According to foreign media, as Bitcoin returned to about US$ 60,000, Strategy held a large BTC warehouse in excess of US$ 13 billion. This figure, which is higher than the total market value of some well-known tokens, also gives the market renewed attention to the risk that a large amount of money will be invested in a single encrypted asset.
It's the size of the warehouse.
According to BitcoinTreasurys.net, the company currently holds approximately 84.44 million bitcoins, at an average purchase cost close to $75,600 per unit. The unrealized losses have exceeded $13.3 billion, based on the market price of approximately $60,000 at the time of the submission.
It was mentioned that, under fair value accounting rules, such changes in market value would be directly reflected in the profit statement, which in turn would magnify quarterly performance fluctuations. In other words, even if the relevant bitcoin had not been sold, the book losses would have been a significant item in the financial statements.
Losses are higher than the market value of some tokens
By comparison, the deficit had exceeded the market value of the dog currency at the time by approximately $11.5 billion to $12.7 billion, and was higher than the market value of several projects such as Monroe, Cardano, Chainlink, Bitco cash, Lettco, Uniswap, Near Protocol and BUILL in Beled.
The article also mentioned that the market value of the Hyperliquid HYPE tokens was still higher than that loss, around $18 billion. The author thus emphasizes that the fluctuation of the bitcoin position of a single listed company is already comparable to the overall valuation of a large number of encryption projects.
The point of contention is risk concentration.
According to the commentary, a single hold of this size reflects the current concentration of risk in the encrypted market. Strategy has been financing the purchase of bitcoin since 2020, gradually transforming itself into a highly BTC-dependent listed company.
Proponents usually regard such losses as cyclical fluctuations, arguing that if Bitcoin re-enters the top line, the book losses could be converted to profits. However, the article notes that the long-term locking of large amounts of capital into highly volatile assets also implies higher opportunity costs, including the abandonment of main business inputs or more decentralized asset allocation.
From the author ' s point of view, what is more of interest now is not just the loss figures per se, but rather the magnification of the perception of market narratives and risks by a single company. Market concentration is difficult to ignore when the books of a listed company fluctuate enough to exceed the market value of hundreds of tokens.