Metaplanet’s Gerovich Slams Critics, Defends Financial Disclosures

20 February 2026 - 10:19 CET

The CEO of Metaplanet denied that Japan’s largest corporate holder of Bitcoin had been dishonest about recent purchases of the digital token and lashed out at criticism which he said had misinterpreted its financial metrics and statements.

In a lengthy 20 Feb post on X, Simon Gerovich, who is also the Tokyo-listed company’s president, addressed several claims that he said were made by “an anonymous account” to “blame and incite flames without taking any responsibility.” Gerovich's post, translated from Japanese, said that an accusation that Metaplanet’s disclosures were dishonest “is inflammatory and false.” 

Denies hotel business downturn

The world’s fourth-largest corporate holder of Bitcoin started as a budget hotel 
operator, which it has kept in a scaled-down form following its 2024 transition to a digital asset treasury company. Gerovich denied that the hotel business is 
“in disrepair”, saying that in FY2025, the segment posted an operating profit of 169mn yen ($1.1mn) on revenue of 437mn yen ($2.8mn). 

Appearing to respond to a social media post about Bitcoin purchases made in September, Gerovich wrote: “The post alleges that we purchased at the peak and kept quiet about it. However, a review of our public dashboard tells a completely different story. We made four Bitcoin purchases in September, all of which we promptly disclosed at the time.”

Not timing the market

Bitcoin fluctuated between $113,000 and $117,000 in the week of 15-22 Sept, and one of Metaplanet’s purchases occurred around 21 Sept, at an average price of roughly $116,700 per coin. Gerovich acknowledged that Bitcoin prices hit a “local peak” in September, adding that “our strategy is not to time the market.” Other Bitcoin accumulators were also active in September, including Strategy which bought the coin at average prices of $117,344 during that same week.

Put options use for cheaper buys

He also addressed criticism surrounding Metaplanet offering put options, saying it “is not a bet on Bitcoin price appreciation,” but that it allows the company to acquire Bitcoin at a lower cost than by buying it at the spot price.

As previously reported by Sandmark, in the FY2025 results report released on 16 Feb, Metaplanet booked a 102.2bn yen ($665.8mn) valuation loss on its Bitcoin holdings, which had been marked to market at year end. It posted a net loss of 95bn yen ($619mn) on an unrealized loss in the crypto asset, while total revenue surged 738%, driven by its new Bitcoin income generation business.

Bitcoin per share

Gerovich also noted in the X post that the company’s key performance indicator is Bitcoin per share, rejecting as “not appropriate” the traditional net income metric that is the widely accepted profitability measure in corporate financial reporting.

Bitcoin per share rose by more than 500% by 2025, while operating profit was 6.2bn yen ($40mn), an increase of 1,694% year-on-year, he noted.

Share price vs Bitcoin

Gerovich, one of the company’s major shareholders, also defended the stock’s performance, saying that the shares were down 23% versus a 24% decline in Bitcoin “during this year’s downturn.” 

He did not specify the exact dates, but he appeared to be referencing the 5 Jan opening price as the baseline, as that was the year's first trading day for the Japanese market. Using that period up through 20 Feb, Metaplanet is down about on par with Bitcoin at 23%.

The stock closed up 2.9% on 20 Feb at 319 yen.

Loan agreement disclosures

Gerovich addressed an allegation that the company had been secretive about loan agreements. “We have made three separate, timely disclosures: when we established the credit facility in October, and when we drew down the facility in November and December. The borrowing amount, collateral details, interest rate structure, purpose, and terms are all disclosed,” he said.

He added that the identity of the lender and the specific interest rate level are not disclosed “at the counterparty's request,” saying that the interest rate terms were favorable to Metaplanet, “and the lender did not want other borrowers to seek the same terms.”