How we value treasury companies
Every treasury number on Galaxy Mind is reproducible from public data. There is no single agreed way to value a Bitcoin treasury company · the BTC Prague 2026 debate made that plain · so rather than pick a side we compute every respected lens and show our work here.
The three mNAV lenses
mNAV (multiple of net asset value) compares a company's equity value to the bitcoin it holds. The debate is over which capital structure to fold in. We publish all three.
1 · Gross mNAV (the headline)
gross mNAV = market cap ÷ (BTC held × spot BTC price)
Common equity only · ignores debt and preferred. The simplest and most comparable line, and the treasury-industry convention. Below 1.0x the stock trades under the value of its bitcoin.
2 · EV / fully-diluted mNAV (Saylor's lens)
EV mNAV = (market cap + debt + preferred − cash) ÷ BTC value
Adds the notional value of the senior stack to the numerator · the view Michael Saylor argued for at BTC Prague 2026 (include the notional value of convertible debt, preferred, and common). Always greater than or equal to gross mNAV.
3 · CEBE net mNAV (the conservative view)
net mNAV = market cap ÷ (BTC value − debt − preferred + cash)
Common Equity Bitcoin Exposure · the bitcoin left for common shareholders after senior claims. The conservative counterpart; heavy leverage can flip a gross discount into a net premium.
Per-share metrics (Saylor's framework)
BPS = bitcoin held × 1e8 ÷ market cap (sats per $100 of stock, before claims)
CEBE BPS = the same after subtracting senior claims (sats per $100, net)
Amplification = BPS ÷ CEBE BPS = holdings ÷ (holdings − claims-in-BTC)
BPS is the growth metric, CEBE BPS the risk metric, and the gap is Amplification · 1.0x means no senior leverage (the stock tracks bitcoin like an ETF), higher means more. BTC Yield is the growth in BPS over time, net of dilution · we compute it from our daily snapshots once enough clean history accrues.
Decision aids
effective BTC price = spot × mNAV · sats per $1 = BTC held × 1e8 ÷ market cap
Two framings of the same fact: the dollars-per-bitcoin you effectively pay through the wrapper, and the sats you stack per dollar invested. Each has a gross and a CEBE-net variant on the per-ticker pages.
Data sourcing
Live inputs come from public sources: bitcoin spot (CoinGecko), stock prices (Yahoo Finance), and per-company BTC holdings (bitcointreasuries.net). Two classes of figure cannot be pulled live, so we hand-source them from SEC filings, date each with an as-of, and review on every new filing:
- Senior claims (debt + preferred − cash) for the CEBE and EV lenses.
- Economic share counts for fast-diluting names, where the live feed lags ATM issuance and would under-print market cap.
A continuous-integration check flags any constant past its refresh cadence, and a drift guard logs when the feed's implied share count overtakes ours. Current freshness is published on /status. Where a figure is not cleanly sourceable we show pending, never a guess.
Frequently asked
Why is the headline mNAV gross, not net?
Gross mNAV (market cap ÷ bitcoin value) is the simplest, most comparable line across every company, and it matches the treasury-industry convention. We keep it as the headline but publish the EV / fully-diluted and CEBE net lenses right beside it, with dated and cited senior-claims figures, so no single number is presented as the only truth.
How are senior claims and share counts sourced?
Debt, preferred and cash (for CEBE / EV) and the economic common-share count (for market cap on fast-diluting names) are hand-sourced from SEC filings, dated with an as-of, and reviewed on each new filing. A continuous-integration check flags any constant that drifts past its refresh cadence, and a drift guard logs when the live feed's implied share count overtakes our number. We never guess: a ticker whose figures are not cleanly sourceable shows pending rather than a fabricated value.
Which valuation lens should I use?
There is no single agreed standard, which is exactly what the BTC Prague 2026 debate surfaced. Gross is the most comparable; EV / fully-diluted reflects the full claim stack (Saylor's framing); CEBE net is the conservative common-equity view. Read each company through whichever lens you trust · we publish all of them. Not financial advice.