Bitcoin Valuation Could Reprice Strategy’s Credit

A potential shift in how credit rating agencies treat Bitcoin on corporate balance sheets could materially alter the credit profile of Strategy, according to Jeff Walton, chief risk officer at Strive. 

Walton argues that the current framework – under which Bitcoin is effectively assigned no value – creates a structural disconnect between the firm’s balance sheet strength and its credit rating.

Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy, currently carries a B- issuer credit rating from S&P Global, placing it firmly in non-investment-grade territory. The rating, first assigned in October 2025 and reaffirmed with a stable outlook in December, reflects what the agency describes as high concentration in Bitcoin, a narrow operating focus, and limited dollar liquidity.

Despite that assessment, Strategy holds more than 761,000 BTC – valued at approximately $53 billion at current prices – on its balance sheet.

Walton’s central thesis is that this disconnect stems from the treatment of Bitcoin within prevailing credit models. Under the dominant U.S. ratings framework, BTC is assigned a value of zero when calculating a company’s ability to service debt or pay dividends. As a result, firms holding large Bitcoin reserves are evaluated as though those assets do not exist.

According to Walton, even a modest departure from this zero-valuation approach could have outsized implications. If rating agencies were to recognize Bitcoin at any positive value, he contends, Strategy’s credit profile would shift significantly – potentially enough to qualify for investment-grade status.

Access to Institutional Capital Hinges on Rating Threshold

The distinction between high-yield and investment-grade credit is consequential. The U.S. investment-grade bond market is approximately five times the size of the high-yield segment, creating a substantial gap in available capital.

An upgrade to investment grade would open access to a broad pool of institutional investors that are currently restricted from holding sub-investment-grade debt. These include pension funds, insurance companies, investment-grade bond mutual funds, index funds, and bank collateral programs.

Walton framed this threshold as the primary barrier preventing Bitcoin treasury companies from tapping large-scale institutional capital.

He cited the recent 2026 bond issuance to illustrate the scale and pricing advantages available to investment-grade issuers. Google raised $32 billion, Amazon secured $37 billion, Oracle issued $25 billion, and Honeywell brought $16 billion to market – all at comparatively low borrowing costs.

In Walton’s view, a similarly rated Strategy could access these markets to finance additional Bitcoin acquisitions at significantly lower yields than those available in the high-yield space.

He further argued that segments of the existing BBB-rated corporate universe may face underappreciated risks, including potential disruption from artificial intelligence, margin compression, and increasing fiscal pressures. Against that backdrop, he suggested that “Digital Credit” frameworks could eventually drive a broader repricing of risk across credit markets.

Strive’s Direct Exposure to the Thesis

Strive’s position is not purely theoretical. On March 11, the firm allocated $50 million – more than one-third of its corporate treasury – to Strategy’s STRC preferred stock, which carries an approximate yield of 11.5%.

The firm also maintains direct exposure to Bitcoin, holding roughly 13,628 BTC, and oversees more than $2.5 billion in assets through its asset management subsidiary. This structure links Strive’s balance sheet to the same valuation dynamics Walton is highlighting.

Whether rating agencies will revise their treatment of Bitcoin remains uncertain. For now, the gap between Strategy’s current B- rating and the potential capital access associated with an investment-grade designation underscores the significance of any change in methodology.

For market participants, the issue centres on whether digital assets will be incorporated into traditional credit frameworks – and, if so, how quickly that shift could reshape corporate financing conditions.