Bullish Meta Proposal Rejected Overwhelmingly Amid Bitcoin Treasury Debate

In a decisive vote, Meta’s shareholders overwhelmingly rejected a proposal advocating for a potential shift in the company’s treasury strategy—a move that could have involved replacing portions of its $72 billion liquid asset reserve with Bitcoin—and insiders explain the rejection underscores the mainstream corporate world’s continued caution around the cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin reserve initiatives gained steam when MicroStrategy (MSTR), an enterprise software company, made Bitcoin its primary treasury asset in August 2020—a move that also saw its stock price increase by over 2,466% since then. But while MicroStrategy has been lauded, broader adoption among technology giants has been muted thus far.

The Meta Vote

At its annual meeting on May 28th, shareholders turned back a proposal put forth by cryptocurrency advocate Ethan Peck, soliciting management’s view on whether Bitcoin could count as an investment eligible for inclusion in Meta’s cash reserves. The vote saw a resounding 1,221 votes against Peck’s proposal to just one vote in favor.

“I think it is lunacy,” said New York University finance professor Aswath Damodaran in response to the proposal, who indicated that he could not see “a semblance of a reason for why this is a good idea” for Meta’s treasury function. Despite his provocative take, Damodaran added that even a less skeptical finance expert harshly dismissed the initiative.

“If Meta investors want to own Bitcoin, they can buy it themselves. It is not clear what role cryptos play in any treasury function unless the company is doing business in a crypto like Bitcoin,” stated Duke University finance professor Campbell Harvey. Harvey acknowledged Bitcoin’s blockchain technical merits but emphasized fundamental mismatches with corporate treasury functions, comparing it unfavorably to viable treasury assets like stablecoins, which are pegged to stable underlying assets.

To What End?

Harvey also took exception to the proposed shift, viewing it as driven by market exuberance rather than a strategic treasury decision. He differentiated between a long-term strategic investment in Bitcoin, akin to backing a startup, and using it as a benchmark cash equivalent.

“But Strategy has bet the company in transforming itself into an active Bitcoin fund,” Harvey suggested, referring to MicroStrategy, adding, “If a company wants to make a strategic investment in Bitcoin just like they might make a strategic investment in a startup, I have no problem with that. It is a risky venture investment, and companies do this all the time. Just don’t call this a treasury asset.”

Still, executives managing major cash reserves face scrutiny for underperforming safe-harbor assets like Treasury bills or money market funds, described by ProChain Capital president and co-founder David Tawil as nearly a “sin” to their professional investors. Given potential dollar depreciation scenarios and diversification, Tawil suggested Bitcoin could be a more compelling option.

However, the counter-argument emphasizing Bitcoin’s volatility, historically one of the Web3 asset class’ defining weaknesses, has found traction among corporate finance leaders who view treasury reserves as non-speculative emergency funds. Neither perspective is universally held, which is reflected in the corporate world’s varied stance — from Meta’s rejection to newer ventures like Paris-based Blockchain Group, which announced adding $68 million in Bitcoin to its treasury.

Shareholder Disapproval vs. Strategic Adoption

Despite CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s outsized voting power at Meta, the 1,221:1 rejection ratio signifies a profound difference between the views of management and shareholders. Meta would not be the first publicly traded company to reject such a proposal — Microsoft received a similar shareholder vote in December 2024.

“While the proposal is merely requesting consideration of Bitcoin, it may still be rejected simply because managers and investors don’t want to be told what to do in this space,” explained Stefan Padfield, executive director of the Free Enterprise Project.

Furthermore, improvements in investment metrics have been presented by firms like CoinShares, which quantifies Bitcoin allocation improving risk-adjusted outcomes. CoinShares head of research, James Butterfill, pointed out that adding a 3% Bitcoin allocation to a fund can double its Sharpe ratio, a standard measure for risk-adjusted return. CoinShares’ survey data further shows a clear acceleration in asset-weighted Bitcoin adoption, rising to 1.8% in April 2025 from 1% in October 2024 among tracked portfolios managing $1 trillion in assets under management.

Though Meta’s no-confidence signal might suggest broad resistance, globally companies continue exploring treasury diversification. At least 72 new companies have adopted Bitcoin this year, raising questions about investor motives. Butterfill suggests most adoption moves may be driven by stock price appreciation goals rather than a genuine long-term value proposition of holding Bitcoin on the balance sheet.

Nonetheless, Bitcoin treasury initiatives show signs of scaling beyond MicroStrategy. The contrast between these emerging cases and Meta’s shareholder vote signals a more cautious, or perhaps selective, approach to corporate treasury diversification among mainstream institutions.