Michael Saylor spent nearly seven minutes at the $BTC Prague 2026 conference this week explaining the meaning of the term “multiple-to-Net Asset Value” or “mNAV.”
However, the clip of Saylor’s rambling response went viral for the wrong reason. Almost nobody could follow the answer.
The length and complexity of the definition was also humorous given that Saylor is the founder of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), a DAT that publishes its mNAV on its homepage: 1.18x.
How can the answer be precisely 1.18x, yet be so difficult to define?
The first problem? There is no NAV.
Debt-laden companies with payables and other obligations don’t have “NAV” in the first place, which is a controlled term reserved for regulated funds.
Nonetheless, crypto investors likened “NAV” to the value of the crypto holdings at a digital asset treasury (DAT) company.
According to Strategy’s website, the company owns $52.9 billion worth of bitcoin ($BTC), and Strategy’s enterprise value is $62.1 billion. Therefore, Strategy has a 1.18x multiple above its $52.9 billion “NAV,” which isn’t really a NAV, but well, whatever.
And it would be whatever, if only the reality were that simple. In fact, it gets worse.
Indeed, at $BTC Prague 2026 on Wednesday, Twenty One executive Jack Mallers asked Saylor to define mNAV. Like Saylor, Mallers is a leader of a publicly-traded DAT but remains a little confused about what mNAV really means.
A Bitcoin media outlet posted the exchange with a blunt caption: “Saylor gives nearly a 10-minute answer when Jack Mallers asks him to define mNAV.”
The recording started trending immediately on X, earning hundreds of thousands of combined views.
WATCH: Saylor gives nearly a 10 minute answer when Jack Mallers asks him to define mNAV 🤔 https://t.co/pd60k7Puu6 pic.twitter.com/vNYhsHXDJm
— Bitcoin News (@BitcoinNewsCom) June 10, 2026
Mallers’ question, and Saylor’s barely comprehensible response, were as authentic as they were funny. Trying to calm the virality, Mallers wrote, “Pretty basic questions and I was asking them genuinely. How is that shade?”
For example, he asked Saylor how Strategy counts out-of-the-money convertibles. He also wanted an example of a “dilutive” transaction, since Saylor insists swapping equity for dollars isn’t necessarily dilutive.
Michael Saylor’s Strategy makes up metrics to explain MSTR dilution
A personal definition of mNAV
Even the most basic metric is one that Saylor needs multiple paragraphs to explain.
From the stage, he described mNAV as the equity market cap:
- adjusted for net debt
- adjusted for the notional value of preferred equity
- divided by the $BTC value
- adjusted for disclaimers and definitions on 8-Ks
- adjusted for quarterly SEC filings.
He also spoke at length about subsequent amendments, and other figures across Strategy.com.
Indeed, By the end of his answer, Saylor had delivered more of a reading list than a definition.
However, this complexity isn’t accidental. It distracts from the number itself, which keeps going down.
The simple version or “basic mNAV,” market cap divided by the USD value of crypto holdings, has slid below 1x at Strategy after enjoying months in the 2-4x range when sentiment was far better.
The more flattering version of mNAV, enterprise value mNAV, remains slightly higher than 1x — but not by much.
‘Is not equivalent to net asset value or NAV or any similar metric’
The deepest irony sits in Strategy’s own filings. The company concedes that its “$BTC NAV” isn’t actually related to net asset value, despite the NAV acronym standing for the words “net asset value.”
It warned that the label “is not equivalent to ‘net asset value’ or ‘NAV’ or any similar metric in the traditional financial context.”
In other words, one of the most popular terms in the DAT industry is nonsensical.
Basic mNAV numbers keep falling below 1x across the sector, so those are no good anymore. The more flattering enterprise value mNAV variants are dangerously close to sub-1x territory, so those are hardly confidence-inspiring either.
Unfortunately, explaining all of these realities eats up valuable minutes of stage time and leaves an inquisitive mind exhausted.
Protos has previously catalogued Saylor’s habit of inventing terminology. That habit continued with his performance this week.
A number everyone can understand: A $9 billion unrealized loss
Fortunately, real prices simplify all of this wordplay to a simple matter of dollars and cents. Strategy holds 845,256 $BTC worth about $53 billion against a cost basis near $64 billion.
That leaves the company with a $9 billion unrealized loss on its multi-year $BTC investment.
MSTR, the company’s common stock, closed yesterday down 24% year-to-date and down 70% over the past 12 months.
That’s math that anyone can understand.
On the other hand, when defining a term at the core of a valuation decision needs seven minutes and hundreds of pages of follow-up reading assignments, the problem might not be the audience.
A metric like mNAV that requires that much explanation is saying something with the convoluted explanations themselves.
