Treasury Strategies in Transition: When Ethereum Companies Bet on Jet Engines and Bitcoin Firms Report Billion-Dollar Losses

Treasury Strategies Under Pressure: Diverging Paths in a Volatile Market

Recent developments at prominent treasury companies reveal fundamental uncertainty about the optimal strategy for handling digital assets. While Tokyo-listed Metaplanet continues its Bitcoin-focused course undeterred despite massive accounting losses, ETHZilla is executing a remarkable strategic reversal: away from the pure Ethereum treasury model, toward tokenization of physical assets. These contrasting approaches raise important questions about the sustainability of various corporate treasury strategies—particularly in times of significant price volatility in digital assets.

The fact that both companies must adjust or justify their original strategies while their stock prices are under massive pressure suggests a maturation phase of the treasury model, in which long-term viable approaches will separate from speculative ones.

The Facts

Metaplanet has significantly raised its forecasts for 2025 and 2026, but simultaneously faces considerable accounting losses. The company now expects revenues of 8.905 billion yen (approximately $58 million) for 2025 and operating income of $40 million ^[2]. Despite these improved operational prospects, Metaplanet projects an ordinary loss of $632 million and a net loss of $491 million for the fiscal year ^[2].

The main reason for this discrepancy lies in a Bitcoin impairment of approximately $680 to $700 million—a non-cash write-down reflecting the value of Bitcoin holdings at year-end prices ^[2]. The company's management emphasized that this impairment is a "non-cash accounting adjustment reflecting period-end price fluctuations and has no direct impact on the company's cash flows or operations" ^[2].

Despite these accounting losses, Metaplanet's Bitcoin treasury business grew considerably. BTC holdings increased from 1,762 BTC at the end of 2024 to 35,102 BTC at the end of 2025, with BTC yield per diluted share reaching 568 percent for the year ^[2]. This metric means that the amount of Bitcoin each diluted share covers increased by 568 percent—an indicator the company uses to track BTC growth per share. For 2026, Metaplanet projects revenues of approximately $103 million and operating income of $73 million ^[2].

ETHZilla is taking a completely different path. The Ethereum treasury company has acquired two jet engines for $12.2 million in cash to increasingly focus its strategy on tokenization of tangible assets ^[1]. The purchase was executed through the newly established subsidiary ETHZilla Aerospace LLC, and the engines, typically deployed in large commercial aircraft, are already leased to a major airline, enabling immediate lease revenues for the company ^[1].

CEO McAndrew Rudisill announced in December plans to build an operating business that brings real-world assets to the blockchain through tokenization, rather than merely holding ETH ^[1]. The company intends to initially focus specifically on aviation assets such as engines and airframes, as the leadership team and board possess deep relationships in the aviation industry ^[1].

This realignment occurs against the backdrop of a dramatic price collapse: ETHZilla stock had climbed to over $100 in August 2025, but has since crashed by 95 percent, closing at just $5.24 on Friday ^[1]. The ETH price itself also came under pressure, trading at around $2,800—approximately 40 percent below its August high of nearly $5,000 ^[1]. ETHZilla currently still holds 69,802 ETH, representing a market value of just under $200 million ^[1].

Analysis & Context

The diverging strategies of Metaplanet and ETHZilla reveal a central challenge of the corporate treasury model: the discrepancy between long-term strategic conviction and short-term accounting presentation. Metaplanet's massive impairment is a prime example of the problematic nature of traditional accounting standards in dealing with Bitcoin. The non-cash write-down of $680 to $700 million stands in stark contrast to operational success and the impressive BTC yield of 568 percent. This illustrates that conventional accounting rules—developed for traditional assets—inadequately reflect the actual economic reality of Bitcoin treasury strategies.

The fact that Metaplanet has nearly twentyfold its Bitcoin holdings from 1,762 to 35,102 BTC while simultaneously having to report massive accounting losses demonstrates the inherent tension between Bitcoin accumulation as a long-term strategy and quarterly reporting. Companies like Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) have mastered similar challenges by consistently communicating the distinction between operational performance and non-cash valuation adjustments. The market has learned with established Bitcoin treasury companies to interpret these impairments as temporary volatility effects—provided the underlying strategy remains coherent.

ETHZilla's pivot to tokenized aviation assets, however, raises questions about the original treasury concept. The dramatic 95 percent price loss suggests that the market views both the original Ethereum treasury model and the new hybrid strategy skeptically. The investment in jet engines may generate stable short-term cash flows through lease revenues, but dilutes the original value proposition of a pure crypto treasury vehicle. Investors seeking exposure to Ethereum now find themselves in a hybrid company holding both crypto and traditional assets—a positioning that is neither fish nor fowl.

The different developments also show the varying maturity levels of the underlying assets. Bitcoin has established itself as a treasury asset for companies, with a growing ecosystem of service providers, financial products, and best practices. Ethereum, on the other hand, continues to struggle with perception as a treasury reserve, especially after the disappointing price performance since August. The fact that ETHZilla is fundamentally rethinking its strategy while Bitcoin-focused companies like Metaplanet maintain their accumulation strategy despite volatility reflects this different market maturity.

Conclusion

• Metaplanet's accounting losses demonstrate the fundamental incompatibility between traditional accounting standards and Bitcoin treasury strategies—a BTC yield of 568 percent stands opposite a reported net loss of $491 million, underscoring the need for new valuation metrics

• ETHZilla's pivot from a pure Ethereum treasury to tokenized aviation assets signals the challenges of Ethereum as a corporate treasury reserve and could represent a warning signal for other Ethereum-focused treasury strategies

• The 95 percent price loss at ETHZilla versus continued accumulation at Metaplanet illustrates that the market rewards consistency and strategic clarity—even in the face of temporary volatility and accounting losses

• The diverging paths of both companies mark a maturation phase of the treasury model, in which Bitcoin continues to consolidate as the dominant corporate treasury asset, while alternative approaches with Ethereum or hybrid models struggle for credibility

• Investors should differentiate between operational performance, non-cash valuation effects, and strategic coherence in treasury companies—accounting losses are inevitable in Bitcoin accumulation strategies during volatile phases, but should not be confused with operational failure