Bitcoin as Global Collateral, Treasury Companies, and the End of Housing as an Asset
Bitcoin’s rise is often framed in terms of price targets or retail adoption. A deeper conversation that Peter recently had on the Bitcoin Archive podcast, focussed on three interlocking ideas: whether Bitcoin can become the collateral underpinning the global financial system, the role of Bitcoin treasury companies, and the prospect that housing’s long run as a monetised asset is drawing to a close. These themes, paint a picture of a monetary shift with profound economic consequences.
Could Bitcoin Become the Collateral That Underpins the Entire Global Financial System?
The world’s debt crisis is frequently misdiagnosed. It is not primarily a debt problem but a collateral problem. In the existing fractional-reserve system, a dollar of equity can support roughly twenty dollars of debt. That leverage works only as long as credible collateral exists to back the expanded claims. When collateral is scarce or of declining quality, the system becomes fragile. Bitcoin offers a potential solution because it can scale as pure, verifiable, non-sovereign collateral without the second-order costs that plague other asset classes.
In a Bitcoin-native lending environment the relationship inverts. Over-collateralization is the norm: two dollars of Bitcoin might be required to secure one dollar of debt. The result is that the stock of Bitcoin must grow substantially larger than the debt it supports. Dunworth suggests a market capitalization on the order of two to four quadrillion dollars could eventually collateralize the global financial system - an expansion of several thousand times from current levels. Even a more modest trajectory of 100x over the next decade, reaching a market capitalization around one hundred trillion dollars, would represent a meaningful step toward that role.
The mechanics are straightforward. Price is set at the margin. As coins move into long-term self-custody and off exchanges, available supply shrinks. Capital does not need to equal the full market capitalization to drive large price moves; relatively modest inflows against constrained float produce outsized effects. Sources of that capital include energy markets and the bond market. Energy is already a universal value; Bitcoin, produced through proof-of-work, is energy money. Denominating a portion of global oil and gas trade in Bitcoin would create continuous demand measured in the trillions annually. Bond issuers, facing persistent currency debasement, may eventually be required by investors to back a percentage of new issuance with Bitcoin. Even a small allocation of annual bond issuance - tens of trillions of dollars - would generate recurring demand.
Unlike commodities or equities, Bitcoin is a pure financial instrument. Inflating its value does not raise the cost of food, energy, or shelter. It does not require a world war and subsequent debt jubilee to reset the system. Capital simply passes through Bitcoin at higher valuations, creating a new collateral base that can support credit creation without the destructive externalities of prior cycles. In this framing, Bitcoin does not merely compete with existing assets; it addresses the structural shortage of trustworthy collateral that has forced policymakers into ever-greater leverage and monetary expansion.
What Impact Are Bitcoin Treasury Companies Having?
Bitcoin treasury companies occupy a secondary but important niche. They are not substitutes for Bitcoin itself. Self-custody remains the gold standard for those seeking full sovereignty and the pure properties of the asset. Yet large pools of capital - corporate treasuries, institutions constrained by custody rules, or investors unwilling or unable to manage private keys - cannot easily hold Bitcoin directly. Treasury companies provide a regulated equity wrapper that delivers Bitcoin exposure.
Michael Saylor’s Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) pioneered aggressive accumulation, including innovative preferred-share structures that tap fixed-income markets. In bull markets these vehicles can outperform Bitcoin on a share-price basis while simultaneously increasing Bitcoin per share through issuance and capital raises. Metaplanet and Strive, for example, managed to grow their Bitcoin holdings per share even during a period of share-price decline, illustrating the leverage these structures can provide. In a rising market the same companies could accelerate accumulation dramatically.
The impact is twofold. First, they remove coins from liquid supply, reinforcing the scarcity dynamic that supports higher prices. Second, they create new pathways for capital that would otherwise remain outside Bitcoin. Preferred shares, in particular, compete with traditional fixed-income products and may pressure other issuers to innovate. Competition among treasury companies and eventual participation by more established financial institutions could accelerate the flow of capital from bonds and cash into Bitcoin-related vehicles.
These instruments carry additional risks - management, regulatory, dilution, and leverage - that pure Bitcoin does not. They are not set-and-forget holdings. In bear markets they tend to underperform. For investors who already hold substantial self-custodied Bitcoin and seek higher-beta exposure, or for those barred from direct ownership, they represent a legitimate allocation. The guiding principle remains clear: there is no second best. Bitcoin itself is the superior asset; treasury companies are adjacent tools that expand access and remove supply.
The End of Housing as an Asset
Housing has been financialized for decades. In the United States, mortgage-backed securities turned homes into tradable instruments, amplifying leverage until the 2008 crisis left millions homeless. Similar dynamics appear in Australia, the United Kingdom, and other developed markets. Homes are treated as investment vehicles whose primary purpose is capital appreciation rather than shelter. The result is chronic unaffordability. Monetizing the places people live raises the cost of living for everyone.
Bitcoin offers an alternative store of value and collateral that does not impose those social costs. The common objection - “you can’t live in a Bitcoin” - is precisely the point. Because Bitcoin is not an economic input in daily life, its appreciation does not inflate rents, construction costs, or the price of necessities. Capital can migrate from residential real estate into Bitcoin without destroying housing affordability.
Australia provides a current case study. Recent budget changes have removed the 50 percent capital-gains-tax discount, raised the effective rate, and eliminated negative-gearing offsets. Negative gearing previously allowed investors to deduct losses against other income, supporting higher leverage and prices. Its removal reduces borrowing capacity significantly - estimates suggest a substantial contraction in credit available to the investment segment that accounts for roughly 40 percent of purchases. Combined with slowing credit growth and questions around immigration-driven demand, the conditions point toward a 20–30 percent decline in property prices, consistent with New Zealand’s experience after similar policy shifts.
When property ceases to deliver reliable capital growth and instead carries higher tax and financing friction, rational capital seeks better alternatives. Bitcoin, currently trading at a discount to recent highs and unconstrained by local credit conditions or regulatory caps on housing, presents an asymmetric opportunity. Early signs already appear among sophisticated investors liquidating property portfolios to increase Bitcoin allocations. Over time, the cultural obsession with real-estate speculation that characterizes Australia, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom may diminish as Bitcoin absorbs the role of preferred collateral and long-term savings vehicle.
The three themes reinforce one another. As Bitcoin grows into a global collateral asset, treasury companies accelerate the transfer of capital and the removal of liquid supply. Simultaneously, the financialization of housing becomes both less necessary and more costly, freeing capital and reducing the social externalities of treating homes as investment assets. The transition will not be instantaneous or without volatility. Yet the underlying logic is coherent: a scarce, neutral, energy-backed digital asset can solve a collateral shortage that no other instrument can address at scale, while offering society a way to separate speculative finance from the basic necessity of shelter.
Are you a business owner wondering how to build resilience with Bitcoin on your balance sheet?
Are you a property investor wanting to diversify your portfolio after recent political shifts?
Book a free exploratory consultation with The Bitcoin Adviser today: