Strategy surpasses IBIT: Bitcoin's largest holdings change hands, the structural showdown between corporate Treasury and ETFs

April 20, 2026, Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) filed an 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), disclosing that it purchased 34,164 bitcoins during April 13 to 19, at a total cost of approximately $2.54 billion, with an average price of about $74,395 per bitcoin. This is the company’s largest weekly acquisition since November 2024, as well as the third-largest single purchase in its history by dollar amount.

After this increase, Strategy’s total bitcoin holdings reached 815,061 bitcoins, with a cumulative investment of approximately $61.56 billion and a blended average cost of about $75,527 per bitcoin. Based on the market price at the time, the holdings’ market value was about $61.2 billion, bringing the overall position close to breakeven.

More symbolically, this scale of holdings has officially put Strategy ahead of BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) by approximately 802,823 bitcoins in terms of coins held, reclaiming its status as the world’s largest single bitcoin holding entity.

The key takeaway from this event is not merely the change in the “who is #1” ranking. The deeper question is: why can a software company surpass the flagship ETF run by the world’s largest asset management firm in terms of holdings size? What fundamental differences exist between the two distinctly different holding structures—corporate treasury and ETF—in terms of return logic, risk exposure, and market influence?

Based on Gate market data, as of April 22, 2026, bitcoin is quoted at $77,491.6, with a 24-hour trading volume of approximately $461 million, a market cap of about $1.49 trillion, and a market share of 56.37%.

From a 100k-coin gap to overtaking complete

The contest between Strategy and BlackRock IBIT for bitcoin holdings is not something that happened in a single day—it is a multi-month process of gradual catch-up and eventual overtaking.

At the end of 2025, Strategy held approximately 672,500 BTC, while IBIT held approximately 773,990 BTC, leaving a gap of roughly 100,000 coins. Entering 2026, Strategy’s accumulation pace significantly accelerated. In the first quarter, the company added approximately 89,599 to 94,470 BTC, an increase equivalent to about 40% of its total BTC added throughout 2025—making it the company’s second-largest quarterly acquisition by size in its history.

In mid-March, Strategy held about 761,068 BTC, narrowing the gap with IBIT’s approximately 782,170 BTC to about 21,102 coins. On April 2, the gap further shrank to around 16,000 coins. From April 6 to 12, Strategy added about $1 billion to buy 13,927 BTC, bringing total holdings to 780,897 BTC, with the gap to IBIT staying at roughly the 10,000-coin level.

Finally, after increasing holdings by 34,164 BTC from April 13 to 19, the overtaking was declared complete.

Fundamental differences between the two holding models

Putting Strategy and BlackRock IBIT side by side may superficially look like a comparison of “the number of bitcoins held.” But at its core, they are completely different bitcoin exposure vehicles, with structural differences in the nature of capital, governance structure, and risk-return characteristics.

Core Data Comparison

Source: Strategy SEC filings.

Capital nature: Active fundraising vs. passive aggregation

Strategy’s acquisition funds do not come from free cash flow of its software business; instead, they are raised through capital-market financing instruments. Of this $2.54 billion acquisition, about 85% came from the issuance of STRC perpetual preferred stock, and about 15% came from Class A common stock sold at market price. With an annualized dividend yield of approximately 11.5% for STRC, it has attracted a large amount of institutional capital seeking stable returns.

BlackRock IBIT’s funding logic is entirely different. An ETF is a passive “container” that aggregates investors’ funds—its holdings scale depends on investors’ daily subscription and redemption activities. BlackRock itself does not decide IBIT’s accumulation pace, nor can it plan financing windows and the timing of purchases proactively the way Strategy can.

Return and risk structure: leverage exposure vs. pure exposure

The difference in the return-and-risk structure between the corporate treasury model and the ETF model can be summarized with the following framework:

Strategy’s BTC per-share content has increased by 9.5% since early 2026, which is a source of gains that pure ETF holding cannot achieve. But this gain also comes with corresponding costs: higher financing costs, dilution of shareholder equity, and the bidirectional amplification effect of leverage.

Since 2026, bitcoin’s price has fallen back from highs, and IBIT investors’ average buy cost is around $89,000 per coin. They are currently facing a clear unrealized loss situation, but capital inflows have still remained net positive—In mid-April, IBIT saw a weekly net inflow of $612 million, reflecting institutional investors’ tendency to lower their cost basis during pullbacks.

Breakdown of sentiment viewpoints: shifting positions from multiple perspectives

Milestone Symbolism

The market generally views Strategy surpassing IBIT as a landmark event—from a roughly 100,000-coin gap at the end of 2025 to completing the overtaking, with Strategy’s accumulation pace in 2026 at about 7 times that of IBIT. This has been interpreted as: the active, financing-driven corporate treasury model outperforms the passive ETF model in terms of “accumulation efficiency.”

Skeptical questions about sustainability

Some analysts hold reservations about the sustainability of Strategy’s financing model. As the premium of MSTR’s stock price relative to bitcoin net asset value compresses, the company has shifted from low-interest convertible debt financing to high-cost perpetual preferred stock financing. STRC’s annualized dividend yield of approximately 11.5% implies annual interest costs of several billion dollars—costs that require ongoing bitcoin price appreciation to cover. If prices stay flat or decline over the long term, the financing flywheel could reverse.

In addition, Strategy currently holds about 76% of the bitcoins held by listed companies, creating a high level of concentration within treasury-company groups. This means the corporate treasury model has not evolved into “expanding the institutional holder base” as initially expected, but rather into a concentration phenomenon centered around a single entity.

Re-examining the decentralization value proposition

When a single entity holds nearly 3.9% of the circulating supply of bitcoin, the market’s game dynamics have changed. Analysts point out that this degree of concentration could have potential implications for decentralization: the entity’s decision-making—whether to continue buying, pause accumulation, or ultimately liquidate—could disproportionately affect the price discovery mechanism. Strategy has previously stated publicly that its goal is to hold 10% of the total bitcoin supply.

Industry impact analysis: triple restructuring of the institutional landscape

First: competition in institutional holdings upgrades from “rank within ETFs” to “total cross-vehicle competition”

Previously, competition in the spot bitcoin ETF market mainly took place among asset managers such as BlackRock and Fidelity. Strategy’s overtaking expands the competitive dimension from within the ETF category to a cross-mode contest between “corporate treasury vs. ETF.” This prompts the market to reassess the differing influence that different holding vehicles have on price discovery.

Second: perpetual preferred stock as a financing tool for crypto assets gains market validation

Strategy raised $2.18 billion using STRC, which was converted into bitcoin within a week after purchase. The successful issuance of STRC and its ability to keep attracting funds provide a new financing paradigm for the crypto industry—using fixed-income products to attract traditional institutional capital, and then allocating that capital to bitcoin. This model could be emulated by other corporate treasury companies.

Third: expectations for the U.S. strategic bitcoin reserve form a macro catalyst

In April 2026, a White House advisor confirmed that a strategic bitcoin reserve plan will be announced within the next two months. The reserve will utilize bitcoins confiscated by the U.S. government to establish it. This policy signal further reinforces bitcoin’s positioning as a strategic asset, providing macro-level narrative support for capital inflows into corporate holdings and ETFs.

Conclusion

Strategy surpassing BlackRock IBIT marks a new stage in bitcoin holding patterns. The two holding models—corporate treasury and ETFs—represent two different paths: active financing-driven and passive capital aggregation, respectively, with pros and cons in return and risk characteristics. Bitcoin is currently trading in the $75,000 to $78,000 range, close to Strategy’s average cost basis. The future movement of the price at this level will largely determine the financial sustainability of its treasury model. And as the White House strategic bitcoin reserve plan moves closer to announcement, narrative shifts at the macro level may also introduce new variables into this competition.