Nic Carter has a blunt message for companies that have turned their balance sheets into Bitcoin vaults. He believes most offer investors little they cannot already get from a spot Bitcoin ETF.
Carter, a general partner at Castle Island Ventures, made the case in an interview on October 27, 2026.
The case against the middleman
Bitcoin treasury firms, also known as digital asset treasury (DAT) companies, are public companies that hold Bitcoin as a core part of their corporate strategy. They pitch shareholders on getting Bitcoin exposure through the stock, along with something extra.
Carter’s critique targets that “something extra.” He argues that, for most of these firms, the extra is hard to find.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs provide a more direct route to Bitcoin exposure, without the added risks associated with treasury companies. Buying a treasury company’s stock also means buying into its management team, capital decisions, debt and corporate overhead. An ETF simply holds the asset and tracks it.
The discount problem
The market appears to have reached a similar conclusion on its own. Bitcoin treasury and DAT companies traded at discounts of approximately 40% to net asset value in early 2026.
A persistent discount suggests investors view the corporate structure as a cost rather than a benefit. That fits Carter’s argument that the structure often adds little.
Carter is not the only skeptic. Zac Prince, whom research findings link to Galaxy Digital, has questioned the yield-generation strategies some treasury firms use to justify their premiums. His skepticism dates to early 2026, and he has compared those strategies with past Bitcoin yield schemes.
How the sector got here
The model for the sector is Michael Saylor’s MicroStrategy, now known as Strategy and traded under the ticker MSTR. It is widely cited as the original example of a public company holding Bitcoin as a treasury asset.
Strategy’s approach inspired a wave of imitators. As of November 2026, the sector remains concentrated, with Strategy dominant because of the sheer size of its Bitcoin holdings.
Between 2025 and 2026, scrutiny of the sector intensified, focusing on discounts to NAV and whether these companies have sustainable business models capable of outperforming simply holding Bitcoin directly.
The arrival of spot Bitcoin ETFs made that question more pressing. Before ETFs, some investors bought treasury stocks because they were among the few easy ways to gain Bitcoin exposure in a regular brokerage account. Once ETFs filled that gap, treasury firms lost much of their original appeal.
What this means for treasury firms and their investors
The sector has continued to evolve. Treasury firms are experimenting with capital-structure innovations and new corporate strategies. Even so, clear evidence of substantial operational value beyond capital preservation and Bitcoin exposure has been hard to find.
Given the sector’s concentration, the largest players may be best positioned to argue that their scale and track record justify their structure. Smaller copycats with modest Bitcoin holdings and no distinctive strategy appear most vulnerable to comparison with ETFs.
Firms that rely on yield generation to set themselves apart now face skeptics such as Prince, who sees uncomfortable parallels with past schemes.
