The hidden cost of idle capital

Institutional Bitcoin (BTC) holders started 2025 with Bitcoin trading around $94,000. By October, they watched it surge to an all-time high of $126,200, a move that validated the macro thesis for digital scarcity and institutional adoption. Corporate treasuries that held through the volatility, miners that resisted selling, and funds that stayed allocated all captured that appreciation on paper.

Then they gave it all back. Bitcoin currently trades near $85,000, below where it started the year. Institutions that rode the wave up and down are now sitting on year-to-date returns below zero. But while the price went nowhere, the costs kept accumulating. Qualified custody fees ran between 10 and 50 basis points all year. Yield opportunities sat untapped. The round-trip cost real money.

At the scale of the largest corporate holders (600,000+ BTC), the opportunity cost of leaving that capital idle is massive. Across the industry’s ~2 million institutional BTC (held by corporate treasuries, private companies, and governments), aggregate custody costs often ranged from more than $100 million to close to $1 billion. For positions that ended the year flat, those fees represent a pure loss. Had these positions utilized Bitcoin-native yield infrastructure, they could have offset custody costs and generated positive returns.

The question facing treasuries now isn’t whether Bitcoin works as a store of value. The question is whether flat performance minus custody fees represents an acceptable outcome when infrastructure exists to change the equation.

What custody actually costs

Qualified custody requirements for institutional Bitcoin holders mandate fees running 10-50 basis points annually. These are rarely negotiable costs for regulated entities. Auditors and regulators require qualified custody for any institution holding Bitcoin on its balance sheet.

For a standard $100 million position, that translates to $100,000-$500,000 per year in maintenance costs. Across the broader market’s BTC in institutional hands, the drain on capital is significant. 

When those gains evaporate, and positions return to breakeven, the fees represent the entire year’s performance drag. The math produces a negative return before any operational or strategic value is factored in.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin-native yield infrastructure that could offset or eliminate these costs while generating additional returns has remained largely untapped by institutional holders, despite reaching maturity over the last 12 months.

Bitcoin-native yield infrastructure matured in 2025

Bitcoin-native DeFi, commonly called BTCFi, refers to yield infrastructure built directly on Bitcoin or Bitcoin-secured sidechains rather than through wrapped tokens or centralized lending platforms. Over the course of 2025, this infrastructure reached institutional viability.

BTCFi now represents approximately $8.6 billion in total value locked, according to data from December 2025. Major institutional custody providers have integrated with Bitcoin Layer 2 infrastructure. GAAP and IFRS accounting treatment for Bitcoin-denominated positions has been established through multiple audit cycles. Leading protocols have operated for multiple years with security models anchored to Bitcoin’s proof-of-work.

These systems generate yield without wrapping Bitcoin into ERC-20 tokens, selling underlying positions, or introducing the centralized custodial risk that dismantled firms like Genesis and BlockFi in 2022. The strategies available cover different risk profiles. Conservative approaches include lending and stablecoin collateralization in the 2-5% APY range. Moderate strategies involving structured vaults and liquidity provision generate 5-7% APY.

All maintain identical Bitcoin exposure. What changes is whether the asset generates income or sits idle while incurring costs.

The cost of 2025’s round-trip

Consider an institutional Bitcoin position that started in 2025 at $94 million (1,000 BTC at $94,000). Under the traditional custody model at 30 basis points annually, the position paid $282,000 in custody fees throughout the year while generating 0% yield.

When Bitcoin hit $126,000 in October, the position was worth $126 million, a substantial unrealized gain. As Bitcoin fell back to $93,000 by mid-November, that position was worth $93 million. That’s a $1 million realized loss from the starting point, plus $282,000 in custody fees. Total impact: negative $1.282 million.

Under a Bitcoin-native yield model, the same institution could have eliminated custody drag through integrated infrastructure while generating 6% APY through conservative structured lending strategies. That would have produced roughly 60 BTC in yield. Even at the lower price of $93,000, the total position would be valued at $98.5 million.

The difference between these two approaches for a single $94 million starting position is roughly $5.5 million. At the largest corporate treasury scales, the potential difference is hundreds of millions for the year. Across the institutional market, the gap between what happened and what was possible is measured in the billions.

Why miners are moving first

Bitcoin miners face the most acute version of this problem. They need working capital for operations, but selling BTC to obtain it means forfeiting any future appreciation. The traditional alternatives have been limited to selling at the cost of upside potential or holding idle reserves while borrowing capital at premium rates.

Post-halving economics have made the decision urgent. When mining rewards dropped by half in April 2024, operational margins compressed. Miners that rode Bitcoin from $94k to $126k and back without generating any yield on their treasury positions now face the 2026 budget cycle, having paid a full year of custody fees with nothing to show for it.

What 2025 actually demonstrated

Institutional Bitcoin strategies performed as designed through October. Bitcoin appreciated 34% from January levels, and holders captured that move. The infrastructure worked. Qualified custody scaled, ETFs absorbed tens of billions in inflows, and corporate treasuries continued adding to positions.

But 2025 also demonstrated what happens when volatility cuts both ways. Positions that ended the year flat or negative still incurred guaranteed costs. Performance was measured not against the October peak but against the full-year reality.

The infrastructure to combine price exposure with yield generation while eliminating custody drag now exists. It has operated through multiple market cycles with billions in total value locked. GAAP and IFRS compliance frameworks have been established through repeated audit cycles. Bitcoin-native infrastructure has survived multiple bear markets and avoided the structural failures that plagued centralized lenders.

As institutions assess 2025 performance and plan 2026 treasury strategies, the question is whether flat-to-negative returns minus custody fees represent an acceptable outcome when alternatives preserve identical Bitcoin exposure while generating income. Conviction drove Bitcoin adoption. Strategic management can make those positions work harder.

Bitcoin delivered volatility in 2025. With yield infrastructure now operational and integrated with qualified custody providers, 2026 offers institutions the chance to capture returns whether Bitcoin moves up, down, or sideways.