Overwhelming shareholder vote against Bitcoin treasury proposal highlights institutional hesitation despite growing corporate adoption
Meta’s shareholders delivered a resounding rejection to a proposal that would have assessed Bitcoin as a potential treasury reserve asset, voting it down by an overwhelming margin of 1,221 to 1 at the company’s annual meeting on May 28, 2025. The decisive vote underscores the continued skepticism among major technology companies toward cryptocurrency adoption, even as Bitcoin gains traction in other corporate sectors.
The Proposal and Its Defeat
The proposal, put forward by Bitcoin advocate Ethan Peck, sought to evaluate whether Bitcoin could serve as a future treasury reserve asset for Meta, which currently holds $72 billion in liquid assets. Treasury reserves, typically consisting of cash or cash equivalents like money market funds or three-month U.S. Treasury bills, are maintained by corporations to fund short-term obligations and emergency needs.
Meta’s rejection follows a similar pattern among Big Tech companies. Microsoft also voted down comparable Bitcoin treasury proposals in December 2024, suggesting a broader institutional reluctance within the technology sector to embrace cryptocurrency as a corporate asset.
Expert Analysis: The Case Against Bitcoin as Treasury Asset
The overwhelming rejection has drawn sharp criticism from financial experts who question the fundamental premise of using Bitcoin for corporate treasury purposes. New York University professor Aswath Damodaran, known for his crypto-skeptical stance, called the proposal “lunacy,” arguing that corporate treasuries function more like emergency funds rather than platforms for speculative investing.
“I couldn’t think of a semblance of a reason for why this is a good idea,” Damodaran said, emphasizing that treasury reserves are designed to support day-to-day business operations and respond to crises like natural disasters or pandemics.
Even Duke University finance professor Campbell Harvey, who has authored works on decentralized finance and generally maintains a positive outlook on blockchain technology, expressed dismissal of the Bitcoin treasury initiative. “If Meta investors want to own Bitcoin, they can buy it themselves,” Harvey told reporters. “It is not clear what role cryptos play in any treasury function unless the company is doing business in a crypto like Bitcoin.”
Harvey distinguished between Bitcoin and stablecoins, noting that stablecoins properly qualify as treasury reserves because they are typically liquid and pegged to underlying assets like the U.S. dollar, while Bitcoin represents a highly volatile instrument unsuitable for corporate reserves.
The MicroStrategy Exception
The debate around corporate Bitcoin adoption invariably returns to MicroStrategy, which became the first publicly traded company to adopt Bitcoin as its primary treasury reserve asset in August 2020. The company’s MSTR stock has surged 2,466% since making this strategic shift, outperforming tech giants like Nvidia, Tesla, Google, and Microsoft.
However, experts caution against viewing MicroStrategy as a template for other corporations. “MicroStrategy has bet the company in transforming itself into an active Bitcoin fund,” Harvey explained. He emphasized that while companies can make strategic investments in Bitcoin similar to startup investments, such moves should be classified as risky venture investments rather than treasury assets.
The Opportunity Cost Argument
Despite the overwhelming rejection, some financial professionals argue that Meta and similar companies are missing significant opportunities by maintaining large cash reserves that earn minimal interest. David Tawil, president and co-founder of ProChain Capital, pointed out that Meta consistently holds billions in cash that could be better deployed.
“Meta is sitting with billions in cash constantly,” Tawil noted. “They’d be better off putting some of it in Bitcoin, both for diversification purposes, but also to insulate them against an inflating dollar.”
James Butterfill, head of research at digital asset investment firm CoinShares, provided quantitative support for this perspective, revealing that a 3% Bitcoin allocation can double a fund’s Sharpe ratio, a key measure of risk-adjusted performance. CoinShares’ survey of firms managing $1 trillion in assets under management shows digital asset allocation rising from 1% in October 2024 to 1.8% in April 2025.
“The pace of adoption is accelerating faster than we had anticipated,” Butterfill added, noting that at least 72 new companies have adopted Bitcoin in 2025, though he cautioned that many moves appear driven more by desires to boost stock prices than genuine long-term strategic thinking.
Broader Market Context
The corporate Bitcoin adoption landscape presents a mixed picture. While major asset managers like Fidelity and BlackRock have warmed to cryptocurrency—with BlackRock recently recommending up to 2% portfolio allocation to Bitcoin for diversification—most large-cap companies whose core business lies outside crypto remain hesitant.
Tesla stands alone among major corporations unrelated to cryptocurrency or blockchain technology in maintaining Bitcoin holdings. Recent global developments include Paris-based Blockchain Group adding $68 million in Bitcoin to its corporate treasury in June, and Korea’s K Wave Media announcing plans to raise $500 million for Bitcoin purchases as part of its “treasury strategy.”
Also Read: Bitcoin Soars to $110,000: Analysts Predict Massive Rally with Targets Up to $1 Million
Reading the Vote: Caution or Control?
The interpretation of Meta’s 1,221 to 1 rejection ratio requires careful consideration of the company’s unique governance structure. CEO Mark Zuckerberg controls 61% of Meta’s voting power, meaning the vote may not represent a typical cross-section of corporate America’s sentiment toward Bitcoin.
Stefan Padfield, executive director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research, suggested that corporate boards and managers likely remain as divided on Bitcoin as economists and politicians. “It’s not surprising that we’re seeing firms—including tech firms—take differing positions on the ‘none-some-lots’ spectrum when it comes to Bitcoin,” he explained.
Padfield also cautioned against reading too much into the low proxy vote count, suggesting the rejection might reflect “a desire to avoid being ‘forced’ to consider Bitcoin than a rejection of Bitcoin itself.”
Volatility Concerns Questioned
Interestingly, Butterfill challenged the conventional wisdom about Bitcoin’s volatility relative to tech stocks, noting that “Bitcoin has exhibited consistently lower volatility than Meta for over two months now, and this trend holds across the FAANG stocks more broadly.” This observation suggests that concerns about Bitcoin’s volatility may be somewhat outdated, at least in the near term.
Looking Forward
Despite the current skepticism among Big Tech companies, industry observers expect eventual adoption by major corporations. “Given current trends, it’s likely that we’ll eventually see a major large-cap company add Bitcoin to its balance sheet,” Butterfill predicted.
The path forward appears to require a fundamental shift in how corporate leaders view Bitcoin—moving beyond perceptions of speculative volatility toward recognition of its potential role in modern treasury management and inflation hedging.
For now, Meta’s decisive rejection serves as a reminder that despite Bitcoin’s growing mainstream acceptance and institutional adoption, the world’s largest technology companies remain cautious about embracing cryptocurrency as a core component of their financial strategy. Whether this skepticism will persist as Bitcoin matures and regulatory clarity improves remains an open question for the evolving intersection of traditional corporate finance and digital assets.
