Crypto Assets on the Balance Sheets of U.S. Public Companies: Financing Sources, Corporate Motives, and the Evolution of Treasury Strategies

Abstract

This article examines the crypto assets reported on the balance sheets of U.S.-listed public companies from August 2020 through June 2026 and the sources used to finance their acquisition. The study addresses three questions: how firms finance crypto-asset purchases, which motives they disclose for holding these assets, and how corporate crypto-asset treasury strategies have evolved. Its purpose is to connect the asset side of the balance sheet with the liability and equity structure used to fund acquisitions. The exploratory study draws on filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including Current Reports on Form 8-K, Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and securities prospectuses. The purposive sample comprises 18 major holders in four economically distinct classes; the financing analysis is limited to eleven firms that acquired crypto assets. The study combines descriptive statistics, content analysis of disclosed motives, and comparative case studies. Three findings emerge. First, equity issuance was used by nine of the eleven acquiring firms, whereas debt was never the sole financing source. For the six dedicated crypto-asset treasury companies for which value-based estimates were available, common equity, including in-kind contributions, accounted for 77.0% of funds raised, preferred stock for 10.5%, and debt for 12.5%. Second, firms’ behaviour during the market downturn was associated with their liability structure. Asset sales accompanied by debt reduction occurred when firms faced non-discretionary payment obligations and limited access to new issuance, whereas firms financed predominantly with equity held their positions or continued to purchase assets when access to issuance remained open. Third, later disclosures referred to an asset-accumulation business motive more often than to a precautionary motive. The practice evolved through five phases, and the 2025–2026 market downturn did not reverse its institutionalisation. The findings indicate an association between financing structure and firm behaviour, not a causal relationship. The principal limitations are the small and concentrated sample, the qualitative nature of the inference, and the attribution of financing sources at the firm-year rather than transaction level.