How Pledditor Exposes the Bitcoin Treasury Exit Strategy: The $1 Million Question

On June 24, 2025, a crypto researcher using the handle Pledditor published an X post that sparked significant debate within the Bitcoin community. The core claim was provocative: Bitcoin did reach $1,000,000 this cycle—just not for retail investors like “you.” Instead, early Bitcoin holders and company founders captured these valuations through a sophisticated financial structure. Pledditor detailed how a mechanism called 10x mNAV (market net asset value) could theoretically allow Bitcoin pioneers with substantial holdings to liquidate their positions at $1 million per Bitcoin while maintaining control through preferred equity shares.

Pledditor first gained prominence in 2023 when they exposed deleted tweets from Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, establishing themselves as a sharp-eyed observer of crypto industry practices. Rather than being a Bitcoin skeptic, Pledditor advocates strongly for self-custody and decentralized approaches—positioning themselves as a critic of what they view as problematic treasury structures operated by companies seeking profit-driven Bitcoin accumulation strategies.

How Pledditor Says Bitcoin OGs Are Engineering Million-Dollar Exits

According to Pledditor’s analysis, early Bitcoin holders and industry figures—referred to as “Bitcoin OGs” including individuals associated with companies like Strategy, Swan, Ten31, and Nakamoto—have discovered a potentially lucrative mechanism within the corporate treasury model. The strategy works like this:

A company launches a Bitcoin treasury vehicle and generates hype through Twitter promotion and influencer marketing, encouraging retail investors to purchase common stock. The founders, meanwhile, maintain control of the company’s substantial Bitcoin holdings. Once the market net asset value reaches 10x, the founder can exit their common stock position while simultaneously retaining all preferred shares.

In practical terms, if Bitcoin trades at $100,000 but the treasury company’s mNAV multiplier hits 10, the founder effectively sells their Bitcoin at $1,000,000 per coin—all while claiming to remain invested through their preferred equity. Pledditor summarized this as a misrepresentation to retail buyers: founders tell the market that common stock purchases grant fractional Bitcoin exposure, when in reality the founders own all preferred shares and retain actual Bitcoin control.

The genius of this arrangement, from a market manipulation perspective, is that the underlying Bitcoin often originates from existing holdings rather than OTC purchases. This means the scheme creates no actual buying pressure on Bitcoin spot markets, leaving the price of Bitcoin itself unaffected while benefiting early accumulators.

Notably, Pledditor has characterized this model as an “exit strategy for Bitcoin OGs,” drawing parallels to corporate practices that benefit insiders at the expense of retail participants.

Why Comparing Bitcoin Treasuries to SPACs Raises Red Flags

The comparison between Bitcoin treasury companies and Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) has become increasingly common on crypto Twitter, with Pledditor among those drawing this parallel. SPACs are essentially shell corporations designed to raise capital through public offerings and subsequently merge with operating companies.

The SPAC comparison is unfavorable for treasury advocates. SPACs gained popularity twice—in the late 2000s and early 2020s—and both waves left retail investors damaged. SPAC investors frequently experienced negative returns lasting years. The 2024 Trump Media-Digital World Acquisition Corp merger serves as a contemporary cautionary tale: DJT stock trades significantly below its merger-period valuations.

Both SPACs and Bitcoin treasuries share a critical characteristic: they produce no tangible economic output and exist primarily for speculative gains. Neither generates real revenue or creates fundamental value. This distinction matters. While some defenders argue Strategy’s Bitcoin strategy is acceptable since Goldman Sachs analysts calculated that Bitcoin would need to crash 50% to create genuine financial risk, other institutional observers sound alarm bells.

According to Fakhul Miah from Go Mining Institutional, newer Bitcoin treasury companies often lack adequate risk safeguards. If Bitcoin prices decline below $90,000, liquidation triggers could cascade through larger treasury positions, creating systemic contagion effects. As regulatory frameworks evolve to permit corporate self-custody of Bitcoin, the competitive advantage of both Bitcoin ETFs and Treasury company shares may erode substantially.

Furthermore, critics note a tension within the Bitcoin treasury narrative. Michael Saylor, while publicly advocating for Bitcoin adoption, primarily sells MSTR shares to investors rather than offering direct Bitcoin exposure—a practice some view as prioritizing stock price elevation over genuine Bitcoin advocacy.

Which Bitcoin Treasury Companies Have Crossed the 10x mNAV Threshold?

Data released by NYDIG on June 6, 2025, provided clarity on which companies achieved the mNAV multipliers that Pledditor specifically highlighted. According to SEC filings, GameStop and Nakamoto have both achieved mNAV rates exceeding 10x, while Metaplanet and Strive sit closer to the threshold at 7.6x and 9.1x respectively.

GameStop’s elevated mNAV primarily reflects its substantial pre-Bitcoin market capitalization combined with a relatively modest Bitcoin allocation—a technical artifact rather than validation of the treasury model. Nakamoto’s position, however, aligns more directly with Pledditor’s thesis about early movers extracting value through the preferred-share mechanism.

Current Bitcoin price stands at $66,110 (as of February 2026), significantly lower than the theoretical $100,000+ valuations discussed in mid-2025. This price environment raises additional questions about the sustainability of 10x mNAV multiples and the realistic timeframe for executing Pledditor’s described exit strategies.

As Bitcoin treasury companies continue multiplying, with Strategy, Metaplanet, and numerous copycats following the same model, Pledditor’s structural critique gains relevance. Whether the market ultimately validates or rejects this treasury approach will likely depend on regulatory oversight, market cycle dynamics, and whether Bitcoin itself reaches price levels that justify the speculative multiples embedded in these equity structures. The debate between treasury advocates and critics like Pledditor will undoubtedly intensify as more companies attempt to replicate the model’s promised wealth concentration mechanisms.