• Corporate Bitcoin demand has collapsed—Strategy bought 45K BTC in 30 days while all others combined bought just 1K.

• Strategy now controls 76% of corporate BTC holdings as most firms pause or sell, signaling weak institutional conviction.

  

• Bitcoin’s “corporate floor” narrative weakens as only Strategy and Metaplanet keep buying while others exit positions.

  

The corporate Bitcoin treasury movement had a great story. Dozens of public companies piling into Bitcoin, a structural shift in how institutions manage capital, a new floor under the price. CryptoQuant just put some hard numbers on where that story stands today.

In the last 30 days, Strategy bought 45,000 BTC. Every other treasury company in existence bought roughly 1,000 combined.

That’s a 99% collapse in participation from everyone except Michael Saylor.

One Company, 76% of Everything

Strategy now holds approximately 76% of all Bitcoin owned by corporate treasury companies, according to CryptoQuant. Their share of total 30-day purchases has reached an extraordinary level, while other companies’ share has fallen to just 2%, down from 95% at the peak of the corporate buying wave.

CryptoQuant’s read on this is direct: “There is no broad corporate demand right now.”

What made this data point significant is the timing. Corporate buying participation peaked at 69,000 BTC in August 2025. Bitcoin was climbing and the narrative was building. Then prices dropped, and the conviction evaporated.

Some Companies Are Selling Too

Bitdeer Technologies liquidated its entire Bitcoin position, going from 2,029 BTC to zero. Genius Group sold roughly 58% of its Bitcoin holdings to pay down a Bitcoin-backed loan. Cango sold nearly 60% of its stack.

These weren’t small retail players. These were companies that publicly announced Bitcoin treasury strategies and bought near the top.

Strategy did the opposite. As prices fell, Saylor’s firm accelerated, making this its fastest accumulation pace since April 2025.

What This Means for Bitcoin

Corporate buying was one of the loudest structural arguments for Bitcoin’s 2025 run to over $126,000. Companies buying and holding permanently removes supply from the market, creating a floor under the price.

That floor now rests almost entirely on two companies. Strategy is the dominant force. Metaplanet, the Tokyo-listed firm that has become the fourth-largest corporate Bitcoin holder with 35,102 BTC, is the only other name still actively building.

• Also Read :
•   Won’t Deny It: Metaplanet CEO Admits Buying Bitcoin at the Peak, Defends Strategy
•   ,

Just this month, Metaplanet raised $234 million through a new warrant structure specifically to buy more Bitcoin, with a stated target of 100,000 BTC by the end of 2026.

Two companies with conviction. Most others have either gone quiet or are actively selling into the drawdown.

Never Miss a Beat in the Crypto World!

Stay ahead with breaking news, expert analysis, and real-time updates on the latest trends in Bitcoin, altcoins, DeFi, NFTs, and more.

FAQs

Yes, concentration introduces potential systemic pressure points. If a dominant holder were ever forced to sell—due to liquidity needs, debt obligations, or regulatory issues—it could create sudden supply shocks. Markets tend to price in diversified demand more favorably; when ownership is concentrated, price stability can become more dependent on the decisions of a small number of actors.

Beyond headline purchases, investors should monitor corporate filings (like quarterly reports), treasury policy updates, and capital raise announcements tied to digital assets. Another key signal is whether companies begin allocating a fixed percentage of reserves to Bitcoin rather than making opportunistic buys. A shift toward structured allocation strategies would suggest longer-term institutional commitment rather than narrative-driven participation.

Reduced corporate participation can shift market influence back toward ETFs, retail flows, and macro-driven liquidity. For retail investors, this could mean increased price volatility, as fewer large buyers are consistently absorbing supply. On the other hand, it may also create more entry opportunities, since prices are less supported by steady institutional accumulation and more responsive to broader market cycles.