See more like this on Google
Share article
Share article
Sure, Strategy can sit on a mountain of Bitcoin$62,592.54 and still get graded like it has none. That is the punchline Jeff Walton, Strive's chief risk officer, leaned into this week, and the punchline matters because credit ratings decide who gets to borrow cheaply and who gets stuck in the junk aisle. [1]
Enjoy articles without ads?
Register for free and get unlimited access to all articles.
The claim: one accounting shift, one rating jump
Walton's core argument is simple: if major credit rating agencies stop treating Bitcoin$62,592.54 as worth zero in credit analysis, Strategy (MSTR) could move from speculative grade to investment grade (IG) far faster than traditional corporate fundamentals would suggest. [2]
Strategy currently carries a B- issuer credit rating from S&P Global, first assigned in October 2025 and reaffirmed in December 2025 with a stable outlook. [3] That rating effectively prices the company like a leveraged software firm with a volatile side hobby, not like a firm holding one of the largest liquid asset piles on the planet.
Walton framed the upside as "Digital Credit," shorthand for a credit model where Bitcoin treasury assets get recognized as real balance-sheet support for debt repayment, dividends, and liquidity planning.
The friction point: "Bitcoin equals zero" inside the ratings model
Under the prevailing US ratings framework Walton cited, Bitcoin holdings are treated as having a value of exactly zero when agencies assess debt service capacity. The logic is that repayment strength should not rely on an asset whose price can move sharply, and whose liquidation assumptions, custody controls, and stress behavior are harder to standardize than cash or Treasurys.
That conservative stance is why Strategy's balance sheet can hold more than 760,000 Bitcoin$62,592.54 and still not receive meaningful credit for it in the rating itself. At market prices, that stash is worth tens of billions of dollars. Under the "zero-value" treatment, it might as well be a spreadsheet decoration.
Why an IG upgrade is not just a vanity badge
Walton's real point is not that "Bitcoin is good." It is that ratings gates capital.
Many pensions, insurance portfolios, bank treasuries, and conservative institutional mandates either cannot buy junk-rated paper at all, or must hold far more capital against it. [4] If Strategy were pushed into investment grade, it could broaden its buyer base for new debt dramatically and potentially lower its funding costs, which then feeds back into Strategy's ability to refinance, issue longer-duration paper, or structure debt with less punitive terms.
This is also why the debate is so charged. A methodology change does not just adjust a letter grade, it can reroute large pools of capital that currently cannot touch the name.
The hard part: what "valuing Bitcoin" would actually mean
Even if rating agencies decide Bitcoin should count for something, it almost certainly would not be counted at full market value. The practical version of Walton's thesis would look like this:
- Haircuts and stress tests: Agencies could assign a discounted value to BTC under severe drawdown scenarios, similar to how they stress other assets, just with bigger buffers.
- Liquidity and execution assumptions: BTC is liquid, but large-scale selling has market impact, and agencies will care about how quickly Strategy could convert BTC to cash without destabilizing its own collateral narrative.
- Custody and governance controls: Auditable custody, internal controls, and legal clarity on asset ownership would matter because credit models love enforceability and hate vibes.
- Debt structure specifics: Strategy's mix of debt instruments (including any secured structures, covenants, and maturities) determines how much asset value can credibly protect creditors.
So yes, "BTC above zero" is the headline. The subheadline is: above zero, but after a lot of math and a lot of legal paperwork.
What to watch next (practical, not poetic)
- S&P, Moody's, and Fitch methodology notes: Any formal comment on digital asset treatment in corporate credit analysis is the real catalyst, not X threads.
- Strategy's next financing terms: Watch whether future issuance references BTC in ways that nudge agencies toward collateral-style treatment, even informally.
- Disclosure and controls: More detailed reporting around custody, encumbrances, and liquidity planning would strengthen the case for non-zero recognition.
- Spread behavior versus rating: If Strategy's bonds begin trading like higher-quality credit before agencies move, that disconnect becomes harder for rating committees to ignore, because markets love to front-run letter grades.
Walton is basically arguing that Strategy's biggest problem is not Bitcoin volatility. It is that the credit system is pretending the Bitcoin is not there. If the agencies stop doing that, the "junk" label could become more optional than permanent.
