The idea of Bitcoin moving beyond cryptocurrency wallets and into corporate treasuries has gained significant traction, mostly due to Strategy’s bold moves to hodl billions of dollars’ worth of Bitcoin.
As more companies explore or embrace Bitcoin (BTC) as a strategic reserve asset, investors are looking for new ways to gain exposure to this trend, without necessarily holding Bitcoin itself. That’s where indices like the Indxx Bitcoin Adopters Index come in. The index tracks a diversified basket of publicly traded stocks that hold Bitcoin on their balance sheets.
Rather than speculating directly on cryptocurrency prices, it gives investors, especially those unable or unwilling to own crypto directly, a way to gain some form of exposure to Bitcoin through the businesses that have integrated it into their financial strategies. With the launch of Grayscale’s Bitcoin Adopters ETF and more institutions evaluating BTC’s role as a hedge or long-term asset, the timing couldn’t be more relevant.
To better understand how this index works, its construction methodology, and how it balances exposure across sectors and major holdings, I spoke with Vaibhav Agarwal, Head of Product & Innovation at Indxx. In this Q&A, Agarwal breaks down how the index identifies a “Bitcoin Adopter,” why no single company (especially Strategy) can dominate it, and whether the thesis of Bitcoin as an inflation hedge really holds up in practice.
crypto.news: What is the selection methodology for the index? What qualifies a company as a “Bitcoin Adopter”? Is there a minimum Bitcoin holding or percentage of assets required, or do even small allocations count? And how frequently do you reconstitute the index to add new adopters or remove companies that might sell off their Bitcoin.
Vaibhav Agarwal: The selection methodology for the index is based on the classification of companies as “Bitcoin Adopters,” as defined by Indxx. A company qualifies as a Bitcoin Adopter if it has publicly reported the ownership of at least 100 Bitcoin as a corporate treasury asset.
Within this framework, companies are further categorized into two groups:
- Secondary Companies (Bitcoin Network Operators): These are companies that derive at least 50% of their revenue from Bitcoin mining activities.
- Primary Companies: These include all other companies meeting the minimum Bitcoin holding threshold but not classified as Secondary Companies.
There is no required percentage of total assets allocated to Bitcoin—only the minimum threshold of 100 Bitcoin holdings is considered for inclusion.
The index follows the quarterly reconstitution and rebalancing schedule. The reconstituted portfolio becomes effective at the close of the last trading day of March, June, September and December each year. This day is called the ‘Reconstitution Effective Day’.
CN: Strategy alone holds more than 550,000 BTC (and showing no signs of slowing down their purchases) which is a massive chunk of the roughly 720,000 BTC that all public companies collectively hold as of Q1 2025. How is the index weighted to ensure one company doesn’t dominate the fund? Can you provide a bit of commentary on say the top-five holdings, and whether any single name is capped so that the index doesn’t evolve to become a de facto Strategy tracker.
VA: While it’s true that MicroStrategy, Inc. holds a significant share of the total Bitcoin held by public companies—more than 550,000 BTC as of Q1 2025—the index is specifically designed to prevent any single company from dominating the portfolio, regardless of its Bitcoin holdings.
The index employs a capped weighting methodology to maintain diversification and reduce concentration risk. While securities are weighted based on a combination of their Bitcoin holdings and free float security level market capitalization but there is a single security cap of 20% is applied to prevent overexposure to anyone company.
This structured approach ensures that the index remains balanced and not overly reliant on a single name, even one as dominant as MicroStrategy.
For example, as of the latest reconstitution, MicroStrategy is capped at 20%. This illustrates that while large holders like MicroStrategy are meaningfully represented, index caps and redistribution rules ensure no single company can turn the index into a de facto tracker of their stock.
CN: Bitcoin-adopting companies aren’t confined to anyone sector or industry. Can you give us a sense of this diversification? Are we mostly talking about tech firms and crypto-mining companies, or do the constituents include more unexpected players? How does Indxx ensure the index isn’t overly skewed toward one sector, or would this not be an issue?
VA: Yes, Bitcoin-adopting companies span a wide range of sectors, offering significant diversification beyond just tech firms and crypto-mining companies. While technology and mining-related companies are certainly prominent, the index also includes less expected participants from sectors such as finance, consumer durables, energy, healthcare, and more.
The sector breakdown of the index, based on the latest reconstitution portfolio data, is as follows:
| Factset_Sector | Weights |
| Technology Services | 40.88% |
| Finance | 20.44% |
| Consumer Durables | 20.00% |
| Consumer Services | 5.11% |
| Retail Trade | 4.50% |
| Energy Minerals | 4.27% |
| Health Technology | 3.26% |
| Producer Manufacturing | 0.76% |
| Communications | 0.33% |
| Distribution Services | 0.15% |
| Commercial Services | 0.15% |
| Electronic Technology | 0.15% |
This breakdown illustrates that the index includes companies from a diverse mix of industries, not limited to those traditionally associated with Bitcoin or digital assets.
As for ensuring sector balance, while the index is not explicitly sector-capped, the inclusion criteria—based on Bitcoin holdings and company classifications—naturally leads to broad-based exposure. As more companies across different sectors adopt Bitcoin, this diversification is expected to continue improving over time.
So, while some sectors like technology are currently more prominent due to early adoption trends, the index is not overly skewed and reflects the evolving and expanding nature of Bitcoin adoption across the corporate landscape.
CN: Do you find that the companies in your index genuinely view Bitcoin as an inflation hedge or safety net, or are they primarily making a speculative bet on Bitcoin’s price appreciation? Given recent inflationary pressures, have these firms actually benefited from holding BTC in terms of preserving purchasing power, or is it too early (or too volatile) to tell? Essentially, how convincing is the “Bitcoin as an inflation hedge” thesis from your point of view.
VA: Many companies in the index perceive Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation. A survey by Nickel Digital Asset Management revealed that 73% of professional investors consider Bitcoin a viable asset to hedge against rising inflation, citing its finite supply and immunity to inflationary manipulation affecting traditional currencies. However, some studies suggest that Bitcoin’s response to inflationary surprises has been negative, indicating that its role as an inflation hedge is still under scrutiny.
Regarding recent performance, Bitcoin has shown resilience amid inflationary pressures, outperforming traditional assets like stocks and the dollar during periods of market volatility. Nevertheless, its high volatility means that while it may offer long-term benefits, short-term fluctuations can be significant.
CN: How is the index preparing for various future scenarios, ranging from Bitcoin becoming a mainstream reserve asset for many corporations or momentum grinding to a near-halt and only a niche subset of companies are sticking with a Bitcoin treasury strategy?
VA: The index is designed with flexibility to adapt to different future scenarios. If Bitcoin becomes a mainstream reserve asset, the index’s structure allows for increased representation of companies with significant Bitcoin holdings across various sectors. Conversely, if adoption slows, the quarterly reconstitution ensures that only companies meeting the criteria remain, maintaining the index’s relevance and performance.
This adaptability is crucial as the landscape of Bitcoin adoption continues to evolve. Notably, the number of publicly traded companies holding Bitcoin has surged to 80 in 2025, a 142% increase from just 33 in 2023. This trend reflects the growing acceptance of Bitcoin as both a strategic reserve asset and a hedge against inflation.
As the adoption of Bitcoin as a corporate treasury strategy continues to grow, the index remains poised to accurately reflect these changes and adapt to the evolving market dynamics.
CN: Grayscale’s new Bitcoin Adopters ETF offers investors exposure to companies holding Bitcoin in their corporate treasury. This investment tool is certainly unique and exciting, but skeptics argue that simply holding Bitcoin doesn’t make a company a better or more innovative investment. Most recently, Strategy, a core constituent in the Adopters index, reported its fifth consecutive quarterly loss. Given the poor recent financial performance, how would you respond to critics who argue that a bold treasury move does not make a company profitable.
VA: While it’s true that a bold treasury move, such as holding Bitcoin—doesn’t automatically lead to profitability, it can provide a strategic cushion through potential appreciation in asset value over time. Bitcoin’s historical performance, despite volatility, has shown significant long-term gains, which can help strengthen a company’s balance sheet during favourable market conditions.
That said, the index does not rely on a single company’s financial performance. It includes a diversified set of companies across various sectors that have integrated Bitcoin into their broader business strategies. For instance, Tesla has used Bitcoin as part of its treasury diversification, while Coinbase, by nature of its core operations, is deeply tied to the Bitcoin ecosystem and continues to play a central role in crypto infrastructure.
Importantly, the index is reconstituted quarterly, ensuring that only companies actively maintaining substantial Bitcoin holdings remain included. This helps maintain relevance, filters out passive or short-lived adopters, and ensures the index reflects meaningful, strategic Bitcoin integration—not just speculative moves.
In summary, while Bitcoin ownership is not a substitute for sound business fundamentals, it can be a valuable treasury component that offers upside potential and hedging benefits in an evolving financial landscape.
CN: If an investor is bullish on Bitcoin as a treasury asset, why not just buy Bitcoin itself or a Bitcoin ETF? What advantages do you see in holding a basket of “Bitcoin adopter” versus the digital coin outright? Would you say owning the ETF is significantly less volatile than holding Bitcoin outright, or could it in some cases be more volatile, given that some constituent companies might use leverage or face stock-specific risks on top of Bitcoin exposure?
VA: If an investor is bullish on Bitcoin as a treasury asset, simply buying Bitcoin or a Bitcoin ETF might seem like the most straightforward path. Bitcoin itself offers pure exposure to its price movements—ideal for those who want direct participation in the asset’s potential upside. Similarly, a Bitcoin ETF provides direct price exposure without the need for self-custody or navigating crypto exchanges, making it easier to access via traditional brokerage accounts.
However, holding a basket of “Bitcoin adopter” companies—firms that hold Bitcoin on their balance sheets—offers a distinct and potentially strategic alternative:
- Diversification: Rather than being tied exclusively to Bitcoin’s price, this type of ETF spreads exposure across multiple companies from various sectors (e.g., tech, fintech, crypto mining), each with unique business models and revenue sources.
- Business Fundamentals: Many of these companies generate income from core operations, offering a cushion during Bitcoin downturns and helping reduce dependency on crypto price cycles alone.
- Strategic Bitcoin Exposure: Firms holding Bitcoin as a treasury asset often do so as part of a long-term strategy, potentially enhancing their financial resilience or appeal to investors seeking digital asset exposure.
- Optionality and Growth Potential: These companies may benefit not only from Bitcoin appreciation but also from broader trends like blockchain adoption or fintech growth, adding multiple layers of return potential.
Regarding volatility, it’s not always the case that a Bitcoin adopter ETF is less volatile than Bitcoin itself. While broader company exposure can smooth short-term fluctuations, stock-specific risks, use of leverage, or poor management decisions can amplify volatility. In some instances, the ETF may even be more volatile due to these additional variables. On the other hand, a well-constructed and diversified ETF of Bitcoin-adopting firms can offer a more balanced and less directly correlated experience than owning Bitcoin outright.
In summary, for investors bullish on Bitcoin but seeking a different risk-return profile, a “Bitcoin adopter” ETF offers an appealing mix of crypto exposure and equity fundamentals. It blends the growth potential of Bitcoin with the operational stability of established businesses, potentially delivering a more resilient and strategically diversified investment.
Source link