Bitcoin has become a corporate buzzword. Headlines celebrate companies for “modernizing treasury” by holding cryptocurrency alongside cash reserves. Firms like Figma reportedly added roughly ninety-one million dollars in Bitcoin to their balance sheets. Michael Saylor’s MicroStrategy has famously accumulated billions in Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation. At first glance, these moves may appear visionary. Yet a closer look at history, corporate finance, and accounting rules reveals why both approaches are fundamentally flawed. Corporate treasury is not in the business of buying Bitcoin, and the risks are real and multi-dimensional.
1. Bitcoin on the Balance Sheet: Confusion and Risk
The core problem with corporate Bitcoin holdings is how they are treated. Figma records Bitcoin as an intangible asset under US GAAP while simultaneously signaling to investors that it is part of treasury reserves. This dual messaging creates confusion: investors may assume Bitcoin is part of safe, operational cash, while management may view it as a speculative store-of-value.
- Intangible asset classification: Bitcoin is subject to impairment rules. Market value drops require unrealized losses to hit net income, even if no sale occurs.
- Treasury signaling: Presenting Bitcoin as operational cash is misleading because it cannot reliably fund payroll, vendor payments, or other obligations.
Figma Balance Sheet Before and After Bitcoin
| Asset Type | Before Bitcoin | After Bitcoin |
|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $1,600M | $1,600M |
| Intangible Assets | $200M | $291M (includes $91M Bitcoin) |
| Total Assets | $1,800M | $1,891M |
Even though cash remains intact, total assets now include a highly volatile component. Ratios like return on assets, liquidity, and debt covenants can appear misleadingly stronger or weaker than operational reality suggests.
2. Store-of-Value Assets Don’t Belong in Treasury
Treasury reserves exist to fund operations and manage predictable liquidity. Cash and cash equivalents are reliable and immediately usable. Store-of-value assets like gold or Bitcoin are fundamentally different. Their function is to preserve wealth over time, not to be spent on day-to-day obligations. This makes them unsuitable for operational liquidity, regardless of price volatility.
Bitcoin cannot reliably fund payroll, vendor payments, or other operational needs. Yet some companies treat it as if it were operational cash, creating a mismatch between liquidity and speculation. Even if the market price is temporarily stable, its role as a store-of-value inherently conflicts with treasury objectives.
Historical lessons:
- Bimetallism (19th century): Gold and silver hoarding → inefficiency
- Weimar Germany (1920s): Hyperinflation, gold hoarded, marks rapidly spent
- Zimbabwe (2000s): USD hoarded alongside local currency, collapse of local money
Function vs Volatility: Cash funds operations reliably. Bitcoin is viewed to preserve wealth but cannot reliably fund day-to-day business.
3. Michael Saylor’s Strategy: Disciplined but Misaligned
Michael Saylor’s MicroStrategy bought billions in Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation. His approach is disciplined: Bitcoin is treated purely as a long-term investment, not operational cash, and reporting separates it from working capital.
However, even Saylor’s approach is fundamentally misaligned with corporate purpose. MicroStrategy’s core business is software analytics, not cryptocurrency speculation. Treasury exists to fund operations, growth, and reduce risk not to act as an internal hedge fund.
Even if Bitcoin appreciates, MicroStrategy diverts cash from product development, talent acquisition, or market expansion. Corporate shareholders bear volatility unrelated to the company’s core revenue.
4. Figma’s CFO Misstep
Figma is a strong company with excellent operations, a deeply embedded product, and clear moats. I would consider investing in it based purely on these operational strengths.
The problem is the CFO’s capital allocation decision. Putting Bitcoin on the balance sheet signals participation in a speculative frenzy, introducing unnecessary volatility, accounting distortions, and strategic uncertainty.
As a value investor, this raises a critical question: if the company can make such a speculative misstep with treasury funds, what other non-core risks might it take in the future?
While the CEO’s comments about innovation are understandable, the decision blurs the line between operational treasury and speculative investment. A disciplined approach would have been to treat Bitcoin as a portfolio-level bet, separate from operational reserves.
Value Investor Perspective: Figma’s operations are strong, but treasury decisions introduce speculative risk. As a value investor, this misallocation cannot be overlooked.
5. Accounting and Investor Signals
Including Bitcoin on the balance sheet creates accounting distortions.
- Unrealized losses reduce net income despite no operational cash impact.
- Total assets fluctuate independently of core business performance.
- Ratios like liquidity and return on assets no longer reflect operational reality.
Investors receive mixed signals. Management implies operational flexibility, while accounting shows speculative exposure. This is exactly what Gresham’s Law warns about: stronger operational logic is “hoarded,” while speculative assets dominate attention, creating inefficiency and risk.
6. Lessons for Corporates and Investors
Historical precedent, corporate finance, and accounting principles converge on the same principle: treasury funds should support predictable operations, not speculation.
- Treasury should prioritize cash and equivalents for operational use.
- Bitcoin or other speculative assets belong in separate investment portfolios.
- Even disciplined strategies like Saylor’s misalign corporate purpose with treasury function.
- Misallocation creates operational, accounting, and governance risks.
Firms like Figma show that even companies with strong moats can make decisions that compromise clarity and risk management. The lesson is clear: speculative frenzies must remain separate from treasury management.
7. Comparison: Figma vs MicroStrategy vs Ideal Treasury
| Company | Treasury Approach | Risks / Issues | Alignment with Core Ops? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Figma | Bitcoin on balance sheet | Volatility, accounting distortions, blurred treasury function | Misaligned |
| MicroStrategy | Bitcoin as long-term investment | Diverts operational cash, speculative exposure | Misaligned but segregated |
| Ideal Approach | Cash & equivalents for liquidity | Minimal | Fully aligned |
Bottom Line: Figma is a fundamentally strong company. However, the CFO’s decision to put Bitcoin on the balance sheet represents more than just a misallocation of capital. It poses a structural risk that blurs operational liquidity and distorts accounting. This decision also signals a willingness to chase speculative trends unrelated to the core business. Even strong companies can falter when treasury decisions mix operational cash with speculative assets.
8. What Value Investors Think: Jim Chanos’ Critique
Jim Chanos, a renowned short-seller and value investor, has publicly criticized MicroStrategy’s strategy of holding Bitcoin on its balance sheet. He argues that the company’s valuation premium over its Bitcoin holdings is unjustified and labels the approach as “financial gibberish.” Chanos highlights that accumulating Bitcoin does not create real economic value and introduces significant risk unrelated to the company’s core business.
Chanos’ critique mirrors the concerns raised in this blog about Figma: treating speculative assets like Bitcoin as operational treasury misaligns corporate purpose, distorts accounting, and increases structural risk. Including his perspective shows that even seasoned investors see the dangers of mixing treasury management with speculation.
Conclusion
Corporate Bitcoin strategies, whether by Figma or MicroStrategy, highlight a fundamental misalignment between treasury function and speculation. Treasury exists to fund predictable operations and manage liquidity, not to act as an internal hedge fund or long-term investment vehicle. Bitcoin’s role as a store-of-value makes it inherently unsuitable for operational cash, and putting it on the balance sheet introduces volatility, accounting distortions, and governance risk.
Figma remains a strong company with deep moats and impressive operations, which would normally make it attractive for investment. However, the CFO’s decision to treat Bitcoin as part of the corporate treasury signals participation in a speculative frenzy that is not aligned with core business purpose. Even visionary strategies like Saylor’s fail to justify using operational capital for speculative assets.
The lesson for corporates and investors is clear: keep treasury for operations, and keep speculation in a separate portfolio. Mixing the two may create headlines, but it creates risk that value investors and prudent management cannot overlook.
BargaInvest Capital 
Leave a comment