European Bitcoin Treasuries and Market Discipline

• My 'briefing notes' summarize the content of podcast episodes; they do not reflect my own views.
• They contain (1) a summary of podcast content, (2) potential information gaps, and (3) some speculative views on wider Bitcoin implications.
• Pay attention to broadcast dates (I often summarize older episodes)
• Some episodes I summarize may be sponsored: don't trust, verify, if the information you are looking for is to be used for decision-making.

Summary

The September 18, 2025 episode of the Tim Kotzman Podcast features Khing Oei outlining the capital markets strategy behind Treasury, a European Bitcoin treasury company. Oei explains how Treasury raised $150 million, executed a reverse takeover on Euronext Amsterdam, and acquired the Bitcoin Amsterdam conference to integrate financial growth with ecosystem engagement. He highlights the normalization of mNAV valuations, the importance of resilient financing structures, and Europe’s untapped opportunity for listed Bitcoin exposure.

Take-Home Messages

1. mNAV Discipline: Excessive premiums above NAV are unsustainable, requiring alignment with Bitcoin-per-share growth.
2. Capital Stack Resilience: Equity ATMs, convertibles, and preferreds must be balanced to survive Bitcoin volatility.
3. European Access Gap: Primary listings and euro-denominated shares fill retail and institutional exposure shortages.
4. Operating Synergies: Non-treasury assets such as conferences can strengthen visibility and adoption, but carry execution risk.
5. Consolidation Dynamics: Persistent NAV discounts force hard choices—improve, merge, or liquidate to protect shareholders.

Overview

Khing Oei describes how Treasury raised $150 million, secured a reverse takeover on Euronext Amsterdam, and purchased the Bitcoin Amsterdam conference. He positions the firm as a hybrid entity: part corporate Bitcoin holding, part operating business that grows visibility and networks. The dual approach is designed to reinforce both capital accumulation and community engagement.

He stresses that market discipline has begun compressing inflated mNAV multiples. Valuations that reached five or more times NAV created unrealistic expectations and eventual investor losses. By contrast, sustainable per-share Bitcoin growth and transparent issuance are key to building trust with shareholders.

Oei highlights Europe’s lagging but promising position in the sector. Retail investors lack access to simple ETF products, and institutions face restrictions that prevent them from holding U.S. vehicles like MicroStrategy. Treasury aims to fill this gap by offering euro-denominated shares on a regulated primary exchange.

Attention then turns to capital structures and resilience. Equity ATMs and options form the first layer, followed by convertibles and preferreds that target Europe’s fixed-income investors. Oei warns that convertibles must be sized conservatively to withstand downturns, while preferreds offer steady yield but require consistent cash flow management.

Stakeholder Perspectives

1. Retail investors: Desire easy, regulated exposure to Bitcoin through listed European equities.
2. Institutional investors: Need compliant euro-denominated vehicles that fit within mandates.
3. Management teams: Focus on compounding Bitcoin per share and maintaining robust balance sheets.
4. Regulators: Monitor NAV disclosures and ensure fair treatment of shareholders in new asset vehicles.
5. Shareholders: Demand decisive actions—buybacks, consolidation, or liquidation—when persistent NAV discounts occur.

Implications and Future Outlook

European Bitcoin treasuries could redefine how capital is raised and deployed in markets historically slow to adopt digital assets. Access to primary listings, euro-denominated products, and securitization through convertibles and preferreds positions Europe as a late but potentially important player. These structures will test whether European firms can match U.S. incumbents in sophistication and resilience.

Market consolidation is expected as companies unable to grow Bitcoin per share face discipline from investors. Those with weak execution may merge into stronger peers or unwind entirely, migrating coins into more credible treasuries. This process may stabilize sector valuations and reduce market-wide sell pressure.

Ecosystem integration remains both a strength and a risk. By acquiring assets such as conferences, firms can enhance legitimacy and create a flywheel of adoption. Yet these ventures also carry operational complexity, and only well-managed firms will successfully align community presence with treasury strategy.

Some Key Information Gaps

1. What balance of equity, convertibles, and preferreds best ensures resilience in downturns? Developing robust structures is vital to withstand Bitcoin’s volatility and protect shareholder value.
2. What structural factors could accelerate European adoption of Bitcoin treasury companies? Understanding these drivers informs capital market reforms and product design.
3. Which factors determine whether a company should consolidate, liquidate, or continue independently? Clarifying these thresholds ensures shareholder protections and long-term sustainability.
4. What securitization models best match Bitcoin risk profiles with investor demand? Aligning instruments with risk appetite expands access while avoiding distortions.
5. How integral will Bitcoin treasury companies become in global financial ecosystems? Assessing systemic roles will guide policy and investor strategy over the next decade.

Broader Implications for Bitcoin

European Market Differentiation

If European treasuries succeed, they may diversify global Bitcoin exposure away from U.S. dominance. This would broaden the investor base, deepen euro-denominated liquidity pools, and pressure U.S. firms to compete with alternative models. Success in Europe could also encourage cross-listing and global competition in treasury strategy.

Standard Setting for Investor Protection

NAV discounts and consolidation dynamics raise questions about governance standards in emerging asset sectors. Clear frameworks on disclosure, buybacks, and liquidation will likely emerge from these cases, setting precedents for digital asset companies globally. These standards could influence how future capital markets regulate hybrid entities that hold Bitcoin.

Institutionalization of Bitcoin Holdings

As more companies adopt treasury strategies around Bitcoin, the asset becomes further normalized within structured finance. Over time, this may lead to Bitcoin being treated not just as an investment but as a quasi-reserve asset. Such institutionalization could shift how central banks, pension funds, and corporations allocate reserves in the coming decade.

Risk of Over-Financialization

Expanding securitization of Bitcoin through equity, convertibles, and preferreds risks detaching exposure from underlying holdings. This could create fragility if instruments multiply faster than balance-sheet Bitcoin. Safeguards may be required to prevent leverage cycles that destabilize both corporate treasuries and wider markets.