their primary crypto asset. The largest and oldest group is BTC-centric, represented by Michael Saylor's Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), which explicitly targets Bitcoin as an asset under management. The ETH-centric group focuses on Ether and related staking yield opportunities, leveraging Ethereum's unique yield potential. An emerging SOL-centric category has emerged, betting on the growth of Solana as a layer-1 blockchain asset. In addition to hybrid or multi-asset asset managers holding diversified crypto portfolios, we finally identify a group of in-the-making and rumored PCVs that have announced but not yet completed their crypto asset acquisitions.

Breakdown by Strategy and Structure:

PCVs are also categorized based on their strategies for creating value for investors. Some act as passive holders, mirroring the performance of the underlying crypto assets (e.g., Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings effectively operate as a Bitcoin ETF). Others employ active strategies, such as ETH-centric vehicles staking assets for yield or participating in distressed crypto debt purchases and structured products. Capital structures vary widely, from leveraged vehicles that issue large amounts of debt to purchase crypto (MicroStrategy’s model) to newer unleveraged entities formed solely through equity capital (e.g., SPAC- or PIPE-funded companies). PCVs also vary in their operational roles, from existing businesses that add crypto to their balance sheets (like GameStop) to pure investment vehicles established solely to hold crypto.

Geographic and Regulatory Classification:

Most high-profile PCVs are listed in the U.S., but the model is global. Canada pioneered the creation of crypto fund management entities, such as Ether Capital Corp’s early public holdings of ETH. Regulatory jurisdiction dictates their structure: U.S. PCVs are registered as standard corporations, following GAAP (typically accounting for intangible assets, with a recent shift to fair value). Other markets use structures similar to investment trusts or comply with regional securities laws (e.g., Japan and the EU require strict disclosures for crypto funds).

Deal Timeline and Financing Structure

The timeline of PCV deals shows a rapid evolution from isolated actions to structured strategies. Below is an interactive table detailing the major PCV financings, with analysis. Deals range from MicroStrategy’s groundbreaking 2020 bond issuance to numerous 2025 cryptocurrency-focused transactions.

Key details provided include deal size, instrument type, valuation context, asset value premium, leverage, key backers, and status, primarily sourced from official filings (e.g., SEC 8-Ks) for accuracy.

Funding Structure – Analytical Timeline

The idea of ​​raising public capital for the purchase of cryptocurrencies began with MicroStrategy MicroStrategy made a bold move in 2020. In August 2020, CEO Michael Saylor announced Bitcoin as the company’s primary asset, initially funded with cash. The turning point came in December 2020, when MicroStrategy issued $650 million of 0.75% convertible notes due in 2025, immediately investing $634.9 million in approximately 29,600 Bitcoins (BTC), becoming a leveraged Bitcoin holding company overnight.

Then, the market went wild: In February 2021, MicroStrategy raised $1.05 billion through 0% convertible notes due 2027, which it increased from $600 million to $1.05 billion due to strong demand, and issued $500 million of senior secured notes in June 2021. Investors eagerly accepted the 50% conversion premium and zero interest, reflecting the strong demand for indirect exposure to Bitcoin. Throughout 2021, MicroStrategy also sold shares through market plans, profiting from the premium of the shares relative to its Bitcoin holdings. By early 2022, MicroStrategy further leveraged Bitcoin through a $205 million Silvergate bank loan, to be repaid in 2023 after Silvergate’s collapse.

After the market downturn, MicroStrategy accelerated again in 2024 with a series of new 0% convertible bonds, including a $3 billion convertible bond issued in November 2024, the largest of its kind in a decade. Five convertible bonds in 2024 raised a total of more than $6 billion, and raised an additional approximately 80,000 BTC in the first quarter of 2025 alone. By May 2025, MicroStrategy held approximately 568,000 to 580,000 BTC, leveraging more than $7 billion in debt and significant equity dilution (the number of shares has nearly doubled since 2020). This unprecedented approach - repeatedly issuing equity and debt to purchase Bitcoin - set a template that has been widely adopted by other companies.

“Saylor 2.0” strategy extends to companies like GameStop, which raised $1.5 billion in 0% convertible bonds in April 2025 to purchase 4,710 bitcoins ($513 million), marking its cryptocurrency debut. Trump Media & Technology Group announced plans to raise $2.5-3 billion in equity and convertible bonds, explicitly to purchase bitcoin, a plan directly inspired by MicroStrategy.

Beyond Bitcoin, in April 2025, Upexi raised $100 million in a PIPE at market price to increase its stake in Solana (SOL), backed by prominent crypto venture capital firms, demonstrating public market confidence in altcoin-centric strategies. Similarly, VivoPower raised $121 million in a private placement at market price, pioneering an XRP-centric funding strategy backed by Saudi royal family investors. Both transactions significantly diluted existing shareholders, but were intended to leverage the popularity of cryptocurrencies to justify valuations.

Another notable case is Asset Entities’ $750 million PIPE with Strive Asset Management at a 121% premium to create the first publicly traded Bitcoin asset manager with an alpha-generating strategy. This debt-free, equity-focused strategy emphasizes prudent structuring and differentiates from purely passive crypto fund management models.

Overall, PCV has evolved from simple convertible bond issuance (2020-2021) to a diversified funding approach by 2025, including PIPE, equity ATM, and hybrid models. Commonalities include: investor appetite for crypto investments that do not offer discounts or high interest rates, significant shareholder dilution balanced by valuation premiums, a diverse approach to leverage, and a hybrid narrative that combines crypto investments with broader corporate strategy. These evolving models reflect the maturity and diversification of public market cryptocurrency investment strategies and lay the foundation for subsequent detailed group analysis.

In-depth analysis of various PCV groups

1. Bitcoin-centric PCV

The "Saylor 2.0" group includes some public companies that are explicitly focused on Bitcoin accumulation, which are inspired by the MicroStrategy model. These companies position themselves as agents of Bitcoin - mainly by raising funds to purchase and hold BTC as a strategic reserve. Among the players worth noting are Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), GameStop, and Trump Media's proposed Bitcoin reserve plan.

Strategy (MicroStrategy) - Prototype:Strategy holds the world's largest corporate Bitcoin vault, approximately 568,000 to 580,000 Bitcoins (BTC), valued at over $60 billion by 2025. Its financing channels include $7.3 billion in convertible bonds and equity issuances, effectively building a structure similar to a leveraged Bitcoin ETF. Due to the scarcity of regulated Bitcoin investment vehicles, Strategy's stock price is highly correlated with BTC and trades at a premium during bull markets. This premium also reflects the leverage brought by debt financing, which has greater upside (and downside risk) than directly holding BTC. With Bitcoin reaching approximately $107,000 in early 2025, Strategy's early bet (average purchase price of approximately $70,000) has been validated. Key success factors include Saylor's leadership, first-mover advantage, and savvy capital market execution. Current risks include asset management complexity, regulatory scrutiny, and debt refinancing challenges.

GameStop – Meme Stock vs Bitcoin Balance Sheet:GameStop’s 2025 BTC funding plan marks its foray into the cryptocurrency space as part of its turnaround strategy. By issuing $1.5 billion in 0% convertible bonds, GameStop acquired approximately $512 million in BTC without depleting its cash reserves. Initially, investors reacted positively, believing that the BTC purchases strengthened GameStop’s digital narrative. However, GameStop took a more conservative stance than Strategy, with BTC accounting for approximately 10% of its total assets, indicating its cautious and gradual consolidation. GameStop’s retail investor base and limited cryptocurrency experience differ from Strategy, but the move legitimizes the consumer-focused company’s strategy of holding Bitcoin.

Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) – Ambitious Bitcoin Reserve:TMTG plans to raise $2.5-3 billion specifically to build a massive Bitcoin reserve that could rival the size of the Strategic Fund. TMTG’s combination of equity and convertible debt positions Bitcoin as a strategic protection against currency debasement, consistent with a politically charged narrative and broader crypto integration plan. However, the ambitious raise raised concerns about equity dilution and sparked initial skepticism in the market, highlighting the risks associated with large, politically relevant cryptocurrency reserves.

Asset Entities/Strive – Active BTC Strategy:The merger of Strive with Asset Entities introduces a more active Bitcoin strategy that involves trading and opportunistic investing in addition to simple BTC accumulation. This hybrid strategy – “Bitcoin+” – combines long-term BTC conviction with active alpha generation. Executing this strategy transparently in the public markets may be challenging, but if successful, it could redefine the potential of public cryptocurrency investment vehicles.

Metrics and Market Perception:Premiums to NAV for Bitcoin-centric investment vehicles vary, with Strategy historically trading at up to 20% above NAV. GameStop’s valuation far outstrips its Bitcoin holdings, suggesting the market still views it as primarily retail. Debt usage also varies widely, from Strategy’s high leverage to GameStop’s zero-interest convertible bonds, highlighting the different risk profiles of this group. Adoption of fair value accounting from 2025 onwards would increase transparency and could further align equity performance with cryptoasset valuations.

Outlook:BTC-centric PCVs are likely to remain relevant as they offer unique attractions — leveraged BTC exposure, corporate governance, and regulatory compliance. Unless these investment vehicles can evolve by offering Bitcoin dividends, divesting non-core businesses, or exploring innovative fund management strategies, potential competition from spot ETFs could erode their premiums and appeal.

Second, ETH-centric PCV

ETH-centric PCV accumulates ETH as the primary reserve, taking advantage of ETH's appreciation and the yield generated through staking. Major pioneers include Ether Capital and BTCS, which offer efficient crypto asset exposure that is different from Bitcoin. Staking yields introduce cash flow, which enhances financial position compared to non-yielding BTC holdings, although these vehicles face unique custody, regulatory, and technical risks.

Third, Solana-centric PCV

Emerging SOL-centric PCVs (such as Upexi) have accumulated large SOL reserves, aiming to capture institutional demand and promote the growth of the Solana ecosystem. Upexi's transformation demonstrates a new way to integrate crypto assets into traditional corporate structures, testing public market interest in altcoin-centric investment vehicles and potentially paving the way for similar initiatives.

Fourth, hybrid/multi-asset treasuries

Companies such as VivoPower are exploring hybrid treasuries that focus on alternative digital assets such as XRP. Diversified treasuries combine holdings of mainstream and altcoins to reduce volatility and strategically align with broader cryptocurrency trends. While these multi-asset experiments bring management complexity and regulatory considerations, they may also bring broader market upside.

Five, potential and rumored PCV

Future PCVs may emerge through SPACs, mid-sized technology companies, and geographically diversified markets. The approval of a Bitcoin ETF could inhibit or stimulate further corporate adoption of cryptocurrencies, thereby affecting the development of PCVs. Potential investment vehicles may further diversify into Metaverse tokens, NFTs, or other thematic baskets of cryptocurrencies, and these investments will be impacted by macroeconomic and regulatory developments.

Comparative Metrics Panel

In this section, we aggregate comparative metrics for current PCVs, focusing on NAV premium/discount, leverage, dilution impact, liquidity considerations, and fund composition. These metrics illuminate how the market values ​​each investment vehicle relative to the asset, revealing structural advantages or risks. The bar chart illustrates the NAV premium/discount of the major PCVs and highlights relative valuations.

NAV Premium/Discount: Measures the ratio of equity market capitalization to the value of the crypto asset (plus net assets). Positive percentages indicate a premium (reflecting perceived management value or strategic optionality), while negative percentages indicate a discount due to arbitrage constraints or management concerns. As of mid-2025:

• Strategy (MSTR) trades at a ~5-10% premium to its Bitcoin NAV, reflecting the market’s confidence in Saylor’s management and leverage potential. Historically, premiums have reached over 40% during peak sentiment, but have fallen as BTC holdings have increased. Moderate premiums make equity issuance accretive, thus incentivizing it.

• GameStop (GME) currently trades at a large premium as its crypto exposure ($513M BTC) is lower than its overall business. GameStop is a $10B market cap, and its crypto-specific premium (~1,900%) reflects retail investors and earnings expectations, rather than pure crypto investment. Adding BTC holdings could significantly reduce the premium, providing a cleaner valuation.

• Trump Media (DJT)’s valuation remains speculative prior to trading. The company has a market cap of ~$4-5 billion, minimal liquid assets, and pricing incorporates an estimated $2.5 billion BTC purchase (estimated purchase of 20,000 BTC at $110,000 each). The ~80% premium suggests both meme status and political appeal.

• BTCS (~$50-60m market cap, ~$32m ETH) continues to trade at a ~50-80% premium due to staking yields and growth prospects through additional ETH acquisitions.

• Ether Capital (ETHC) typically trades near NAV, exhibiting a slight (<10%) premium in bull markets, similar to closed-end funds.

• After the Solana deal, Upexi (UPXI) initially traded at a 50% premium to its price prior to the deployment of raised funds ($95M investment in SOL). This reflects investor anticipation of the SOL acquisition and optimism about the Solana market. Premium stability will largely depend on SOL's performance.

• VivoPower (VVPR) traded at a ~32% premium to XRP, supported by investor interest in XRP and support from prominent backers. Liquidity constraints on XRP trading, especially in the U.S., have pushed up the premium, but eventual arbitrage could narrow it.

• Asset Entities/Strive (ASST) has experienced extreme short-term volatility (initial premium of ~1,000%). The premium is temporary and reflects speculative misperceptions due to significant upcoming dilution ($750M raised at $1.35/share). Ultimately, combined share price should track NAV closely.

Leverage:Strategy is moderately leveraged (~12% debt to assets), historically high but mitigated by Bitcoin appreciation. GameStop's debt ($1.5B vs. $10B equity) remains low risk due to zero interest rates. Trump Media anticipates moderate leverage (~40% debt in capital structure). Newer alternative investment firms (ASST, Upexi, VivoPower) raised capital with equity, reflecting their limited access to high-quality debt markets.

Dilution (%):PCV financings come with significant equity dilution. The strategy doubles the number of shares (~100% dilution); GameStop potential dilution is ~16%. Trump Media dilution could be substantial, depending on structure. ASST faces extreme dilution (less than 5% existing ownership post-transaction), but this is somewhat offset by premium valuations. Upexi (~72% dilution) and VivoPower (~50% dilution) similarly trade ownership for asset growth, which is acceptable given premium execution.

Liquidity – Days to Exit:Analyzing liquidity by comparing crypto vault size to equity and crypto trading volume:

• The strategy’s $60 billion in BTC equates to a large amount of daily BTC volume (~5%) that would theoretically take weeks to liquidate in an orderly manner without significant market impact.

• GameStop’s crypto holdings (~$513 million in BTC) are minuscule relative to BTC liquidity and could be easily absorbed.

• Trump Media’s potential 20,000 BTC holdings could remain stable for days without disrupting the market.

• Holdings of Upexi ($100M SOL) and VivoPower ($121M XRP) are modest relative to their respective crypto markets and would only take a few days to liquidate.

Stock liquidity varies widely; major PCVs (MSTR, GME) trade strongly, micro-caps exhibit less predictable liquidity due to float dynamics.