This Opinion article was submitted by Darius Sit, Founder QCP.
Corporate treasury is being rewritten in real time. What began in 2020 as a contrarian hedge against monetary debasement has matured into a policy choice that boards, CFOs and audit committees now debate alongside cash, gilts and gold.
That change did not happen by accident. It followed three structural shifts: the launch of regulated spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the United States, clearer accounting under GAAP, and a deeper, more professional market structure that lets treasurers size, store and hedge exposure with institutional tools.
Firstly, the launch and adoption of ETFs has made bitcoin an investable asset class that is recognised by traditional market participants. The iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) alone reported roughly $87.6 billion in net assets as of mid-September, a scale larger than most mid-cap equities and impossible for treasury teams to ignore.
US spot bitcoin ETFs have seen net inflows in the hundreds of millions of dollars, providing price discovery and immediacy that simply did not exist two years ago for institutional investors. The presence of multiple issuers has narrowed spreads and lowered the operational burden of exposure for institutions that cannot or will not self-custody.
Second, accounting. Under the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s ASU 2023-08, crypto assets that meet defined criteria are measured at fair value through profit and loss. Early adoption was permitted, and for calendar-year filers the standard is effective from 1 January 2025.
Put simply, this means that US corporates are out from under the old, asymmetric impairment model that penalised them for volatility on the downside but denied them mark-ups on the way up. That alone removes a major governance objection.
Under IFRS, most crypto assets remain within IAS 38 as intangible assets, although entities may apply a revaluation model when an active market exists, a nuance that matters to multinationals.
Third, depth and hedging. Alongside ETFs, the listed derivatives complex has thickened on the CME, and data services now track realised and implied volatility in ways familiar to any risk committee.
The combination allows treasurers to overlay collars, sell cash-secured puts against planned accumulation, or simply manage value-at-risk bands through futures, techniques common in commodities but only recently mainstreamed in bitcoin.
These building blocks are why corporate ownership has broadened. Strategy (the company formerly known as MicroStrategy) disclosed last month that it added another 525 bitcoin, bringing its treasury to about 638,985 BTC, roughly 3% of eventual supply.
Bitcoin options transactions now serve as a telling example of how structured overlays can complement simple buy-and-hold. It is one of several tools that can turn a volatile asset into a managed treasury exposure with defined risk budgets.
The question is, what should a modern treasury policy look like? Start with sizing and mandate. Bitcoin is not cash. It is a scarce, non-sovereign asset with a 21 million supply cap and a halving schedule that has now slowed new issuance to 3.125 bitcoin per block.
For most corporations, that argues for a core-satellite approach: a small, policy-approved core (for example, 1–5% of gross cash and marketable securities) held for strategic reasons, with a satellite sleeve for opportunistic purchases or yield overlays.
The goal is not day-trading, but rather to align exposure with corporate risk tolerance and liquidity needs. Choose the instrument to fit the jurisdiction. Direct spot holdings offer the greatest control but require custody, key management, board-level controls and audit-ready processes.
ETFs reduce operational complexity and can be appropriate for some public companies, though not every jurisdiction or mandate will permit them. The growth of US spot ETFs (in aggregate holding well over a million bitcoin across vehicles globally) has nonetheless changed the liquidity calculus for everyone.
Institutional-grade custody is not optional. Multi-signature, role-based access, segregation of duties and disaster-recovery rehearsals should be standard.
For boards familiar with physical bullion or bearer instruments, the parallels are helpful. In practice, the operational playbook now exists. The harder part is cultural, ensuring audit and security teams are trained and empowered.
Hedge what matters. A treasury that buys steadily can sell cash-secured puts to improve entry points, or collar a portion of holdings ahead of known liabilities. The point is to make volatility a managed input rather than a headline risk. Treasury leaders already do this with FX and commodities, and bitcoin should be no different.
The energy debate around proof-of-work will continue, but the empirical picture has changed. New research from Cambridge’s Centre for Alternative Finance finds that sustainable energy (including renewables and nuclear) now accounts for about 52% of bitcoin mining’s power mix, with coal markedly reduced and natural gas more prominent.
That does not end the conversation on emissions, but it means boards should update their priors and insist on current data when making policy.
Expect cycles and plan around them. Bitcoin’s fourth halving tightened supply just as regulated ETFs broadened demand. That cocktail has supported prices in 2025, with periodic consolidations and spurts of institutional flows into the ETFs.
A sensible policy recognises that drawdowns are part of the asset’s nature, budgets for them, and treats opportunistic buying as a board-approved action rather than a panic move left to chance.
The question many CFOs ask is whether bitcoin improves portfolio efficiency or merely adds drama. Independent research increasingly shows the former. Because bitcoin’s drivers differ from traditional assets, small allocations have historically improved risk-adjusted returns in diversified portfolios. The key is sizing and discipline.
Meanwhile, 30-day realised volatility, which in absolute terms is still high, has been trending lower as participation widens and market microstructure matures.
There are, of course, real constraints. Most companies still grapple with intangible-asset treatment and impairment rules, even with the revaluation pathway in theory. Banks face capital requirements that make unbacked crypto onerous to hold on their balance sheet.
And regulators will continue to refine disclosure templates and prudential standards in ways that affect counterparties, lenders and market plumbing. None of this is a reason to avoid bitcoin altogether. It is a reason to design treasury policy with legal, accounting and risk teams at the table from day one.
From where we sit, the future of bitcoin treasury will look less like a bet and more like a process.
Boards will set modest strategic allocations. Finance teams will implement through a mix of direct holdings and ETFs, while risk managers will use listed derivatives to shape pay-offs. Auditors will test controls and fair-value marks, and ESG committees will interrogate the energy data rather than caricatures.
Some firms will go further, raising capital to buy large reserves and using those reserves as collateral to acquire cash-generating businesses, as we are already seeing in Japan. But most will not need to. The important thing is that the option now exists within mainstream governance.
Bitcoin will not replace cash on the balance sheet. It will, however, sit alongside it for a growing number of companies as a scarce, portable reserve that can be sized, stored and risk-managed with the same professionalism we bring to every other financial exposure.
Treasurers do not need to be evangelists. They need a policy, a playbook and the right partners. On that, we have never had more choice, or more clarity.
Darius Sit is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of QCP, an Asian digital asset partner and a global market maker in digital asset derivatives. Established in 2017 as one of Singapore’s first digital asset trading firms, QCP has grown into a trusted institutional partner, providing advanced trading solutions across derivatives, spot, and structured products. With extensive multi-cycle experience in digital asset markets, Darius drives QCP’s market strategy, shaping the firm’s institutional approach to liquidity, risk management, and structured strategies. Under his leadership, QCP is guiding institutional investors toward integrating Bitcoin and digital assets into their portfolios.
Prior to founding QCP, Darius was a trader at Dymon Asia Capital and BNP Paribas, with experience in Singapore and New York. He graduated from the National University of Singapore with First Class Honours in Finance and a minor in Comparative Religion.
