Strategy: The fastest to surpass Satoshi Nakamoto in holdings next year, an in-depth analysis of institutional holding concentration and leverage risk

Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) between April 1 and 5, 2026, repurchased 4,871 bitcoins at an average price of $67,718 per coin, with a total investment of approximately $329.9 million. As of April 10, 2026, based on Gate market data, Bitcoin prices have been trading within a certain range, and Strategy’s total holdings have risen to 766,970 coins, accounting for about 3.65% of the total circulating supply of Bitcoin.

At the current rate of accumulation, the company is expected to surpass the estimated holding of Satoshi Nakamoto (about 1.1 million coins) as early as next year or the year after, becoming the largest single holder of Bitcoin globally. This process marks a nearing of the historical critical point in institutional holdings concentration and has sparked systemic discussions about threats to decentralization, liquidity crises, and the sustainability of leverage financing models.

The true scale of holdings and historical reference

Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings have increased from 672,500 coins at the end of 2025 to 766,970 coins in early April 2026, an accumulation of about 90k coins within the year. In comparison, other publicly listed companies have collectively increased their holdings by only about 4,000 coins during the same period. Currently, Strategy owns approximately 76% of the Bitcoin held by listed companies. In the ranking of single entities worldwide, Satoshi Nakamoto leads with about 90k coins, Coinbase holds about 982k coins, and BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) holds about 775k coins. The gap between Strategy and BlackRock has narrowed to roughly 15k coins, and its rate of accumulation in 2026 is over seven times that of IBIT. This scale expansion not only alters the competitive landscape among corporate Bitcoin holders but also pushes institutional concentration toward a new stage requiring reassessment of systemic risks.

How financing structures support ongoing purchases

Strategy’s continued buying is not driven by free cash flow from software operations but relies on financial engineering through capital market financing. Its financing model underwent structural shifts in 2026: from low- or zero-interest convertible bonds issued between 2024 and early 2025 to higher-cost perpetual preferred stock (STRC) and dilutive common stock issuance. The annual dividend rate on STRC has risen to 11.5%. The company still has about $27 billion of remaining issuance capacity in MSTR stock, but rising financing costs are constraining operational flexibility. Founder Michael Saylor’s plan to fully convert debt into equity within 3 to 6 years aims to ease balance sheet pressure by converting debt to equity, at the cost of diluting existing shareholders. This change in financing structure has shifted Strategy’s buying pace from continuous and large-scale to intermittent and higher-cost driven.

The paradox of decentralization with over 3% circulation held by a single entity

One of Bitcoin’s core value propositions is its decentralized network architecture and distributed ownership structure. When a single entity holds more than 3.65% of the circulating supply, the game dynamics in the market fundamentally change. Strategy has publicly stated its ultimate goal is to hold 10% of the total Bitcoin supply. Analysts point out that when a single entity owns over 10%, it ceases to be just a market participant and effectively becomes “the market itself.” Such concentration poses dual threats to decentralization: on one hand, the decision-making behavior of the entity—whether to continue buying, pause accumulation, or eventually liquidate—will disproportionately influence price discovery; on the other hand, market expectations will form a self-reinforcing feedback loop around the entity’s actions. When market participants interpret Strategy’s buying as a bottom signal, the entity gains asymmetric market influence.

The exit dilemma of large holdings and liquidity pressure

The “Whale Exit Problem” hinges on the contradiction that arises when a single entity holds an excessively large position: large-scale liquidation conflicts with market price stability. If Strategy needs to exit its position, the market could face a potential supply pressure of about 767k coins. Based on current market liquidity estimates, even with phased selling, market expectations might trigger front-running—other participants might exit before the whale begins to sell, causing prices to decline prematurely and forcing the whale to exit at lower prices. On-chain data as of April 8, 2026, shows that approximately 80% to 90% of invested capital is unrealized loss, and market depth is already fragile. The impact of a whale’s exit would be amplified under these conditions. The essence of this exit dilemma is that the larger the position, the higher the execution costs for liquidation, and this relationship is not linear but tends to worsen exponentially near critical points.

Conditions for leverage liquidation and safety margin calculations

Whether Strategy’s leverage structure will trigger forced liquidation during market downturns remains a key concern. According to disclosures, its convertible bonds total about $6 billion, with an additional $2.25 billion in cash buffers to cover interest payments until 2028. The company states that Bitcoin’s price must fall to about $8,000—roughly 88% below current levels—before assets and liabilities would be in balance, and no forced liquidation due to debt default would occur. This safety margin is based on the premise that most of Strategy’s debt is long-term convertible bonds maturing in 2032 or later, without margin calls directly tied to Bitcoin’s price. However, this calculation assumes the company can refinance or convert debt into equity at reasonable costs before maturity. If the market value-to-net asset value ratio (mNAV) remains below 1, the attractiveness of issuing new equity diminishes significantly, and the company may face increased pressure to raise funds via higher-cost preferred stock. Currently, mNAV is close to 1, indicating the market is no longer willing to pay a premium over the Bitcoin holdings, and the financing window is narrowing.

The intrinsic link between leverage strategies and market volatility

Strategy’s “debt–buying–stock price” cycle forms a self-reinforcing reflexive structure: Bitcoin price rises → company’s balance sheet appreciates → financing conditions improve → continued Bitcoin purchases → further price support. Conversely, the cycle can reverse: Bitcoin price falls → holdings’ value shrinks → market doubts about debt repayment capacity → stock price declines → financing costs rise → buying ability diminishes. The Financial Times recently highlighted that, as Bitcoin hovers near the company’s average purchase cost (~$75,644), Strategy exerts significant pressure on shareholder value. In Q1 2026, Strategy reported approximately $14.46 billion in unrealized losses. When the company cannot continue buying at low costs nor sell holdings without undermining its core strategy, it faces a structural dilemma.

The long-term impact of institutional concentration on industry structure

Strategy’s ongoing accumulation is not an isolated case but an extreme example of institutionalization. As of March 22, 2026, institutional holdings of Bitcoin have risen to about 1.1M coins across 344 entities, removing a significant portion of circulating supply from the public market. This trend has profound implications for industry structure at three levels: first, reduced liquidity supply amplifies price volatility—more Bitcoin locked in institutional balance sheets or custody reduces tradable supply, making medium-sized trades more likely to cause large price swings; second, the transfer of pricing power—market price discovery shifts from dispersed retail traders to a few large institutions, challenging market efficiency and manipulation resistance; third, the complexity of risk transmission—interconnections between traditional financial markets (stocks, bonds) and crypto markets via institutional balance sheets create new channels for systemic risk propagation.

Scenario analysis at the critical concentration point and market expectations

Analysts believe that Strategy’s concentration is approaching a critical threshold, with three main scenarios: first, continued tightening of financing windows and slowing of buying pace. As mNAV declines and high-cost equity financing increases, Strategy may reduce its annual accumulation from about 90k coins to a lower level, losing one of the most significant structural buyers in recent years. Second, resolving debt pressures through equity conversion. If Saylor’s plan to fully convert debt into equity within 3–6 years proceeds smoothly, the company could convert about $6–8 billion of convertible bonds into equity, significantly reducing leverage but diluting existing shareholders. Third, an extreme market downturn could trigger a refinancing crisis. If Bitcoin remains below the average purchase cost for an extended period and financing conditions worsen, the company might be forced to refinance or adjust strategies under unfavorable terms. Regardless of the scenario, Strategy’s scale has already ushered Bitcoin into an unprecedented structural phase—one characterized by deep involvement of a single large holder in price setting and liquidity shaping.

Summary

In April 2026, Strategy increased its holdings by 4,871 bitcoins at an average price of $67,718, reaching a total of 766,970 coins. At the current pace, it could surpass Satoshi Nakamoto’s estimated holdings (about 1.096 million coins) as early as next year, becoming the largest single Bitcoin holder globally. This scale accounts for approximately 3.65% of the circulating supply and has sparked deep discussions about threats to decentralization. Its financing has shifted from low-interest convertible bonds to high-cost preferred stock and dilutive equity issuance, with rising costs constraining further purchases. Although the company claims that Bitcoin would need to fall to about $8,000 to trigger liquidation risk, factors such as narrowing mNAV premium, increasing unrealized losses, and changing refinancing conditions are collectively reducing its financial resilience. The core of the “whale exit” dilemma is that the larger the position, the exponentially higher the costs of exit, and market expectations may trigger a price collapse in advance. The increasing concentration of institutional holdings is redefining liquidity, pricing mechanisms, and systemic risk pathways in the Bitcoin market—both a sign of industry maturity and a variable requiring cautious assessment.

FAQ

Q: How many bitcoins does Strategy currently hold?

As of April 10, 2026, Strategy holds a total of 766,970 bitcoins, with an accumulated cost basis of about $58.02 billion, and an average holding cost of $75,644 per coin, representing approximately 3.65% of the total circulating supply.

Q: How far is Strategy from surpassing Satoshi Nakamoto’s holdings?

Satoshi Nakamoto’s estimated holdings are about 1.096–1.10 million coins. Strategy is roughly 330k coins behind. Based on the accumulation rate since 2026 (about 25k–30k coins per month), it could surpass Nakamoto’s holdings as early as 2027.

Q: What are the main risks of Strategy’s leverage financing model?

Major risks include rising financing costs (preferred stock dividend rate at 11.5%), narrowing mNAV premium reducing equity financing attractiveness, about $14.46 billion in unrealized losses pressuring the balance sheet, and uncertainties in refinancing under extreme market conditions.

Q: What is the “whale exit” dilemma?

When a single entity holds an excessively large position, there is an inherent contradiction between large-scale liquidation and market price stability. If Strategy needs to exit, market expectations might trigger others to exit early, causing a price collapse and forcing the whale to exit at lower prices.

Q: How significant is Strategy’s liquidation risk?

The company states that Bitcoin would need to fall to about $8,000 to trigger liquidation, based on its long-term convertible debt structure without margin call clauses. However, this safety margin depends on refinancing conditions remaining stable; if mNAV stays below 1 and financing worsens, the actual risk could be more fragile than the theoretical estimate.

Q: What does institutional concentration mean for ordinary investors?

Increased institutional concentration may reduce short-term market volatility but also introduces systemic risks—behavior changes by a single large holder can disproportionately impact the market. Investors should monitor changes in institutional holdings and incorporate them into risk assessments.