Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich publicly rejected allegations regarding the company’s Bitcoin and options strategy.
• The company says its put option strategy is designed to reduce effective Bitcoin acquisition costs — not to speculate on price direction.
Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich has publicly responded to anonymous allegations criticizing the company’s increasing allocation to yield-generating strategies.
Gerovich said that over the past six months, the company has continued accumulating Bitcoin while selling put options and spreads.
According to him, the strategy is designed to reduce the effective cost of acquiring Bitcoin — not to speculate on price appreciation.
An anonymous social media user accused the firm of hiding key details about its Bitcoin purchases and options trades.
The claims suggested the company had not been fully transparent with shareholders.
The user, who claimed to own 50,000 shares, alleged that Metaplanet was “squeezing shareholders” while obscuring critical information.
The criticism focused primarily on Bitcoin purchases and the company’s derivatives activity.
The post alleged that Metaplanet bought a significant amount of Bitcoin in September 2025 at a local price peak using proceeds from a share sale.
According to the critic, the company remained silent until Bitcoin’s price recovered.
The user also alleged that four major purchases were made that month without proper or timely notice.
However, the most pointed criticism targeted Metaplanet’s put option strategy.
The critic argued that the company sells put option contracts that give buyers the right to sell Bitcoin to the company at a predetermined price — describing the approach as a failed “bet.”
The post claimed that when Bitcoin’s price declines, the puts either force the company to buy at above-market prices or result in losses. “They are selling put options, so failure is obvious (Bitcoin rises = success, falls = failure),” the critic wrote.
Additional accusations included insufficient disclosure of option details, with some purchase notices allegedly showing prices that diverged from prevailing market levels due to exercised options.
The critic further argued that the company portrays its “income business” from options as consistently successful in reports, even when outcomes may differ.