Bitcoin Magazine
Tyler Evans: Bitcoin ETF Flows Flipped From “Highly Negative” to “Strong Accumulation”
Bitcoin has matured out of the bear market. So what’s next? Tyler Evans breaks down the Fed, the bond market, JPMorgan naming Bitcoin its best-performing asset class, ETF flows flipping to strong accumulation, and why the U.S. midterms could be pivotal heading into 2027. At the end of the day, he says, Bitcoin will just do its thing.
Chapters:
00:00 Tyler Evans Joins Bitcoin Magazine TV
00:11 Is Bitcoin’s Pause Before the Next Move Up?
01:25 The Fed, Kevin Warsh and the Bond Market
03:20 Institutions Buy as Bitcoin Flows Into the U.S.
04:43 Bitcoin vs. the AI Trade
06:09 VanEck’s All-in-One ETF and Bitcoin’s Allocation Problem
07:55 AI Agents and Bitcoin
09:01 Making Bitcoin as Easy as Apple Pay
11:02 Strategy Shareholders Approve Daily Dividends for Stretch
12:33 A Bitcoin Treasury Company Loses Access to Its Bitcoin
13:38 Qualified Custodians and Counterparty Due Diligence
14:56 MSCI Pushes Bitcoin Treasury Companies Out of Its Indexes
15:56 How Bitcoin Treasury Models Can Evolve
16:32 Where Bitcoin Goes by the End of 2027
17:48 ETF Flows and Reclaiming the 50-Week Moving Average
This video is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investments in digital assets involve significant risk and may result in loss of capital. Both UTXO Management and BTC Inc., producer of BMTV, are owned by Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA)
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
This post Tyler Evans: Bitcoin ETF Flows Flipped From “Highly Negative” to “Strong Accumulation” first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.
Bitcoin Magazine
Doomberg: US Treasury Sanctions are “Wildly Bullish” for Bitcoin & Gold
What happens to reserve assets when you’re not allowed to sell them? Doomberg argues that U.S. pressure on allies to hold their Treasuries changes the math for central banks, and that in a crisis “you sell what you can sell, not what you want to sell.” That explains gold’s short-term weakness since February 28th, but in the long run he sees it as wildly bullish for gold and Bitcoin as neutral reserve assets. He also shares why younger, hyper-online generations are more likely to choose Bitcoin.
Chapters:
00:00 Doomberg on the Fed, Kevin Warsh and the Midterm Elections
01:21 Will Trump Restart the War in Iran After the Midterms?
03:11 Houthi Refinery Strikes, $110 Brent and Prices at the Pump
05:03 What a Renewed U.S.–Iran Conflict Would Mean for Global Markets
09:21 Doomberg’s Bull Case: Peace Deals and a Post-Midterm Boom
11:00 How a Diesel Shortage Turns Into a Glut
13:27 Europe’s Energy Crisis, French Bonds and U.S. Treasuries
16:38 Will Germany Bail Out France? The Future of the EU
19:02 Gold vs. Bitcoin as Reserve Assets
24:54 Christine Lagarde’s Early Exit and ECB Politics
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
This post Doomberg: US Treasury Sanctions are “Wildly Bullish” for Bitcoin & Gold first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.
Bitcoin Magazine
Alex Thorn: 50-Week Signal Says Bitcoin’s Bottom is In
Galaxy’s new research note opens with a blunt call: “We believe the bottom is in.” Alex Thorn breaks down the evidence, starting with the fact that regaining the 50-week moving average after 20+ weeks below it has never been followed by a new low. He explains why Bitcoin’s resilience around $80K matters and why he thinks it’s contrarian to say long Bitcoin right now.
Chapters:
00:00 Bitcoin at $81K After the Fed: Is the Bottom In?
00:38 Galaxy’s 50-Week Moving Average Signal
02:10 Bitcoin’s Resilience Around $80K Amid AI Fears
02:54 Light Positioning: “The Crowd Is Not Here”
04:17 13F Filings: Hedge Funds Out, Sovereigns and Wealth Managers In
06:15 Tokenization Hype, the Narrative Pendulum and the Basis Trade
10:06 Strategy’s Daily Dividends, Strive and Tonight’s Earnings Call
12:27 Why the AI Build-Out Is a Debasement Machine
16:11 U.S. Debt, Fiscal Dominance and Bitcoin as Digital Gold
19:21 AI Cyber Attacks, Hardware Wallets and Multisig
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
This post Alex Thorn: 50-Week Signal Says Bitcoin’s Bottom is In first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.
Bitcoin Magazine
Alexandre Laizet on The French Debt Crisis: “Europe is in Need of Bitcoin”
France is at 120% debt to GDP, and Alexandre Laizet says the problem isn’t the debt, it’s that the proceeds are spent and not invested. The Capital B executive explains why Europe’s debt crisis and monetary debasement make the case for Bitcoin, and why France’s capital markets are suited to a Bitcoin treasury strategy.
Chapters:
00:00 Capital B: Europe’s First Bitcoin Treasury Company
00:33 Why Europe Needs Bitcoin and France’s Capital Markets
02:35 France’s Debt, Moody’s Rating and Spent vs. Invested
04:49 Capital B’s Goal to Become Europe’s Most Capitalized Company
06:39 Strategy’s Dividends and Digital Credit in Europe
10:13 Perpetual Credit and Regulation in France and Europe
12:05 MSCI’s New Rules for Bitcoin Treasury Companies
14:07 How Capital B Grew Its Bitcoin Through the Bear Market
17:32 Why Credit Investors Are Looking at Bitcoin-Backed Credit
19:54 French Debt Pressure, Tax Advantages and Bitcoin Adoption
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
This post Alexandre Laizet on The French Debt Crisis: “Europe is in Need of Bitcoin” first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.
Bitcoin price remained below $80,000 on October 30 as traders responded to the Binance breach and a wave of forced position closures.
At the attached report’s market snapshot, BTC traded near $78,420, down roughly 2% over 24 hours. The cryptocurrency had briefly slipped below $77,000 before recovering some ground.
CoinGlass figures cited in the report showed approximately 239,000 traders liquidated during that period. Total liquidations reached $1.54 billion, including around $1.3 billion in long positions.
The imbalance shows that traders betting on higher prices absorbed most of the damage. Forced closures of leveraged bullish positions can intensify a decline, adding selling pressure as the market moves lower.
The largest individual liquidation reported was an $11.09 million BTC/USDT position on Binance.
In its security incident update, Binance estimated the breach’s impact at approximately $6.3 billion. The exchange said coordination with blockchain partners had helped freeze roughly $3 billion on-chain.
Its preliminary investigation pointed to a compromised DevOps engineer’s laptop. According to Binance, the attacker may have used that access to enter a service container and submit unauthorized withdrawal transactions.
The company said it had found no evidence of leaked wallet private keys. Those findings remain preliminary, with a detailed technical account expected after investigators establish what happened.
Binance also pledged to cover losses using its SAFU emergency fund and company funds. It said an updated proof-of-reserves report would follow remediation.
The recovery effort remains a central issue for traders assessing the fallout. Frozen assets reduce the amount potentially lost, but they do not by themselves establish when funds will be recovered or how the remaining shortfall will be covered.
The sell-off followed an already difficult stretch for Bitcoin in the news today.
According to the attached report, the Federal Reserve held its benchmark interest rate at 3.75%–4% on October 28, while two officials supported a quarter-point increase. Bitcoin subsequently fell below $80,000 before the Binance incident added another source of uncertainty.
The rate backdrop and exchange breach presented separate pressures. One concerned monetary policy and investor appetite for risk; the other raised questions about exchange security and the recovery of affected assets.
Their timing helps explain the cautious market environment, although it does not establish how much of Bitcoin’s decline came from either development.
Institutional fund flows were more resilient than the broader market.
SoSoValue data cited in the attached report showed US spot Bitcoin ETFs recording $17.07 million in net inflows on October 29. That extended their positive streak to four trading sessions.
The previous three sessions had attracted approximately $423.66 million combined, following about $773.5 million in outflows on October 22 and 23.
The return of inflows suggested continued demand through ETF products. However, those purchases
TL;DR: Bitcoin slipped below $80,000 in early October 29 trading as markets digested the Federal Reserve’s decision to leave rates unchanged and the accompanying hawkish dissent. The immediate market risk is a feedback loop between falling prices and leveraged positions being closed.
Bitcoin slipped below $80,000 in early October 29 trading as markets digested the Federal Reserve’s decision to leave rates unchanged and the accompanying hawkish dissent. Contemporary market coverage also linked the move to weakness in technology shares and broader concerns about risk appetite. Prices in cryptocurrency markets change continuously, so the $80,000 level is a description of the reported session, not a live quotation for readers opening this article later. The Fed’s official statement confirms a 3.75%–4.00% policy range and two votes in favor of raising it.
The transmission mechanism runs through conventional markets rather than a new Bitcoin code change. Higher-for-longer interest-rate expectations can support cash and short-term instruments while making leveraged positions more expensive to carry. Technology shares and crypto assets may both react to those conditions, particularly when investors are reassessing exposure after earnings releases. But correlation varies, and a single trading session cannot prove a permanent relationship. The relevant distinction is between news that alters market conditions and news that changes Bitcoin’s supply schedule or security.
The immediate market risk is a feedback loop between falling prices and leveraged positions being closed. If sellers push through levels where traders have concentrated stops or collateral thresholds, selling can briefly accelerate. Conversely, an absence of forced liquidations can limit follow-through. That distinction matters more than arguing that a price ending in four zeros has special economic meaning. Traders looking for confirmation should examine whether the move persists across spot venues and whether derivatives activity is driving the direction.
Price-sensitive crypto coverage benefits from keeping three clocks separate: the moment a public announcement was made, the window in which markets reacted and the longer period over which a thesis might be tested. A policy decision or company earnings report can reset expectations immediately, but its enduring effect depends on follow-up data and positioning. Market participants should be wary of treating one narrative as the sole cause of volatile moves. A disciplined reading makes clear what was observed, what was officially disclosed and what remains interpretation.
The connection between digital assets and traditional finance is now too substantial for investors to ignore. Dollar financing rates, the appetite for technology shares, brokerage activity and institutional allocation decisions can all influence crypto demand. None of those relationships is fixed, however: correlation changes as investors rotate between risk and cash. Using a single session to support a dramatic long-term prediction is tempting but unreliable. Readers are better served by a sober distinction between published facts, market observations and forecasts that depend on uncertain assumptions.
An apparently round level such as $80,000 can affect positioning and attention, but does not guarantee support or resistance. Price moves also reflect derivatives funding, forced liquidations, spot exchange liquidity and the timing of orders. Claims about precise liquidation figures should be timestamped and sourced, because aggregation methods differ across providers. The practical lesson is to resist converting one macro headline into a deterministic trading signal. Bitcoin’s long-term adoption case and its vulnerability to short-term liquidity shocks can both be true.
The next signals are Fed communication, equity-market moves, ETF demand and whether Bitcoin stabilizes after the initial reaction. Because the price is time-sensitive, readers should check current market data before using this reported level in any decision.
Primary source: Official statement / source documentation. Additional source: Supporting document 1, Supporting document 2.
written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
TL;DR: Robinhood reported third-quarter 2026 results on October 27, with total net revenue of about $1.42 billion, up 12% from the comparable period a year earlier. Market participants can learn something from the gap between token narratives and exchange revenue.
Robinhood reported third-quarter 2026 results on October 27, with total net revenue of about $1.42 billion, up 12% from the comparable period a year earlier. Within that record quarter, cryptocurrency transaction revenue fell 55% year over year to $120 million. The company said crypto notional volumes declined 38% to $50 billion across its app and Bitstamp business. Those figures matter because they reveal the difference between the performance of one retail brokerage and the broader idea that digital assets are enjoying continuous commercial growth.
Robinhood’s other business lines moved in different directions. Options and equities transaction revenue increased, and event contracts contributed $173 million of revenue, more than six times the year-earlier level. The company reported 28.7 million funded customers and 5.2 million Gold subscribers, while platform assets reached about $396 billion. The numbers show a diversifying financial platform in which crypto is an important service but not the only driver of growth. They also remind readers that brokerage revenue depends on activity and pricing, not just the absolute price of the underlying assets.
Market participants can learn something from the gap between token narratives and exchange revenue. Even if infrastructure projects announce new institutional integrations, retail trading commissions may contract when speculative turnover slows. Robinhood’s results provide a concrete measure of that pressure. They also suggest traders and investors increasingly have other ways to express macro views on the same application. The story is less about a particular token and more about the changing economics of a brokerage exposed to multiple kinds of market activity.
Price-sensitive crypto coverage benefits from keeping three clocks separate: the moment a public announcement was made, the window in which markets reacted and the longer period over which a thesis might be tested. A policy decision or company earnings report can reset expectations immediately, but its enduring effect depends on follow-up data and positioning. Market participants should be wary of treating one narrative as the sole cause of volatile moves. A disciplined reading makes clear what was observed, what was officially disclosed and what remains interpretation.
The connection between digital assets and traditional finance is now too substantial for investors to ignore. Dollar financing rates, the appetite for technology shares, brokerage activity and institutional allocation decisions can all influence crypto demand. None of those relationships is fixed, however: correlation changes as investors rotate between risk and cash. Using a single session to support a dramatic long-term prediction is tempting but unreliable. Readers are better served by a sober distinction between published facts, market observations and forecasts that depend on uncertain assumptions.
A one-quarter performance snapshot should not be mistaken for a definitive verdict on cryptocurrency adoption. Lower notional volume can reflect reduced market volatility, user preferences or changes in trading conditions. Robinhood’s reported Bitstamp and app activity also carry different customer mixes. The quarter does not reveal every possible onchain use case, nor should strong prediction-market performance automatically be attributed to crypto trading. Investors should compare the company’s segment figures over several periods and consider cost, customer assets and the sustainability of newer businesses.
The next earnings report should show whether crypto volume recovers and whether event contracts continue to contribute strongly. Analysts should also monitor trading activity and customer asset trends rather than projecting a long-term outcome from one quarter alone.
Primary source: Official statement / source documentation.
written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
The significant Bitcoin gain highlights the volatility and potential risks of relying heavily on cryptocurrency for corporate financial strategies.
The post Strategy reports $19.5B Q3 profit on Bitcoin gains as MSTR slips 2.5% after hours appeared first on Crypto Briefing.
TL;DR: Bitwise Asset Management has raised its long-range Bitcoin price projection to $1.6 million by 2036 in its 2027 capital-market assumptions. The headline will attract attention because it implies a dramatic rise from current levels, but the market should distinguish an investment thesis from a catalyst.
Bitwise Asset Management has raised its long-range Bitcoin price projection to $1.6 million by 2036 in its 2027 capital-market assumptions. The firm models annualized growth of 34.3% over the coming decade, based on institutional allocations, demand for scarce assets and constrained new issuance. It says this is an increase from a previous $1.3 million target. A forecast is not a traded price, and those numbers reflect the manager’s own scenario rather than an independently established future outcome. Investors should read the projection alongside the assumptions that could make it wrong.
Among the inputs Bitwise highlights is the scale of institutional portfolios, which the firm places around $147 trillion. It argues that a potential allocation of 1% to 5% could imply between $1.5 trillion and $7 trillion of additional demand over time. Those figures are hypothetical allocations, not capital already committed to Bitcoin. The supply argument is more mechanical, reflecting the issuance schedule of the network, but price still depends on buyers and sellers at each moment. Supply scarcity alone cannot determine a future dollar valuation.
The headline will attract attention because it implies a dramatic rise from current levels, but the market should distinguish an investment thesis from a catalyst. Bitwise has an interest in institutional Bitcoin adoption and its report is intended for long-horizon capital planning. Near-term traders still face macroeconomic news, ETF flows and leverage-driven price moves that may bear little resemblance to a ten-year projection. The proper use of a model this ambitious is to test sensitivities, not to treat the endpoint as a guaranteed destination.
The connection between digital assets and traditional finance is now too substantial for investors to ignore. Dollar financing rates, the appetite for technology shares, brokerage activity and institutional allocation decisions can all influence crypto demand. None of those relationships is fixed, however: correlation changes as investors rotate between risk and cash. Using a single session to support a dramatic long-term prediction is tempting but unreliable. Readers are better served by a sober distinction between published facts, market observations and forecasts that depend on uncertain assumptions.
The manager also argues that Bitcoin’s characteristic four-year swings may moderate as ownership becomes more institutional. It points to a drawdown in 2026 that it portrays as shallower than previous historical cycles. That observation is compatible with maturation, but it does not establish that leverage, liquidity shocks or regulation can no longer produce violent corrections. Bitwise itself expects volatility to continue. An investor considering the model should ask what happens if adoption grows more slowly, institutions reduce positions, or other stores of value remain more attractive.
Readers can evaluate the forecast as new institutional ownership data, ETF flows and corporate treasury disclosures emerge. A useful check is whether the evidence matches the modeled adoption path rather than whether Bitcoin briefly moves closer to the final price target.
Primary source: Official statement / source documentation.
written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
Bitcoin's resilience amid market volatility suggests a potential shift in investor strategy, highlighting crypto's role as a hedge asset.
The post Bitcoin rebounds as investors reassess rate outlook amid AI stock sell-off appeared first on Crypto Briefing.
TL;DR: The Federal Reserve held the federal funds target range at 3.75% to 4.00% on October 28. For Bitcoin, a key market question is whether the latest policy message encourages holders to maintain cash rather than increase exposure.
The Federal Reserve held the federal funds target range at 3.75% to 4.00% on October 28. Its monetary policy statement said the economy was expanding at a strong pace and inflation remained elevated, while uncertainty persisted. The decision was approved by ten committee members, with Lisa Cook and Beth Hammack dissenting in favor of a quarter-point increase. For cryptocurrency traders, the immediate consequence is not a mechanical change to blockchain supply; it is a reminder that the price and availability of dollar funding continue to shape appetite for volatile financial assets.
The central bank also published an implementation note preserving the rate paid on reserve balances at 3.90%, and describing standing overnight operations used to keep market rates near the target. Those tools operate in traditional money markets, but their effects reach crypto indirectly through Treasury yields, borrowing costs, the dollar and institutional portfolio decisions. Dollar-backed stablecoins likewise operate in an ecosystem where short-dated government securities and bank deposits remain important reserve assets. A policy hold is therefore relevant to both speculative trading and the economics of payment-token infrastructure.
For Bitcoin, a key market question is whether the latest policy message encourages holders to maintain cash rather than increase exposure. Restrictive interest rates raise the opportunity cost of holding an asset that pays no coupon, although Bitcoin’s long-term supply argument is separate from that short-term trading calculation. The vote also makes the differences within the central bank visible, complicating any assumption that easing is around the corner. A better dashboard than one price candle combines yields, the dollar, ETF demand and derivatives positioning.
The connection between digital assets and traditional finance is now too substantial for investors to ignore. Dollar financing rates, the appetite for technology shares, brokerage activity and institutional allocation decisions can all influence crypto demand. None of those relationships is fixed, however: correlation changes as investors rotate between risk and cash. Using a single session to support a dramatic long-term prediction is tempting but unreliable. Readers are better served by a sober distinction between published facts, market observations and forecasts that depend on uncertain assumptions.
There are limits to simple rate-cut narratives. A pause does not signal that a cut is imminent, just as two votes for an increase do not establish that the next decision will be a hike. Future inflation, employment and financial conditions will matter. Bitcoin’s performance around the announcement can reflect leverage, equity-market moves and positioning as much as the statement itself. Readers should separate the Fed’s confirmed decision from forecasts about what it will do in December; the committee has not committed to a specific next move.
Investors should watch upcoming inflation and labor figures, the path of Treasury yields and the Fed’s next communication. None of those signals guarantees a Bitcoin direction; together they will clarify whether the October pause is a temporary holding pattern or part of a longer restrictive stance.
Primary source: Official statement / source documentation. Additional source: Supporting document 1.
written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
Bitcoin Magazine
Understanding the Various Bitcoin Per Share Metrics
Bitcoin per share is one of the most important metrics for evaluating a Bitcoin treasury company. It measures how much bitcoin is attributable to each common share. However, there are several ways to calculate this figure, and each method provides different information about the economics of owning the common stock.
Understanding these differences is essential for evaluating a company’s capital structure, measuring accretion, and determining the value attributable to common shareholders.
The simplest metric is raw Bitcoin Per Share (BPS).
BPS = Total Bitcoin Holdings / Common Shares Outstanding
This calculation divides the company’s bitcoin holdings by its existing common shares. It provides a straightforward measure of how much bitcoin is attributable to each currently outstanding share.
The primary limitation is its treatment of potential dilution. A company may have warrants, convertible debt, or convertible preferred stock that could eventually become common shares. Raw BPS only counts existing shares, so it provides an incomplete picture of the potential future share count.
Bitcoin Per Assumed Diluted Share (BPADS) addresses this limitation by incorporating the shares that would exist if all potentially dilutive securities converted into common stock.
BPADS = Total Bitcoin Holdings / Assumed Diluted Shares Outstanding
Because the assumed diluted share count is greater than or equal to the existing share count, BPADS is always less than or equal to raw BPS.
This metric became widely cited beginning in 2024, particularly as Bitcoin treasury companies began using increasingly complex capital structures.
BPADS provides a more conservative view of bitcoin ownership by incorporating potential dilution from outstanding securities. It becomes especially relevant for companies with substantial convertible debt, warrants, or convertible preferred stock.
However, its assumption of full conversion can be overly conservative.
Warrants and convertible debt may never convert if the common stock price remains below their conversion or exercise prices. Perpetual convertible preferred stock may also remain outstanding indefinitely if investors prefer receiving the preferred dividend rather than converting into common equity.
Consequently, BPADS represents a fully diluted scenario rather than a forecast of the actual future share count.
Both BPS and BPADS share another major limitation: they measure gross bitcoin holdings without accounting for senior claims on the company’s assets.
Common equity sits at the bottom of the capital structure. Debt holders and preferred shareholders generally have priority over common shareholders according to their contractual rights.
These senior claims matter because they reduce the assets ultimately attributable to common equity.
Net Bitcoin Per Share (Net BPS) addresses this by deducting the bitcoin equivalent of senior claims from total bitcoin holdings before dividing by the common share count.
The basic calculation is:
Net BPS = (Total Bitcoin Holdings − Senior Claims / Bitcoin Price) / Common Shares
For example, a company with $1 billion in senior claims and a bitcoin price of $100,000 would need the equivalent of 10,000 bitcoin to satisfy those claims.
Those 10,000 bitcoin would therefore be deducted from gross bitcoin holdings when calculating Net BPS.
The denominator can use either existing common shares or an assumed diluted share count. However, the treatment must remain consistent: securities assumed to convert into common stock should have their extinguished senior claims removed from the numerator’s deductions. This avoids counting the same obligation twice.
There are two useful approaches to calculating Net BPS.
The first applies cash and cash equivalents against senior claims before deducting the remaining obligations from bitcoin holdings.
Net BPS = [Bitcoin Holdings − (Senior Claims − Applied Cash) / Bitcoin Price] / Common Shares
Here, applied cash is limited to the amount available to offset senior claims. This method reflects the fact that cash can satisfy obligations, preserving more bitcoin for common shareholders. This is the methodology used by Strategy to compute their mNAV.
The second approach deducts the full value of senior claims from bitcoin holdings and reports cash separately. For example, investors could examine both Net BPS and Cash Per Share. This separation provides a clearer view of the company’s bitcoin exposure alongside its independent cash reserves, at a per-share level.
Both approaches are useful. Including cash produces a more comprehensive measure of residual asset value, while excluding cash makes the company’s bitcoin and cash positions separately visible.
A defining characteristic of Net BPS is its sensitivity to the price of bitcoin.
Raw BPS and BPADS depend on bitcoin holdings and share counts. Net BPS additionally depends on bitcoin’s market price because senior claims are generally denominated in dollars.
As bitcoin appreciates, fewer bitcoins are required to cover a fixed dollar obligation, so more bitcoins remain attributable to common shareholders. When bitcoin depreciates, the opposite occurs.
Net BPS therefore rises with bitcoin’s price and falls when bitcoin’s price declines, assuming fixed senior claims, holdings, and share counts.
This relationship creates both a challenge and an important advantage.
The challenge is that changes in Net BPS over time combine the effects of corporate actions with changes in bitcoin’s market price.
A rising bitcoin price can increase Net BPS even when a company’s financing decisions destroy value for common shareholders. Conversely, falling bitcoin prices can obscure the benefits of genuinely accretive transactions.
This makes directly comparing observed Net BPS figures across different dates an unreliable method of evaluating management’s capital allocation decisions.
However, raw BPS and BPADS are also inadequate measures of economic accretion.
Consider a company issuing debt to purchase bitcoin. Any positive amount of bitcoin purchased with debt increases raw BPS because bitcoin holdings rise while common shares remain unchanged. This holds regardless of the debt’s interest rate or repayment obligations.
Similarly, issuing preferred stock to purchase bitcoin increases raw BPS even if the preferred stock is issued at a substantial discount to par and carries expensive dividend obligations.
These transactions increase gross bitcoin ownership per common share while potentially reducing the residual value attributable to common shareholders.
The proper way to measure economic accretion is to compare Net BPS before and after a transaction while holding the bitcoin price constant.
This isolates the effects of changes in bitcoin holdings, senior claims, cash, and share count.
It reveals whether a corporate action genuinely increases the bitcoin equivalent of the residual assets attributable to each common share.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of Net BPS is its connection to the economic value of common equity. When bitcoin is a company’s primary treasury asset, Net BPS calculated with the appropriate cash adjustment approximates the bitcoin denominated liquidation value attributable to each common share.
(Note: by liquidation value, I mean the value that common stockholders would be entitled to if they liquidated the company, paid off all the claims, and divided the remainder amongst themselves. This has nothing to do with the “liquidation value” associated with leveraged, margin-callable trading positions. Actual recoveries in a real liquidation depend on the precise terms of senior securities, other assets and liabilities, liquidation expenses, and the taxable proceeds realized from asset sales.)
Multiplying Net BPS by the bitcoin price converts this amount into dollars. Investors can then compare that dollar figure with the common stock’s market price to measure the premium or discount at which the shares trade relative to their estimated residual asset value.
This is an advantage that BPS and BPADS cannot offer. Because Net BPS accounts for senior claims, it provides a more direct measure of the assets that ultimately belong to common shareholders, making it the most relevant basis for comparison with the common stock’s market price.
This connection to common equity liquidation value also explains why accretion is best measured through changes in Net BPS at a constant bitcoin price. Holding the price constant isolates the impact of corporate actions on the residual asset value attributable to each common share. And because Net BPS factors in both senior claims and common stock, it accounts for the impact of all possible corporate actions that involve issuance or repurchase of securities interests, while projecting the results of the impact onto the common stock.
Each Bitcoin per share metric serves a distinct purpose.
Raw BPS measures gross bitcoin holdings attributable to existing common shares. BPADS incorporates potential dilution. Net BPS accounts for senior claims and measures the residual bitcoin value attributable to common equity.
For evaluating the capital stack, Net BPS is the most comprehensive of the three. Holding bitcoin’s price constant allows investors to isolate the economic effects of financing transactions and assess genuine accretion. Net BPS provides a direct connection between the company’s balance sheet and the market value of its common stock.
Disclaimer: This content was prepared on behalf of Bitcoin For Corporations for informational purposes only. It reflects the author’s own analysis and opinion and should not be relied upon as investment advice. Nothing in this article constitutes an offer, invitation, or solicitation to purchase, sell, or subscribe for any security or financial product.
This post Understanding the Various Bitcoin Per Share Metrics first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Allard Peng.
Bitcoin Magazine
Mosaic: The Art Hidden in Bitcoin
A mosaic is an artwork assembled from fragments. From ancient Roman floors to Byzantine churches, artists have used pieces of stone, glass, and ceramic to construct images that have endured for centuries.
For the generative artist known as BitArt, those fragments are satoshis (or sats), the smallest units of bitcoin.
In Mosaic, a continuously evolving artwork developed through the Bitcoin Art Society (BAS), the numerical properties of satoshis are translated into color and spatial coordinates. Each contribution adds to an expanding composition of pixels resembling digital textiles, early computer graphics, or abstract paintings.
Rather than illustrating bitcoin through familiar iconography, Mosaic treats the network itself as artistic material. Satoshi positions and unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) become inputs for a rule-based system that determines the artwork’s appearance. BitArt begins with bitcoin’s underlying data and allows an image to emerge.
The approach recalls conceptual artist Sol LeWitt’s proposition that an artwork can exist as a set of instructions rather than a singular handcrafted object. Generative artists such as Vera Molnár and Manfred Mohr similarly explored how mathematical systems and computational procedures could produce visual compositions. Mosaic extends this tradition into an economic network shaped by transactions and human decisions.
The scale is extraordinary. According to BitArt, Mosaic now contains more than 127 million tiles and one billion layers. Viewing every layer at a rate of one per second would take over 30 years.
The project has also expanded into sound. Its musical component draws from the same satoshi data that generates the imagery, translating numerical values into an evolving score. Together, these elements create an audiovisual artwork shaped by bitcoin’s underlying structure and the contributions of its participants.
These experiments form part of the broader ambitions of Bitcoin Art Society, founded by Serge Ajamian and Yara Al Chammaa to support the creation, exhibition, and preservation of digital art on bitcoin.
For Al Chammaa, preservation is particularly personal. Following the 2020 Beirut Port explosion, which destroyed much of the artwork housed in her family’s gallery, she began reconsidering how cultural heritage might survive physical destruction. That experience helped inform BAS’s interest in bitcoin as a potential medium for preserving cultural works beyond the vulnerabilities of physical institutions.
BAS has since presented bitcoin-native digital art internationally, including Mosaic accompanied by live musicians at the Galileo Galilei Planetarium in Buenos Aires. Its inaugural artist residency features BitArt and CyberSea, whose practices investigate generative systems and blockchain-native artistic production.
Yet permanence raises questions beyond the durability of bitcoin’s ledger. Software-based art has long challenged museums to preserve not only underlying materials but also the technologies and experiences through which artworks are encountered. For Mosaic, what constitutes the artwork: the code, the rendered image, the accumulated contributions, or the experience of navigating the system?
At Bitcoin Amsterdam 2026, Mosaic will be presented on the conference’s main-stage LED installation, bringing its intricate visual structures to an architectural scale, similar to BAS’s immersive presentation at the Galileo Galilei Planetarium in Buenos Aires.
Ahead of the event, I spoke with BitArt about the project’s artistic origins, collective authorship, and the possibility of preserving an artwork that may never be finished.
BMAG: You’ve described bitcoin as a time-based transactional medium rather than simply a platform for displaying art. What first led you to recognize its underlying mathematical and economic structures as artistic material, and how did that thinking develop into Mosaic?
BitArt: Bitcoin records the movement of value through a sequence of events secured by computational work, creating a history that becomes increasingly difficult to reverse. What interests me is not just the individual event, but the sequence of events that led to it. In the context of art, this shifts the question from “What is the artwork?” to “What had to happen for the artwork to become what it is?”
With the advent of the Ordinals protocol, it became possible to assign a unique number to every satoshi. This opened up new possibilities.
From there, Mosaic developed almost naturally. I only had to highlight what was already there. Once every satoshi has an assigned ordinal number, it becomes relatively straightforward to determine its position and derive its color or musical parameters through a set of rules.
The interesting part is that these structures emerge from a system driven by human decisions, rather than one designed to produce art.
BMAG: Artists from Sol LeWitt to Vera Molnár have explored how predetermined rules can produce unexpected visual outcomes. In Mosaic, how do your decisions shape the system, and where does bitcoin’s underlying data take over?
BitArt: In a sense, Mosaic continues the tradition of rule-based art explored by LeWitt and Molnár, and builds on the concept of protocol art explored by Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst. But it introduces yet another layer: the input is the accumulated result of human decisions within an economic system.
My artistic decisions determine the rules of interpretation, but the underlying data determines the resulting visual and sonic structures.
The rules are deterministic, but the results are not necessarily predictable in practice. I find that tension particularly interesting. The artist creates the conditions under which something can emerge, rather than specifying what it should look or sound like.
BMAG: Participants contribute to Mosaic through their own transactions, becoming part of a composition that no single person controls. Does that make them collectors, collaborators, or something else?
BitArt: I think of authorship as something distributed across several layers.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that individual intentions can generate collective structures that nobody intended. Everyone contributes something specific, but the larger composition belongs to the system as a whole.
A participant can be a collector, but also becomes a contributor to the artwork’s evolving structure. The distinction between collecting and creating becomes less clear. Each contribution changes the work, but nobody, including myself, controls the resulting composition.
Authorship becomes less about controlling an outcome and more about establishing the conditions under which it can emerge.
BMAG: You’re developing a system for the upcoming Postmasters exhibition that will allow visitors to speak directly with artworks and receive responses. How does this differ from participating in Mosaic through bitcoin transactions? Are these different forms of communication through computational systems?
BitArt: Yes, both are intentional acts mediated by computational systems, but there is an important semantic distinction.
A contribution to Mosaic through a Bitcoin transaction is a non-verbal gesture that becomes part of a verifiable record. We can establish exactly what happened and how it changed the artwork. The action leaves a trace that the system can process directly.
Speaking to an artwork is different. Natural language must first be interpreted and translated into the formal language the artworks use to communicate.
In the first case, the action produces a verifiable change in the artwork’s state. In the second, it initiates a process of interpretation.
Both are expressions of human intention, but one establishes a computational fact, while the other opens up a space for interpretation.
BMAG: You’ve written about the creative uncertainty that emerges during programming and experimented with the relationship between real time and bitcoin’s block time. How important are unpredictability, chance, and duration to your practice? Has Mosaic produced results that surprised you or challenged your original intentions?
BitArt: I designed the algorithm for Mosaic to be as simple as possible. It’s deterministic, so its results are technically predictable and reproducible. From a technical standpoint, there shouldn’t be any surprises. Nonetheless, the results are full of unexpected and surprising elements.
I think there is an important distinction between something being computationally predictable and our ability to anticipate or comprehend its results.
Currently, Mosaic contains over 127 million tiles and over 1 billion layers. To view all the layers at a rate of one layer per second would take over 30 years. There are many things that have surprised me, and I’m still discovering new ones.
The temporal divergence between real time and Bitcoin’s block time is also interesting to me. Bitcoin evolves according to its own rhythm, independently of how and when we observe it. This introduces another dimension of duration into the artwork.
BMAG: The introduction of sound adds another dimension to Mosaic, with musical compositions generated from the same data that determines the visual structure. What can sound reveal about the underlying system that an image cannot?
BitArt: From the very beginning, Mosaic was built on three fundamental ideas.
The first is the possibility of capturing traces of human intention within a financial, algorithmic system and revealing visual and sonic structures from them.
The second is the development of a formal system in which Mosaic becomes meta-aware, in the sense of being self-referential and introspective, and capable of communicating and collaborating with other artworks.
The third is collective creation. Anyone can contribute to Mosaic and become part of its evolving structure.
Looking at Mosaic from any of these perspectives reveals something different about it. In the case of sound, it reveals melodic, harmonic, contrapuntal, and rhythmic structures that aren’t necessarily apparent in the visual representation.
Yet within the digital realm, the structures underlying the image and the music are closely related, sometimes almost identical. Perhaps the way we think about visual, sonic, and programmatic structures as separate domains is itself a limitation.
BMAG: Your practice has been presented in contexts including the Whitney, ZKM, and ICC Tokyo, institutions with significant histories in digital and media art. Where do you see Mosaic within the broader history of generative and systems-based art? What does working directly with bitcoin make possible that earlier computational media did not?
BitArt: I see Mosaic as part of the tradition of generative and systems-based art, but I’m particularly interested in extending that tradition beyond the generation of images and sound.
I’m currently working on a show at Postmasters gallery in New York City in collaboration with BAS. The show will present Mosaic in communication and collaboration with other artworks.
In principle, any artwork that can be represented digitally can join the conversation, whether it’s Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, Malevich’s Black Square, an artwork inscribed on Bitcoin, or music as diverse as traditional folk songs, Nine Inch Nails’ 34 Ghosts IV, and Ravel’s Boléro.
Through the system I mentioned earlier, these artworks can reference themselves and one another, exchange statements, and initiate collaborations using a machine-readable formal language. What’s particularly interesting is that the audience will also be able to join these conversations by speaking directly with the artworks in natural language.
Historically, discourse about art happened outside the works themselves, in texts, institutions, discussions, and criticism. Artworks remained largely silent objects of interpretation. By giving artworks the formal means to reference one another, reason about themselves and others, and exchange verifiable statements, the project treats discourse itself as artistic material.
Art history normally describes influence retrospectively. Here, through collaborations between artworks, influence becomes operative. Influence becomes something artworks can perform.
Bitcoin introduces another dimension by providing a shared, ordered, and verifiable record of these exchanges and the artworks’ histories of collaboration. Unlike a conventional computational environment, this record can exist independently of any single artist, institution, or platform.
The artwork is no longer simply the result of a process or the process itself. It becomes a participant in an ongoing process of interpretation, communication, and creation.
BMAG: Mosaic has already been presented in immersive environments, including the Galileo Galilei Planetarium in Buenos Aires. For Bitcoin Amsterdam, the work will be adapted for large-scale main-stage LED screens. How does that change the way audiences encounter the work, particularly when its original form is interactive and continuously evolving?
BitArt: The surface of the artwork is not fixed, and it is not what constitutes the artwork. It’s a manifestation of its state at any given time.
I like BAS’s approach of presenting it in intimate settings, large-scale immersive environments, and anywhere in between. Each setting allows the audience to experience a different aspect of the same underlying system.
In an interactive environment, the viewer navigates Mosaic individually, while on large-scale screens, the experience becomes collective. The audience encounters the artwork as it unfolds, rather than exploring it directly.
For the Postmasters show, I’m also developing a physical component that will provide yet another way of experiencing Mosaic.
What interests me is that the artwork can take on very different forms without changing its underlying identity. The presentation changes, but the system that constitutes the work remains the same.
Explore BitArt’s evolving Mosaic project through Bitcoin Art Society, learn more about its exhibitions and artist residencies, and follow BAS on X.
BAS will also present Art on Bitcoin: BAS Night at WiHH Gallery (What Is Happening Here) in Amsterdam on November 6, from 8–11 PM. Hosted in collaboration with Bitcoin Amsterdam, the evening brings together artists, collectors, and the bitcoin community for an exhibition and reception featuring food, music, and conversation. RSVP here.
Read more from BMAG’s Bitcoin Amsterdam series: The Undercurrent: Three European Artists on Making Money Visible and The Architecture of Money: Mapping Financial Power in the Age of Bitcoin.
The Bitcoin Museum & Art Gallery (BMAG) organizes international exhibitions, auctions, and artist collaborations exploring bitcoin and its cultural implications.
BitArt’s Mosaic will be featured on the main-stage LED screens at Bitcoin Amsterdam, November 5–6, 2026, as part of BMAG’s programming. Join us in Amsterdam and use code BA26-BMAG20 for discounted admission. Get your tickets here.
This post Mosaic: The Art Hidden in Bitcoin first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Dennis Koch.
Login