Metaplanet’s CEO, Simon Gerovich, has taken a firm stance against recent anonymous allegations regarding the company’s Bitcoin and options trading strategies. In a public response, Gerovich rebutted claims that Metaplanet’s approach is a questionable speculative endeavor, asserting instead that their put option strategy aims to reduce the effective acquisition costs of Bitcoin.
In the wake of accusations questioning the company’s transparency, Gerovich highlighted that Metaplanet has been actively accumulating Bitcoin while simultaneously employing a strategy involving the sale of put options and spreads. This, he explained, is intended to lower the overall cost of acquiring Bitcoin rather than to engage in speculative trades predicting price movements.
The criticism emerged from an anonymous individual on social media who alleged a lack of transparency surrounding Metaplanet’s financial maneuvers. The accuser, claiming ownership of 50,000 shares, alleged that the firm was “squeezing shareholders” by not sufficiently disclosing critical information about its Bitcoin purchases and options activities. One of the main points of contention was a purported acquisition of Bitcoin at a peak price in September 2025, using proceeds from a share sale. The critic accused Metaplanet of remaining silent until the market rebounded, suggesting that significant purchases were made without timely disclosures.
The anonymous critic took particular issue with the firm’s put option strategy, contending that it represents a flawed gamble on Bitcoin’s price direction. According to this viewpoint, when Bitcoin’s value drops, the put options could compel Metaplanet to buy Bitcoin at prices higher than the current market value, resulting in losses. Additional allegations suggested that the specifics of option trades were inadequately disclosed.
The critic further pointed out concerns regarding Metaplanet’s borrowing practices. They alleged that the company utilizes Bitcoin as collateral for loans without disclosing the lender’s name or specific interest rates. Questions were also raised about the value and condition of Metaplanet’s legacy hotel business, with assertions that it contributes little to the firm’s financial health, which is said to heavily rely on shareholder investment rather than executive capital.
In response, Gerovich rejected these allegations as “factually incorrect.” He emphasized the company’s commitment to transparency, stating that shareholders can easily view Bitcoin holdings through a live dashboard, and highlighted that all relevant Bitcoin addresses are public. Gerovich acknowledged the timing of the four purchases made in September but affirmed that each transaction was announced promptly. He noted that while the firm had issued timely announcements regarding its credit lines, the specifics about the lender and interest rates are confidential at the lender’s request.
Central to Gerovich’s defense was the claim that the put option strategy should not be viewed as a directional bet on Bitcoin’s price. Instead, it is designed to leverage market volatility to the company’s advantage, enabling lower acquisition costs. By selling put options, Metaplanet earns immediate premiums, which can either result in successful retention of those premiums if Bitcoin exceeds the strike price or a lower cost of acquisition if the price falls and the options are exercised.
Gerovich underscored the successes of this unorthodox approach, indicating a substantial increase in the company’s Bitcoin-per-share metric during 2025 and noting that options premiums significantly contributed to the firm’s revenue in the past year. Despite the ongoing scrutiny, Metaplanet remains committed to its Bitcoin treasury strategy, with aspirations to become a leading holder among public companies. The viability of this approach in the long term will hinge on the future performance of Bitcoin, but Gerovich reiterated the belief that, when properly managed, volatility can be an asset rather than a liability.
