JAN3's Samson Mow Calls Bitcoin (BTC) Treasury Firms Like Strategy Massively Undervalued

A Discount Call on Strategy

If Samson Mow has sized it right, a slice of the public market is selling Bitcoin (BTC) exposure for less than the coins behind it are worth. Mow, chief executive of the Bitcoin infrastructure firm JAN3, said in remarks published on October 21 that many Bitcoin treasury companies, Strategy above all, are “massively undervalued” at current levels. The group he means is specific: listed firms that hold the asset on their balance sheets and raise fresh capital to accumulate more. If that call is correct, buyers of the shares would effectively be acquiring coins at a discount, and the firms’ market values would be expected to close the gap toward the value of their holdings. In Mow’s telling, the business model does something a passive fund does not. These companies keep buying no matter where the Bitcoin price stands, which makes them a buyer of last resort for the asset: a purchaser who shows up when no one else will, which keeps a market from clearing far lower in a selloff. Demand that arrives regardless of conditions, he argues, builds a self-reinforcing cycle in which each round of accumulation tightens available supply and supports a higher price over time. The remarks came in a wide-ranging interview that also pressed him on whether the four-year cycle tied to each Bitcoin Halving still describes market behavior, what could set off the next major rally, and why artificial-intelligence companies might be the next cohort to run Bitcoin (BTC) treasury strategies. He described a consumer pattern as well: users of the Aqua Wallet often arrive at Bitcoin through stablecoins first, and he has discussed a model he calls agentic commerce, in which savers hold Bitcoin and spend stablecoins. Taken together, the comments put treasury companies at the center of the next demand phase for the asset rather than at its margins.

The Buyer of Last Resort Loop

The loop Mow describes does not depend on market sentiment. Treasury companies run an accumulation mandate: they raise capital through shares or debt and convert it into coins, session after session, which keeps Strategy and firms like it on the buy side in weak markets as well as strong ones. In a downturn, that standing demand absorbs coins sold by weaker holders and limits how far the market has to fall to find a buyer. In a recovery, the same firms keep their stacks intact and extend the period coins sit locked on corporate balance sheets, a posture long associated with the choice to HODL rather than trade. Each purchase that moves coins from open-market sellers onto corporate books shrinks the supply that must change hands for the price to clear, which is the arithmetic he attaches to the scarcity race. Mow carries the argument to the funding side. In his view, the best time to launch a Bitcoin (BTC) treasury company, or to issue a Bitcoin bond that finances purchases, is when the price is low, because that is when committed capital secures the most coin. He reads sovereign interest through the same frame. Governments now looking at the asset are, in his framing, adding to a worldwide race for a finite supply, and a country weighing a strategic Bitcoin reserve faces the same fixed cap as any corporation. The interview carries one caution on that leg: in Mow’s account, nation-state Bitcoin adoption has slowed, so sovereign demand is advancing unevenly rather than on a schedule anyone can bank on. He was also asked whether quantum computing poses a real threat to the network, a question he took up in the same session. Strategy, whose MSTR shares trade on Nasdaq, remains the most closely watched name in the segment, which is where Mow anchored the undervaluation case.

What Holds Either Way

The claim, as Mow states it, carries no number. No net asset value multiple, no per-company discount and no re-rating timeline appear in what he said, so the undervaluation call stands as an argument to be tested against how treasury firms trade relative to their holdings. What holds either way is the mandate: these companies accumulate by design, so buyer-of-last-resort demand exists whether or not Mow’s valuation call lands. Discounted-asset debates around the asset are not new; one recent analysis put it 36% below an energy-value estimate. Spot demand runs through other channels as well; a recent count put two-day ETF inflows at $550M. Off-exchange accumulation also continues on its own: one desk saw withdrawals of 1,090 BTC worth $90M, pointing to continued crypto whale demand outside the treasury complex.