The most common valuation yardstick is the mNAV. It compares a company’s enterprise value (EV) — which is a firm’s market cap plus debt minus any cash — to the market value of its bitcoin holdings. This provides investors with a means to evaluate the extent to which the market assigns a premium or discount to its treasury.
The metric is now widely followed. Strategy publishes its own mNAV on its investor site, while third-party dashboards such as BitcoinTreasuries.net track various mNAV figures across multiple firms.
How mNAV works
While the EV-based calculation simplifies the calculation of the metric, the ratio can shift significantly depending on how analysts treat debt, cash, and potential share dilution. This is why the industry now tracks multiple variants, including mNAV Basic, mNAV Diluted, and mNAV EV, each taking into account the shares and corporate structures of a company.
However, for simplicity, sticking with the usual EV-based approach, a reading above 1.0 implies the market is putting a premium on the company’s BTC treasury holdings, while a reading below 1.0 suggests a discount — potentially a red flag or an opportunity, depending on the investor’s outlook.
For example, according to BitcoinTreasuries.net, as of Nov. 30, Strategy’s reported values were: mNAV Basic at 0.856, mNAV Diluted at 0.954 and mNAV EV is 1.105. These essentially mean that equity investors may be paying slightly less than $1 per dollar of BTC on a diluted basis, while the broader market, including debt holders, still values the firm above its BTC holdings.
Because mNAV is a dimensionless ratio, it allows comparisons across firms regardless of treasury size or share count. It also reflects broader market sentiment about whether investors trust the firm’s overall strategy.
mNAV has real implications for capital markets activity. A firm trading above 1.0 can raise equity or debt at favorable terms and buy more bitcoin, effectively increasing its exposure. When mNAV drops, that playbook becomes harder or more dilutive.
Because of that feedback loop, mNAV influences how companies approach financing — and how investors assess the viability of bitcoin-first business models.
The NYDIG critique
Due to the metric containing several assumptions made by analysts and investors, according to NYDIG Research, it may not be what it’s been made out to be.
In a June 2025 blog post, Greg Cipolaro, the global head of research at NYDIG, offered a sharp critique of mNAV as it’s commonly used. He argued the metric is “woefully deficient” for failing to reflect key balance sheet risks — especially assumptions about convertible notes.
Many analysts, Cipolaro noted, treat these convertibles as if they’re guaranteed to convert into equity. But if market triggers aren’t met, the notes might have to be repaid in cash, creating a refinancing risk that mNAV fails to capture.
Cipolaro also flagged that mNAV often ignores the value of the operating company (opco), which could be a source of hidden risk or upside. Instead of scrapping the metric, he suggested refining it to incorporate more robust modeling of capital structure and opco valuation.
Regardless of the criticism, mNAV remains the most widely cited metric for comparing bitcoin treasury stocks; however, critiques like Cipolaro’s suggest it may need an upgrade. Investors are increasingly calling for more transparency and standardization — especially as more firms adopt bitcoin-forward treasury strategies.
With bitcoin treasuries growing in number and complexity, the question is no longer just “what’s the multiple?” but “what’s actually in it?”
