Capital B reported a €69.5 million net loss for the first half of 2026, with nearly the entire deficit stemming from a non-cash accounting charge tied to its Bitcoin holdings. A €67.5 million additional Bitcoin impairment accounted for roughly 97% of the reported loss, sharply separating the headline result from the company’s underlying operating performance.
According to Capital B’s half-year results, the impairment reflected Bitcoin’s price as of June 30 and had no cash impact. The company did not sell Bitcoin to realize the €67.5 million charge, making the loss primarily an accounting consequence of the valuation applied at the reporting date rather than a corresponding cash outflow.
Revenue moved in the opposite direction. Consolidated net revenue increased 3.5% year over year to €5.85 million from €5.65 million, while adjusted EBITDA deteriorated to negative €1.07 million from negative €815,000. Capital B attributed much of that EBITDA pressure to nearly €2.2 million in costs associated with running its Bitcoin Treasury Company strategy, including salaries, advisory fees and financial intermediary expenses.
Capital B Keeps Expanding Its Bitcoin Treasury
The impairment did not interrupt accumulation. Capital B increased its strategic reserve from 2,823 BTC in January to 3,139 BTC by June 30, then reached 3,538 BTC by September 30, representing a 25.3% increase from the beginning of the year. The company reported an aggregate acquisition value of €310.6 million, or an average €87,805 per BTC, and said the reserve remained at 3,538 BTC on October 15.
That strategy has increasingly depended on capital-market funding. Capital B announced €27.5 million of capital raises during the first half, including €15.2 million from equity combined with warrants, €8.8 million from warrant exercises and €3.5 million through ATM-type equity issuance. Since June 30, it has announced another €31.7 million in financing.
The approach fits a broader pattern among listed Bitcoin treasury companies, where expanding crypto reserves increasingly depends on the structure and availability of external capital. Capital B previously raised €15.2 million to expand its Bitcoin treasury, while other treasury companies have also relied on combinations of equity, preferred securities and warrants to fund additional purchases.
Accounting Loss Highlights the Cost of the Treasury Model
Capital B’s results illustrate how large Bitcoin positions can dominate reported earnings even when the underlying business changes relatively little. A similar distinction appeared when Metaplanet reported a large accounting loss tied to Bitcoin markdowns. Bitcoin treasury companies therefore expose shareholders not only to BTC price movements but also to financing costs, dilution and accounting volatility.
Capital B has created substantial theoretical financing flexibility, but that capacity should not be confused with money already raised. Shareholders approved authorizations in June covering up to €5 billion in nominal capital increases and €100 billion in nominal credit instruments. Those authorizations provide an issuance framework rather than €105 billion of committed funding, meaning future Bitcoin purchases still depend on actual transactions and market access.
The company also completed a 10-for-1 reverse stock split on September 8 after saying the consolidation was intended to support institutional development and broaden its potential investor base. The transaction reduced the number of shares without directly changing the aggregate value of an investor’s position. That financing dimension has become increasingly relevant across the sector as corporate Bitcoin accumulation has slowed and companies compete for capital on economically viable terms.
Capital B’s H1 numbers ultimately show two different financial stories at once: a €69.5 million accounting loss dominated by a non-cash Bitcoin impairment, and a treasury strategy that continued adding BTC while carrying measurable operating and financing costs. How those two sides interact will depend not simply on Bitcoin’s price, but on Capital B’s ability to keep funding accumulation without allowing the capital structure to overwhelm the underlying business.
