The Capital Structure Issue

Andrew Webley's criticism of mNAV is not just about terminology. It is about comparability.

His point is that Bitcoin treasury companies and analytics providers have used the same label for different calculations. For the numerator, some use market capitalisation while others use enterprise value based approaches. For the denominator, some refer to net asset value while others use gross Bitcoin value. These are not the same thing, and they can produce different answers for the same company.

The disagreement is already visible in the market. On 30 November 2025, CoinDesk reported BitcoinTreasuries.net data showing Strategy at an mNAV Basic of 0.856, an mNAV Diluted of 0.954 and an mNAV EV of 1.105. Same company, same day, three different versions of the metric.

That matters because capital structure matters. A Bitcoin treasury company funded only with common equity is not economically identical to one with convertible debt, preferred equity, warrants, options and cash reserves. These instruments can affect the position of common shareholders even if the company holds the same number of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin per share can therefore be useful, but it is not enough on its own. Strategy defines BTC Yield as the percentage change in its Bitcoin per share, and uses BPS, BTC Yield, BTC Gain and BTC Dollar Gain as key performance indicators to assess its Bitcoin acquisition strategy.

But Strategy also discloses the limitation. These indicators do not fully capture liabilities and preferential rights in the capital structure, and they are not presented as measures of financial performance, valuation or liquidity.

That is the central issue Webley is pointing to. Bitcoin per share tells investors something about exposure. It does not, by itself, show the full economic claim of common shareholders after debt, preferred claims, cash, dilution and other instruments.

The same objection has also come from research analysts. NYDIG's Greg Cipolaro argued in 2025 that commonly used mNAV metrics are "woefully deficient" for comparing Bitcoin treasury companies because they do not properly account for operating businesses and capital structure differences.

That is why standardisation matters. If Bitcoin treasury companies use the same term for different calculations, investors cannot make meaningful comparisons. A clearer metric needs to state exactly what is in the numerator, exactly what is in the denominator, and how debt, cash, preferred equity and dilution have been treated.