Bitcoin Treasury Companies Redefine Institutional Crypto Strategy as Jeff Park Draws Apollo Athene Parallel

Bitcoin treasury companies are gaining attention once again after a bold statement from investment strategist Jeff Park went viral on X. Park, a partner at a digital asset firm, criticized comparisons between BTC treasury firms and GBTC, arguing that these operating companies, especially those with permanent capital, unlock unique financial arbitrage strategies not possible through traditional investment vehicles like Registered Investment Companies (RICs). His reference to Apollo’s use of Athene as a model sparked renewed debate on how these firms might reshape institutional Bitcoin allocation.

Jeff Park Says BTC Treasury Companies Are Not Just the Next GBTC

Jeff Park’s commentary underlines a key institutional distinction: Bitcoin treasury companies operate as businesses, not funds. That means they’re not bound by the same constraints as RICs, and they don’t follow redemption models or passive exposure strategies. Instead, they possess permanent capital structures that allow them to maneuver across market cycles, execute multi-leg trades, and unlock bespoke financial arbitrage. Park’s post calls for investors to “study Apollo’s Athene,” referring to the private equity giant’s insurance vehicle that successfully deployed long-term capital across yield-generating assets. The takeaway? BTC-operating companies could evolve in the same way – crafting strategic, alpha-driven portfolios far beyond the static mechanics of GBTC.

Apollo Athene and the BTC Treasury Model Offer Lessons in Strategic Arbitrage

Apollo’s Athene was no ordinary insurance company. It used permanent capital liabilities to strategically allocate long-term investments. Bitcoin treasury companies may emulate that playbook. By combining BTC holdings with access to institutional Bitcoin markets and crypto-native yield tools, they unlock an entirely new class of structured opportunities.

These operating companies can borrow, lend, hedge, and rebalance without the typical compliance bottlenecks facing RICs. When BTC volatility spikes, they capitalize—earning basis spreads, optimizing collateral, and tapping arbitrage on derivatives platforms. This agility, according to Park, is the “fundamental opportunity” being missed by those still viewing them through the ETF lens. Meanwhile, partnerships with platforms like Anchorage and Fireblocks give these firms the custody and execution layers they need to safely scale. These setups allow for risk-managed growth and faster response to emerging opportunities across on-chain and traditional markets.

Why Institutional Bitcoin Exposure May Favor Operating Models Over ETFs?

Traditional funds like GBTC have faced criticism over premium volatility, redemption issues, and lack of real-time liquidity. Bitcoin treasury companies, however, can offer dynamic balance sheet management with market-responsive exposure to Bitcoin. They also provide corporate flexibility: issuing equity, adjusting BTC allocations, or entering lending markets without needing SEC exemption approvals. This structure appeals to institutions seeking both security and return. And with institutional Bitcoin demand surging in 2025, companies able to blend enterprise-grade operations with crypto agility could become the preferred vehicle for diversified exposure.

What’s Next for Bitcoin Treasury Companies in 2025?

Expect more corporations to launch Bitcoin-focused treasuries. Some may mirror Athene’s model, combining traditional risk underwriting with BTC-backed strategies. As crypto regulation catches up, these firms will increasingly blur the lines between hedge funds, corporates, and infrastructure providers. Park’s comment is more than a hot take – it’s a blueprint.