比特币回调 22%：Strategy、Tesla、Marathon、BitMine 持仓抗压能力解析

On May 5, 2026, Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy, NASDAQ: MSTR) released its Q1 2026 financial report, disclosing a net loss of $12.54 billion, equivalent to a loss of $38.25 per share, and operating losses reaching $14.46 billion. The core source of the losses is not business contraction, but an unrealized loss of $14.46 billion caused by a decline in Bitcoin’s fair value.

On the same day, Michael Saylor, Executive Chairman, put forward a claim that shook the market during the earnings call: the company may sell some of its Bitcoin holdings to fund preferred stock dividends. His wording was: “We will very likely sell some Bitcoin to pay dividends—simply to communicate to the market that we have taken action.”

After the announcement, Strategy’s stock price fell more than 4% after hours, and Bitcoin briefly dropped below $81,000.

This matter is worth digging into—not only because of the loss figures themselves, but because it reveals a structural problem at the industry level: when Bitcoin prices experience a sustained pullback, publicly listed companies of different types face entirely different survival pressures due to differences in their holding logic, financing structures, and strategic paths. A cross-comparison of Strategy, Tesla, Marathon, and BitMine helps clarify the full picture of the prevailing corporate Bitcoin treasury models in today’s market.

From a Bitcoin Plunge to Four Companies Going Their Separate Ways

This section reviews, in chronological order, the key actions taken by the four companies in Q1 2026.

From late 2025 to early 2026, Bitcoin’s price continued to decline from a high of about $87,500, with the quarter’s low touching approximately $66,200. Geopolitical factors (including the escalation of the U.S.-Iran conflict at the end of February, which pushed crude oil prices above $100 per barrel) further suppressed the performance of risk assets. Bitcoin recorded its worst first-quarter performance in eight years, with a cumulative decline of about 23%.

Against this backdrop:

Strategy (MSTR) continued to carry out an aggressive accumulation strategy in Q1, purchasing approximately 89,599 BTC. In early Q2, it purchased about 56,235 BTC again. By early May, its holdings reached 818,334 BTC, accounting for about 3.9% of circulating supply. Its cumulative invested cost was approximately $61.81 billion, with an average cost of about $75,537 per BTC.

Tesla (TSLA) confirmed in its Q1 results released on April 22 that, despite the quarter’s significant drop in the Bitcoin price, its holdings of 11,509 BTC remained unchanged. The quarter reported approximately $222 million in unrealized losses on digital assets, but it took no action to reduce its holdings. Since January 2025, its holdings have never changed.

Marathon Digital (MARA) conducted a concentrated sale of 15,133 BTC between March 4 and March 25, raising about $1.1 billion to repurchase approximately $1.0 billion of 0% convertible preferred notes due in 2030 and 2031. The repurchase was completed at a discount. The company estimated it could save about $88.1 million in cash, reduce converted debt by about 30%, and also announced shifting its strategic focus to AI infrastructure. By the end of March, its holdings were about 38,689 BTC.

BitMine Immersion Technologies (BMNR) began officially trading on the NYSE main board on April 9 (upgraded from NYSE American). The company primarily uses ETH as its treasury asset. As of May 3, it held approximately 5,180,131 ETH (about 4.29% of the total ETH supply of 120.7 million), 200 BTC, and related industrial equity and cash—bringing total crypto assets and cash to approximately $13.1 billion.

A Three-Way Comparison of Holdings, Cost, and Strategy

To clearly present the core differences among the four companies, the following comparison framework is built on four dimensions: holdings scale, cost structure, source of funds, and strategic path.

Core Differences Breakdown

The holdings scale gap. Strategy’s 818,334 BTC is about 71 times Tesla’s and 21 times Marathon’s. Just Strategy alone accounts for roughly 66% of the total Bitcoin holdings of publicly listed companies worldwide.

Differences in asset concentration. Strategy’s balance sheet is almost entirely built on Bitcoin price movements—its digital assets account for over 95% of its total assets. By contrast, Tesla’s 11,509 BTC represents only about 3.5% of its total assets, with its core business remaining firmly in automotive manufacturing and energy operations. This structural difference leads to dramatically different sensitivity to BTC price fluctuations: for every $1,000 decline in the unit price, Strategy faces an unrealized loss of about $818 million, while Tesla faces only about $11.5 million.

Asset-class differentiation. BitMine’s core asset is Ethereum, and with holdings of about 5.18 million ETH, it has become the largest publicly listed ETH treasury company globally. Its operating logic differs fundamentally from BTC-holding firms: Ethereum’s ecosystem provides staking rewards and an additional layer of benefits from on-chain finance—its MAVAN staking platform has enabled staking of about 4,362,757 ETH, with an estimated annualized staking yield of about $352 million. This financing model differs from BTC’s “pure holding” logic.

Divergence in funding structure. Strategy raises large-scale funding through preferred stock STRC. From the start of 2026 to now, it has raised about $11.7 billion, of which preferred stock accounts for roughly $8.5 billion, and STRC’s annualized dividend yield is about 11.5%. Marathon relies on mining output and convertible bond financing, and in Q1 it adjusted its treasury policy to explicitly allow the sale of Bitcoin. Tesla’s funding for its Bitcoin holdings comes from operating cash flow, with no external financing pressure.

Divergence Between Incremental Accumulators and Stockpilers

Incremental Accumulators: The Corporate Bitcoin Treasury Model Is Being Validated, Not Rejected

Despite the astonishing short-term accounting losses, some industry observers believe Strategy’s real bottom line is not net profit but the “Bitcoin per share” metric—this figure reached 213,371 sats/share in Q1 2026, up about 18% year over year. BTC Yield (year-to-date) is 9.4%, representing an efficiency corresponding to a net increase of 63,410 BTC.

A Bitwise report further supports this argument: in Q1 2026, listed companies as a whole increased their net BTC holdings by 50,351 BTC, bringing total corporate treasury holdings to 1.15 million BTC (about 5.47% of supply).

Based on Gate market data, as of May 6, 2026, Bitcoin is quoted at $81,130.4—already a significant rebound from the roughly $67,000 range at the end of Q1. Strategy’s holdings are valued at approximately $66.44 billion, which has surpassed its $61.81 billion total cost line.

Stockpilers: The Financing-Driven Model Has Sustainability Boundaries

Skepticism is also becoming systematic. The core concern is:

The difference between Strategy’s annual dividend obligation of about $1.5 billion and its cash reserves. The company currently holds about $2.2 billion in cash, corresponding to an approximately 18-month dividend coverage period. With STRC’s annual dividend rate around 11.5%, if the annualized Bitcoin upside cannot be sustained at a level exceeding its financing cost, the growth in net “Bitcoin per share” will gradually be eroded. The “break-even annualized return on Bitcoin of about 2.3%” mentioned by Saylor in the earnings call is precisely the key parameter for this model: if BTC’s annualized appreciation exceeds this level, the STRC mechanism creates a positive feedback loop; otherwise, it may require using existing stockpile BTC to pay dividends.

Some analysts liken this to a “convertible bond maze”: when Bitcoin rises, positive feedback is amplified, but once asset prices remain continuously below financing costs, dilution becomes unavoidable.

Divergence in industry trends

Marathon’s “sell to AI” strategy and Strategy’s contrarian accumulation form a clear divergence in routes. When Marathon sold more than 15,000 BTC and allocated the funds to AI infrastructure, Strategy increased its holdings by nearly 90,000 BTC in the same window. This path divergence represents two fundamentally different judgments about the nature of BTC assets: whether it is a long-term strategic reserve, or an asset that can be optimized as part of a balance-sheet strategy depending on market conditions.

The Impact of Concentration in Institutional Holdings and Strategy Diversification

Increasing Bitcoin price power concentration among a few institutions

Strategy alone holds about 3.9% of the total BTC supply. With corporate treasuries and ETFs combined, about 13% of circulating supply is “locked,” making the supply-locking effect increasingly significant. This can support prices in bull markets, but when institutions need to sell, it can also magnify downside risks.

Driving structured development of the “digital credit asset” market

Strategy’s STRC preferred stock has become a representative experiment in digital credit assets. Since the beginning of 2026, its raised amount has reached $8.5 billion; daily trading volume is about $375 million; and in terms of liquidity, it ranks at the top among preferred stocks. The result of this Q1 stress test—whether the instrument will remain merely as book entries or evolve into real repayment pressure—will directly affect the development trajectory of the entire “digital credit” asset category.

Accelerating strategy divergence between mining companies and BTC-holding companies

In Q1, listed miners collectively sold more than 32,000 BTC—exceeding their total sales for all of 2025—and forming a structural opposition to institutional buyers such as Strategy. Marathon and Core Scientific (which sold all about 2,537 BTC and shifted toward AI) represent systemic shifts in the mining sector.

Exposed adaptation conflicts for crypto treasury enterprises under fiat-currency accounting frameworks

When companies are forced to record massive losses as Bitcoin prices fall—even if their core metric, the “Bitcoin per share” measure, continues to improve—this creates information asymmetry that distorts external investors’ assessment of the companies’ true condition.

Conclusion

Strategy’s $12.54 billion quarterly paper loss is a magnifying glass that highlights structural issues in corporate Bitcoin treasury models across accounting standards, financing mechanisms, liquidity management, and industry narratives. The four companies’ differentiated responses—ranging from Strategy’s contrarian accumulation to Tesla’s silent holding, from Marathon’s strategic retreat to BitMine’s cross-asset allocation—collectively form a comparative experiment on “how enterprises hold crypto assets.”

One company’s losses can be attributed to market cycles, but what the parallel evolution of these four strategies reveals is the systemic question the industry must face during its push toward mainstream adoption.