Why mNAV Undervalues Operating Bitcoin Treasury Companies and is holding them back
Roy Kashi is CEO at FalconEdge, a public UK company on the Aquis exchange, that deploys a “Bitcoin Treasury 2.0” model, using advisory cash flows to build and actively yield‑manage its BTC balance sheet rather than treating it as a static holding
The continued use of mNAV as the default valuation framework for Bitcoin treasury companies has created a quiet but persistent distortion across the market. The majority of listed treasury vehicles currently sit in an mNAV range of roughly 0.8 to 1.7 times, even though their business models have diverged dramatically. The result is a sector that prices the Bitcoin rather than the enterprise.
mNAV is appropriate for entities whose value comes solely from the Bitcoin they hold. It is simple, transparent, and useful for passive balance sheet businesses. But it becomes fundamentally incomplete when applied to companies that produce revenue, generate profit, and create recurring yield. For these platforms, mNAV captures only the static treasury while ignoring the operating engine that makes the company valuable.
→ Learn the basics of mNAV on the BitcoinTreasuries.net learn center.
Operating treasury companies increasingly earn income through yield, spreads, advisory services, and product innovation. They possess risk management capability, proprietary strategies, and distribution advantages that materially influence future earnings. None of this appears in an mNAV measure that reduces every company to a single mark to market figure. Two businesses can hold identical quantities of Bitcoin and yet differ profoundly in cash flow potential, scalability, and operational sophistication. Treating them as equivalent reduces valuation to arithmetic rather than insight.
A more accurate approach mirrors the structure used across asset intensive and yield driven industries. Enterprise value should be understood as the combination of the treasury mNAV and the earnings power of the operating business. This blended model is standard in real estate platforms, infrastructure, natural resources, and financial companies that manage proprietary capital and use the strength of their balance sheets, Bitcoin in the case of treasury companies, to expand profitability through sophisticated and expertly executed yield generation strategies. It recognises that assets and cash flow each contribute distinct forms of value.
Relying exclusively on mNAV is an outdated shortcut. It flattens the sector, suppresses comparables, and limits capital formation for the businesses that are driving innovation. Mature markets do not value a functioning enterprise solely by the assets on its balance sheet, yet much of the Bitcoin treasury landscape is priced in that way today.
As the sector transitions from passive holding to sophisticated financial operation, valuation standards must evolve. Companies that generate recurring income, demonstrate operational excellence, and build durable models deserve to be assessed on both their treasury and their enterprise. Anything less fails to capture what this industry has and will continue to become.
The space is evolving rapidly, yet the question remains: when will Bitcoin treasury companies be valued for their enterprise, not just their balance sheets?
→ Disagree with Roy's take on mNAV? Email [email protected] to join the conversation