Mentioned in This Article
1. What is BTC Yield, and why does Strive want it to be the standard?
Strive Chief Investment Officer Ben Werkman is arguing that BTC Yield, a measure of how quickly a company's Bitcoin (BTC) per share grows, should become the main scorecard for Bitcoin treasury companies. Strive, which held 43,124 BTC as of November 2, 2026, reports a BTC Yield of 63% year to date and says the figure should guide when a company issues new equity.
BTC Yield answers a narrow but important question: after all the share sales, preferred stock and Bitcoin purchases, does each existing share now stand behind more Bitcoin than it did before? A company can add thousands of coins to its balance sheet and still fail that test if it issued so many new shares along the way that each share's claim on the reserve shrank. By focusing on the per-share figure rather than the headline total, the metric tries to separate genuine accumulation from growth that merely tracks the size of the share count.
Werkman's case is that this distinction should shape corporate behavior, not just reporting. In his framing, Bitcoin-per-share growth should steer equity issuance and wider capital decisions, so that management treats the ratio as the guardrail for every raise.
2. How should Bitcoin-per-share growth steer share sales?
The reasoning rests on a simple test. According to Werkman, selling shares makes sense only when the proceeds, once converted into Bitcoin, raise the amount of Bitcoin behind each share. When an issuance lowers that figure, existing shareholders effectively subsidize the incoming buyers, because they hand over a slice of their claim on the reserve for less than that slice is worth.
This is a familiar idea in corporate finance, where issuing stock below intrinsic value is understood to dilute current owners. What is different in the Bitcoin treasury model is that the underlying asset is observable every day. Investors can see how many coins a company holds and divide by shares outstanding, which makes the dilution test unusually easy to run and, in principle, to enforce through market pressure.
Treating the metric as a decision rule also changes the sequence of questions management asks. Rather than starting from how much capital the market will supply, a company following Werkman's approach would start from whether a given raise leaves each share with more Bitcoin, and size the raise accordingly. That discipline matters most when a company's shares trade near or below the value of the Bitcoin they represent, a situation in which raising equity to buy coins can quickly become counterproductive.
Consider a simple illustration of the arithmetic. If a company holds 1,000 coins across 1,000,000 shares and then sells 10 percent more shares to buy 50 additional coins, its holdings rise by 5 percent while its share count rises by 10 percent, so each share is backed by less Bitcoin than before. The headline total grew, yet the owners who were already there ended up with a smaller claim. A per-share yield exposes that outcome immediately, which is the reason its proponents prefer it to a raw coin count.
The measure also rewards patience. Because it compounds over time, a company that raises capital only when conditions are favorable can post a strong figure with fewer, better-timed issuances than a rival that sells stock continuously. That feature is central to Werkman's argument that the ratio should discipline management rather than simply decorate an earnings release.
Reading the ratio well also requires attention to timing. A strong year-to-date number can reflect a few unusually favorable raises early in the period, and it says little about whether the same pace is repeatable. Investors who adopt the metric would do well to track it quarter by quarter and to compare it with how the share price traded relative to the Bitcoin behind it when each issuance took place.
3. What do Strive's own numbers show?
Strive offers its results as an illustration of the approach. The company reports a BTC Yield of 63% year to date, and its holdings stood at 43,124 BTC as of November 2, 2026, a total valued at more than $3.25 billion at the time.
The company's recent growth has been rapid. Its Bitcoin position rose by roughly 15,000 coins during October alone, according to company disclosures, a pace that placed the firm among the more aggressive corporate buyers of the asset. Rapid buying is exactly the setting in which a per-share measure is most informative, because a large coin purchase funded by heavy share issuance can look impressive in total while delivering little to each shareholder.
Strive describes its approach as a digital credit model. It pairs a Bitcoin reserve with high-yield perpetual preferred equity, a security that pays holders a recurring dividend but has no maturity date. The proceeds from selling those preferred shares are used to buy more Bitcoin, and the company's chief executive, Matt Cole, treats Bitcoin itself as the benchmark against which the firm's performance should be judged.
4. Who is Ben Werkman?
Werkman joined Strive as Chief Investment Officer in October 2025. Before that, he served as a director at Swan Bitcoin, a firm focused on Bitcoin accumulation and services for investors, and he founded NumerisX.
His background in Bitcoin-focused investing helps explain the emphasis on a Bitcoin-denominated yardstick. For an investor who holds the asset as a long-term store of value, success is naturally measured in how many coins an investment vehicle can claim, not in how many dollars those coins are worth on a given day. A metric expressed in the asset itself fits that worldview, and Werkman's proposal asks the wider sector to adopt it.
5. Why do Bitcoin treasury companies need a common scorecard?
Public companies that hold Bitcoin on their balance sheets have multiplied, and they differ widely in how they finance purchases. Some issue common stock, some sell convertible bonds, and others, like Strive, rely heavily on preferred equity. Comparing them on total holdings alone rewards whoever raises the most money, regardless of how that money was raised or what it cost existing owners.
A shared per-share metric could make those comparisons cleaner. It would let investors see at a glance which management teams are growing the claim behind each share and which are expanding mainly through dilution. It could also push companies toward greater transparency, since a firm that reports the figure consistently invites scrutiny of every issuance that moves it.
Standardization carries a practical benefit as well. When each company defines its own performance measure, results are hard to line up against one another. If the sector converged on a single definition, analysts could rank firms, track changes over time and ask pointed questions when a company's number diverges from its peers.
6. What are the limits of BTC Yield?
The metric has weaknesses that Werkman's argument does not remove. Because it is measured in Bitcoin rather than dollars, it can look strong at the very moment the asset's dollar price is falling. A company could report double-digit growth in Bitcoin per share while the market value of its reserve, and of its shares, declines sharply.
It also does not capture the ongoing obligations a financing structure creates. Perpetual preferred shares carry dividends that must be paid indefinitely, and those payments are a fixed cost that sits outside a per-share Bitcoin figure. A company can raise its BTC Yield by issuing preferred stock and buying coins, while simultaneously taking on a growing stream of required payments. Anyone evaluating a firm on this metric alone would miss that burden.
For that reason, BTC Yield works best as one input among several. Investors would still need to look at the cost of capital, the schedule of dividend or interest payments, the relationship between share price and Bitcoin holdings, and the company's ability to meet its commitments if the price of Bitcoin stays weak for an extended period.
7. Why does this matter for investors?
The debate comes as Bitcoin treasury strategies face closer examination. Many of these companies were built on the premise that raising capital to buy Bitcoin creates value for shareholders, and that premise holds only when issuance is done on favorable terms. A metric that forces the question into the open gives investors a way to test the claim rather than take it on faith.
For shareholders, the practical takeaway is to look past total coins held. The numbers that matter are how many shares exist, how that count has changed, and what the company paid in dilution and ongoing obligations to add each coin. A firm that can show rising Bitcoin per share through a full market cycle, including periods of falling prices, has a stronger case than one whose growth depends on a rising market and continuous equity sales.
Whether the wider sector adopts BTC Yield is still an open question. Werkman's proposal is an argument, not a rule, and no regulator or index provider has endorsed it. Its influence will depend on whether other treasury companies begin reporting the figure in the same way and whether investors start using it to compare them.
8. What comes next?
The next test is how Strive's own figures hold up in its upcoming periodic reports, which will show whether the company can keep growing Bitcoin per share while funding purchases with preferred equity. Investors will also watch whether competing treasury firms respond by publishing comparable per-share measures.
If more companies do, BTC Yield could become a recognized benchmark for the sector. If not, it will remain one firm's preferred way of presenting results, useful as a lens on dilution but only a partial picture of risk.