Structural Concerns of Ethereum Microstrategy: Valuation Mechanism and Risk Evolution Analysis Based on the mNAV Flywhee

BitMine Immersion Technologies (BMNR), a US-listed company, is attempting to emulate MicroStrategy’s approach—using equity financing to rapidly increase its Ethereum holdings and transform its balance sheet into an “ETH treasury.” Following the announcement of the transformation, the stock price initially surged, then fell sharply and entered a period of range-bound trading. Subsequently, driven by holdings and financing progress, it surged again before retreating again. Meanwhile, due to the continued execution of ATM share issuances, the outstanding share capital has continued to expand, and its market capitalization has dynamically expanded in line with the issuance rhythm. This article focuses on BMNR’s internal structure: Can this reflexive “share-for-coin” flywheel operate in the long term? When the mNAV (EV/ETH, where EV = market capitalization + interest-bearing debt – cash) premium converges and secondary market demand weakens, will the company shift from “per share accretion” to “net dilution”? The following article systematically analyzes its key risks based on public disclosures and on-chain metrics.

Core Data: ETH Reserves, Equity, and Premium Levels

First, let’s look at BMNR’s fundamentals. As of mid-August 2025, BMNR held approximately 1.297 million ETH, valued at approximately $5.77 billion at the then-current market price. This size makes BMNR the third-largest cryptocurrency reserve company in the world, behind only MicroStrategy and MARA. Circulating shares total approximately 173.5 million. The stock price rose steadily from a low of $30.30 in August to a high of $71.74 (an increase of approximately 136.8%), before retreating to Friday’s close of $57.81 (still up 90.8% from the low and approximately 19.4% from the high), corresponding to a market capitalization of approximately $10.03 billion. Based on mNAV = (market value + debt − cash) / ETH holding market value and calculated based on Friday’s closing price (market value of US$10.03 billion, debt of approximately US$1.88 million, cash of approximately US$1.47 million, and ETH holding market value of approximately US$5.77 billion), mNAV is approximately 1.74.

The early August rally was primarily driven by a series of catalysts: the listing of stock options on July 23rd, which increased trading and hedging accessibility; the board’s approval of a buyback plan of up to $1 billion on July 29th; the disclosure on August 4th that holdings exceeded 833,000 ETH; and the disclosure on August 11th that holdings exceeded 1.15 million ETH, which led to a continued upward revision of market expectations for the pace of “stock-to-coin swaps.” The subsequent decline was primarily driven by a period of overexpansion in premiums (measured by mNAV), leading to a mean reversion of valuations toward NAV. This decline was accelerated by the combination of rising ATM supply expectations and weakening secondary market demand, compounded by a pullback in ETH.

Structural Mechanism: Option Leverage and the mNAV Premium Flywheel

In mid-July, the company disclosed that its holdings of approximately 60,000 ETH came from in-the-money options, backed 1:1 by approximately $200 million in unencumbered cash. However, the company subsequently adjusted its official disclosure to include total ETH holdings in “tokens” (e.g., 833,137 on August 4th and 1,150,263 on August 11th), without separately listing “including options” or issuing a separate announcement regarding completed option exercises. Based on current information, there is no official document clearly declaring the exercise completed. However, considering the change in disclosure, the corresponding cash capacity, and the cadence of holdings, it is highly likely that the 60,000 ETH were converted to spot after July 17th through exercise or equivalent spot trading. Confirmation will still be required in the next quarterly report or the derivatives note in the 8-K.

The core of BMNR lies in its reflexive flywheel mechanism driven by its mNAV (market-to-net-asset value) multiple: when the stock price (P) exceeds the net asset value per share (NAV) (i.e., mNAV > 1), the company can raise additional shares within a premium range through the ATM mechanism and use the proceeds to purchase ETH, thereby increasing its ETH holdings per share and generating book value accretion. In theory, as long as the P > NAV ratio remains, each round of financing will increase the asset value per share. However, the essence of this model is a structural redistribution of equity: even if there is a premium, if the market questions the logic of “continuous token exchange to achieve accretion,” additional issuances may be repriced as dilutive, thereby suppressing overall valuation levels.

During the positive phase of the flywheel, the path is: rising mNAV → ATM financing → increased ETH holdings (increased ETH per share) → strengthened market narrative and higher valuations → further financing, forming a positive feedback loop. Conversely, this mechanism can fail due to factors such as mNAV converging to or below 1, a decline in the price of ETH itself, weak secondary market demand, or rising expectations for additional ATM supply. Once market expectations shift, the flywheel mechanism shifts from “enhancement” to “dilution,” creating a negative feedback loop. In this scenario, companies often need to hedge the dilution effect through buybacks and other measures to maintain stable per-share metrics, but their ability to execute this is constrained by the actual conditions of unrestricted cash reserves and the speed of financing.

Therefore, the sustainability of this model depends on three key factors: first, the market’s trust in its ETH treasury logic and asset premium pricing basis; second, the continued support for the price of ETH itself; and third, the company’s collaborative efficiency at the internal execution level, covering key operational links such as ATM contract signing and fund arrival rhythm, OTC procurement capabilities for bulk ETH, and the reinvestment mechanism of staking income.

Potential collapse trigger mechanism: four major risk alerts

Despite BMNR’s current popularity, its inherent fragility means it could experience a stampede-like collapse under extreme conditions. Investors should be wary of the following four risk paths:

(1) ETH Ontology price drastically corrects

The valuations of “ETH treasury” companies like BMNR are highly anchored to the spot value of their ETH holdings. A downward trend in ETH will simultaneously depress both the net asset value (NAV) per share and the market capitalization multiple (mNAV). If ETH experiences a correction after issuing additional shares within the premium range, it could trigger a “double whammy of valuation fundamentals and market narrative,” amplifying the decline and exacerbating liquidity outflows, leading to a rapid decline in market capitalization.

(II) Convergence of mNAV Premiums and Broken Financing Chains

BMNR’s current flywheel mechanism is built on a high premium to mNAV. If this premium converges or even falls below 1, further issuance will be blocked, leading to a dilution crisis. Failure to promptly stabilize indicators through buybacks and reinvestment of pledged proceeds will be interpreted by the market as a stall in its growth strategy, triggering a reversal of secondary market sentiment and accelerating price declines.

(III) Liquidity Tightening and Regulatory Uncertainty

As a small- to mid-cap stock, BMNR’s primary market capacity is limited, and its financing efficiency is highly dependent on market sentiment and macro liquidity conditions. Furthermore, ETH treasury asset allocation remains mired in regulatory uncertainty. If it were to be defined as an “ETF-like,” “structured derivative holding,” or “non-operating financial operation” in the future, it could face increased disclosure obligations, trading restrictions, or stricter regulatory frameworks, impacting its valuation and financing channels.

(IV) Trust overdraft risk in shell company structures

BMNR and most ETH treasury stocks are small- to medium-sized shell companies facing stagnant business or nearing delisting. Prior to strategic transformation, they lacked sustainable revenue and profitability, and their valuations were heavily reliant on narrative-driven growth and momentum from additional financing. This structure is highly similar to the ICO model: They package strong narratives, exchange shares/tokens for ETH, and build short-term high valuations. However, if ETH experiences a pullback or financing is hindered, trust will collapse due to a lack of business support and valuation anchors.

Once trust ebbs, market preferences reverse, or regulations tighten, companies with shell structures that lack actual cash flow and sustainable profit models will face extreme risks of instant liquidity depletion and nonlinear valuation collapse.

Conclusion: The boundaries of the reflexive flywheel will ultimately be determined by trust

BMNR’s approach represents a new business narrative that integrates capital structure with crypto assets. Through the mNAV flywheel mechanism, it rapidly amplifies valuations in a bull market, achieving a reflexive reinforcement between “equity, currency, and market capitalization.” Simultaneously, it deeply integrates ETH’s volatility, market sentiment, and regulatory uncertainty into the company’s structure.

This structure exhibits high leverage and rapid growth during upcycles, but also carries the potential for accelerated failure during downcycles. Declining ETH prices, premium reversion, cooling secondary markets, and malfunctioning secondary issuances—variable factors that typically pose no catastrophic risks—may be compounded and amplified by reflexive mechanisms, ultimately triggering a nonlinear collapse. More crucially, as a company transformed from a shell company, MicroStrategy’s core value stems not from operational capabilities or on-chain productivity but from the market’s expectation of “continuously increasing ETH and creating value per share.” If this expectation proves unfounded, or even refuted, the foundation of trust could collapse, and the flywheel mechanism would be unsustainable.

Looking back at the post-ICO collapse, the market is well aware of the structural rupture in confidence. The difference is that this time the “shell” is a US-listed company; but what remains the same is that, without the support of internal cash flow and real business operations, any “equity-for-credit” mechanism will ultimately fail the test of time. BMNR’s long-term survival depends not on how much ETH it can acquire, but on whether it can prove itself as a capable, “coin-based” asset manager, rather than a shell-like transmitter solely driven by valuation narratives.

This article is sourced from the internet: Structural Concerns of Ethereum Microstrategy: Valuation Mechanism and Risk Evolution Analysis Based on the mNAV Flywheel ModelRecommended Articles

Related: FUD combination cannot change the bull market foundation: Fed rate cut countdown, has the crypto market reached the bott

Compiled by Odaily Planet Daily ( @OdailyChina ); Translated by Ethan ( @ethanzhang_web3 ) Editor’s Note: August opened with another surge in the crypto market: Bitcoin weakened in the short term, altcoins generally retreated 20%-30%, and single-day liquidations exceeded $1.5 billion. Trump is being blamed as the primary driver of this volatility. From new tariffs and escalating geopolitical tensions to reversals in macroeconomic data and the Federal Reserve’s inaction, the market has once again been gripped by a surge in fear. Meanwhile, rumors of Trump secretly selling crypto assets have exacerbated market panic, triggering a new chain reaction. In this article, the author analyzes macroeconomic data and capital flows to offer a counter-concept: a short-term correction could be an opportunity for long-term investment, and a true “second wave of the…