Commentary

SpaceX's Diamond Hands vs Forward Industries' Costly Crypto Gamble

Mark Timmis · 15 June 2026 · 3 min read

tl;dr

SpaceX and its BTC stash will be good thing. Forward Industries and its SOL stash is probably not a good thing.

Market Snap

Wall Street (cash)

51,700

+330

UST 10-year (yield)

4.43%

-5bps

FTSE (cash)

10,530

+40

BTC ($)

65,900

+1,600

ETH ($) 

1,720

+40

BTC O.I. weighted funding rate

0.0000%

+0.0016%

BTC O.I. ($)

49.4bn

+2.1bn

Market Wrap

The latest iteration of a Middle East ceasefire is now (temporarily) in place. Kevin Warsh, the new Chair of the Fed, gets to flex his muscles this week. I confidently predict he will not add to the current recessionary impact of the inflation shock caused by elevated oil prices for several months now by pointing out that oil-driven inflation is transitory by its very nature. Kevin is too smart to fall for the fallacy swallowed by the ECB and the BoE amongst other central banks.

Curious Cryptos’ Commentary – SpaceX and its BTC

A thoughtful piece in CoinDesk recently is worth a ponder.

First up, the facts.

SpaceX owns 18,712 BTC (nice!) bought for $661mm and currently valued at nearly $1.25bn. That’s a hefty half a billion dollars or so of gain, a near doubling of its value. Every quarter, SpaceX will revalue its BTC stash to the market price, presumably with a 10% haircut or so to take account of liquidity. If the haircut isn’t required, it just goes to show how most financial laws are designed and applied by those with little understanding of the real world.

Shaurya Malwa, a journalist for CoinDesk (please note that some of our readers are still confused about the distinction between journalism and commentary. Get over it) makes the not unreasonable point that SpaceX is an example of how a large corporation whose primary activities are non-crypto related manages BTC on its balance sheet. Most companies that hold cryptos are vehicles set up solely, or largely, for that purpose – Strategy and Bitmine being the two obvious examples.

If SpaceX sells its BTC during periods of market stress – rather than doing the sensible thing of adding at those times – this will send a strong negative signal to all other company CFOs. If it holds, or preferably adds to the stash, during periods of price stress, that will send a strong positive signal to all other company CFOs:

“Corporate bitcoin has had loud champions and dedicated vehicles, but what it has never had is a giant public company simply holding it. And that experiment just started Friday.”

I suspect Elon Musk is of the diamond hand variety, and that is good for our bags.

Curious Cryptos’ Commentary – And here is how not to do it

Forward Industries is the largest corporate holder of SOL, the token native to the Solana blockchain. It has long been a core holding of the CC Treasury portfolio (held by a third-party custodian for security reasons) though we look on in awe at the 6.83mm SOL held by Forward Industries.

Except, perhaps not.

Going all-in during September 2025 was a ballsy move that has played out badly. An investment cost of $1.59bn is now underwater by 70% representing an unrealised loss of over $1bn.

Given the volatility inherent in BTC, amplified by alts, and the ever-present risk of a significant drawdown, any gaming of potential outcomes prior to adding cryptos to the balance sheet must include the conviction to keep hold of the stash during those drawdowns, whilst preferably adding to them. That is, unless the investment case has shifted dramatically, which is not the case.

It seems that senior executives at Forward Industries simply jumped on a shiny and new bandwagon without properly thinking it through. The company has moved 455,784 SOL worth approximately $32mm to Coinbase Prime, possibly in advance of a sale.

If so, that would be the classic mistake all speculators make – a transfer of value to those who really understand what they are investing in.

Thank you, Forward Industries, for your kind gesture of adding value to the CC Treasury portfolio at your own shareholders’ expense.

Commentary