Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of hedge fund SkyBridge Capital, says the wave of companies adopting a bitcoin
treasury strategy is just a passing trend. In an interview with Bloomberg, Scaramucci said he expects the approach to lose momentum in the coming months.
“Right now we’re having this replicative treasury company idea,” Scaramucci said. “So, you know, it will fade.”
He implied that investors may start to wonder why they’re paying extra for a company to hold an asset they could simply buy themselves.
The idea of using bitcoin as a corporate treasury asset gained traction in 2021, when Strategy (MSTR), a software developer led by Michael Saylor, became the first major public company to do so. Saylor’s aggressive bitcoin purchases turned Strategy into a de facto bitcoin investment vehicle, sending its stock price soaring nearly 3,000% since then.
The massive gains drew attention across corporate America and elsewhere. A number of companies followed Strategy’s lead, including medical device maker Semler Scientific (SMLR), which announced its own bitcoin treasury strategy in May 2024, and Tokyo-based Metaplanet (3350), which started out as a hotel management company.
The trend hasn’t been limited to high-profile firms. Smaller companies, often penny-stocks, also jumped in, trying to raise capital or attract investor interest by adding bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies to their balance sheets.
What began as a focus on bitcoin soon expanded to other digital assets. Some companies opted to purchase ether
or XRP
as part of their treasury strategy, pushing the concept beyond its original scope.
Scaramucci acknowledged that Saylor’s success is unique, pointing to the company’s other business lines beyond bitcoin holdings.
“Saylor’s case is different, because he’s got a couple different products going now,” Scaramucci said in the interview with Bloomberg. “I’m not negative on the others, because I’m too bullish on bitcoin, but I would just say as an investor, you have to look through the underlying costs associated with each one of these treasury companies.”
