UK-listed bitcoin treasury companies: the 2026 map

What this page is, and what it is not

This is a dated snapshot, compiled on 26 August 2026, of the companies listed in London that hold cryptoassets as a treasury asset. It is an educational explainer. It is not a league table, not a ranking of quality, and explicitly not a buy list. Naming a company here is not an endorsement of it, of its shares, or of the token it holds. We publish no price views and no targets, and we do not describe any of this as an opportunity.

Every holdings figure below is labelled with what we could actually establish about it — an “as at” date and the document it came from where one exists, and an explicit gap where it does not. That is not pedantry. Holdings in this sector move weekly, several of these companies are mid-wind-down, and an undated coin count is worthless. Where we could not date a figure, we say so in the row rather than smoothing it into a clean number.

We label the evidence behind each claim, because the quality varies enormously:

• Filed / announced fact — taken from a company's own regulatory announcement (RNS), circular, prospectus or audited accounts.
• Market data — a price or valuation observed in the market rather than stated by the company.
• Aggregator — a third-party treasury-company tracker. Useful for finding names; unreliable for numbers.
• Press report — reported by a news outlet, not traced back to a primary document.
• Our inference — our own reasoning from a verified fact, flagged as ours so you can disagree with it.

The generic mechanism — how a treasury company is supposed to create value per share, and the exact point at which the machine runs backwards — is set out separately in our guide to how digital asset treasury companies actually work. This page is about the specifically British facts: the venue, the wrapper rules, the tax mechanics, the disclosure regime and the cohort itself.

One thing to be completely clear about before you read any further. Shares in these companies are not protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, and disputes about them are not covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service. Every announcement The Smarter Web Company publishes says exactly that about itself, in its own standing risk notice, alongside a statement that the company is neither authorised nor regulated by the FCA. If the coin falls, the discount widens or the company winds up, the loss is yours.

The ISA route that opened on 6 April 2026

This is the finding that makes the UK cohort worth understanding at all, and it is a rule change, not a market view.

From 6 April 2026, crypto exchange-traded notes stopped being qualifying investments for a stocks and shares ISA and became qualifying only for an Innovative Finance ISA. Holdings acquired before that date can remain where they are. The full rules, including what happens to an existing position, are in our guide to crypto ETNs and the UK ISA rules.

The mechanical consequence is this. A share in a UK-listed treasury company is an ordinary share admitted to trading on a recognised stock exchange, and HMRC's qualifying-investment test for a stocks and shares ISA asks about the venue the share trades on — not about what the issuing company keeps on its balance sheet. So as at 26 August 2026, shares in these companies remain qualifying investments for a stocks and shares ISA. They are not the only ones. The same HMRC designation list covers the Nasdaq Stock Market, the New York Stock Exchange and NYSE American, so US-listed crypto-linked equities — Strategy (MSTR), Strive (ASST), BitMine (BMNR) and the rest of that cohort — satisfy the identical test, and most UK platforms carry them more readily than they carry an AQSE micro-cap. What changed on 6 April 2026 was the treatment of the ETN, not the treatment of shares: listed treasury company shares, British or overseas, stayed where they were. This page covers the UK-listed names because the venue, wrapper and disclosure mechanics below are specifically British; the overseas cohort is mapped in which companies hold crypto on their balance sheet.

One announcement shows all of it at once. The Smarter Web Company's RNS of 3 August 2026 reported 2,712 BTC held, a net average purchase price of £82,886 per coin (the announcement gives $111,548 alongside it), and a purchase made that same day at an average of £47,052 ($63,328). It disclosed a quarter-to-date “BTC Yield” of minus 4.80% — bitcoin per share falling, so issuance currently destroying rather than adding coins per share. It disclosed 374,840,705 ordinary shares in issue, an equity line placing 3,300,000 shares that day for £1,016,250 gross at roughly 31p, and £18,500,000 drawn on a Coinbase strategic credit facility at around a 17% leverage ratio, secured against the company's existing bitcoin. Dilution, leverage, a treasury far underwater on cost and a custody arrangement, all in one 07:00 announcement. Filed fact.

That is what the ISA route actually contains. The anatomy of how these structures fail is set out in what goes wrong at a bitcoin treasury company.

Which venue is a UK treasury company actually on?

This is the most misreported fact in the sector, and it matters because the venue — not the company — determines your dealing costs, your inheritance tax treatment, which platforms will let you buy, and what continuing obligations the company is under. There are three distinct venues in play, and they are not interchangeable.

AIM holds almost none of them. That is the single correction most worth making, because AIM is where the general press assumes UK small-cap crypto sits. The one clear AIM name is Tap Global Group, and it moved there from the Aquis Growth Market Access segment, with admission and first dealings at 8.00am on 27 June 2025 and simultaneous cancellation from AQSE. It is still routinely described as Aquis-listed more than a year later.

Traffic runs the other way too. Three companies in this cohort have migrated upward from the Aquis Growth Market to the LSE Main Market: London BTC Company (January 2025), KR1 (Main Market admission 25 November 2025, after an EGM on 20 November and AQSE trading ceasing on 24 November) and The Smarter Web Company (February 2026). For a UK holder, that migration changes four concrete things at once: broader platform availability, index eligibility, the loss of the growth-market stamp duty exemption, and the loss of any business property relief. Both of those last two are less automatic than they sound, and both are covered below.

Are AQSE and AIM shares ISA-eligible?

Yes — all three venues are. Main Market, AIM and AQSE Growth Market shares can all be held in a stocks and shares ISA. If you take one thing from this page, take the next four paragraphs, because the reason so many people believe otherwise is a genuine trap sitting inside HMRC's own published table.

The test. The qualifying-investments chapter of HMRC's ISA manager guidance (page updated 6 April 2026) requires that shares are either officially listed on a recognised stock exchange or admitted to trading on a recognised stock exchange in the UK or the EEA. Two limbs, joined by “or”. The second limb is the one that carries AIM and the AQSE Growth Market.

The designations. HMRC's recognised stock exchanges tables designate the London Stock Exchange (19 July 2007) and the Aquis Stock Exchange (25 April 2013 — formerly ICAP Securities and Derivatives Exchange, then NEX Exchange, renamed Aquis on 15 April 2020). Both are therefore recognised stock exchanges, and shares admitted to trading on their markets satisfy the second limb of the ISA test. Filed fact.

Aquis says the same thing about its own market. Its Regulatory Guide states that the Growth Market is a recognised stock exchange and that shares admitted to it are eligible ISA investments, and that they are SIPP-eligible as a regulated venue under the Personal Pension Scheme Operators Instrument. See aquis.eu for the current rulebooks and guides.

Eligibility is not availability. These are separate questions and readers conflate them constantly. A share can be perfectly ISA-eligible and still not be offered by your platform, because platforms choose which markets to carry. As at 26 August 2026: AJ Bell's market research page for Coinsilium (AQSE:COIN) lists dealing account, stocks and shares ISA, Lifetime ISA, JISA and SIPP as available account types, with a standing higher-risk, lower-liquidity warning on the market. Hargreaves Lansdown carries share pages for Coinsilium, Stack BTC, Hamak and Blue Star Capital with an active trade button. Interactive investor added the Aquis Stock Exchange to its platform, giving access to around 90 AQSE Growth Market companies. Trading 212 and Freetrade we could not verify for AQSE access — both clearly support the LSE Main Market and AIM, and Trading 212 lists Bluebird Mining Ventures, but assume AQSE is unavailable and check at the point of purchase. IG's AQSE coverage is asserted by Aquis's own news page, which we did not independently confirm. Platform coverage changes without notice; verify on the platform's own instrument list, not on a comparison site.

And eligibility is not permanent. A share qualifies because of where it trades, so it stops qualifying when it stops trading there. On a delisting, the shares cease to be qualifying investments and the ISA manager is required to take them out of the wrapper — they cannot simply sit inside it as a non-qualifying holding. In practice that means the manager sells them within the ISA, leaving the cash proceeds in the wrapper, or transfers the shares out into a dealing account in your name; and shares that leave an ISA cannot generally be put back into one. This is not hypothetical on this page. Satsuma Technology's listing is scheduled to be cancelled on 14 September 2026, which makes it the live example: anyone holding that line inside a stocks and shares ISA faces exactly this mechanic, on that date, whether or not they have been told about it. Ask your ISA manager what it does on a delisting before you need to know.

One further point, stated as an absence rather than a fact: we found no HMRC guidance addressing whether a share in a company whose principal asset is cryptoassets could be treated differently for ISA purposes. The general recognised-stock-exchange test appears simply to apply. Given that crypto ETNs were removed from the stocks and shares ISA on 6 April 2026, that is a point worth watching rather than assuming settled.

Two UK-only cost mechanics: stamp duty and business property relief

This is where the “listed” / “not listed” column from the previous section earns its keep. It does not touch your ISA. It does two other things, and they pull in opposite directions.

1. Stamp duty: the venue changes your dealing cost

“Main Market means 0.5%” is not the rule, and in this cohort it is wrong more often than it is right. The 0.5% charge described on gov.uk's tax when you buy shares guidance is the end of a three-part test, not the start of one. Work through it in order.

1. Is there a chargeable security at all? Stamp duty and SDRT bite on “chargeable securities” as the Finance Act 1986 defines them, and that definition excludes shares issued by a company not incorporated in the United Kingdom unless they are kept on a register in the UK. Incorporation, not venue, answers this one — and this cohort is full of non-UK issuers. The table below flags London BTC Company, Hamak Strategy and Bluebird Mining Ventures as BVI-incorporated, the first of them traded as depositary interests, and Panther Metals as Isle of Man registered. Coinsilium is Gibraltar, B HODL is Isle of Man, Phoenix has redomiciled to Gibraltar. For any of those lines, the first question is not which market it trades on.
2. Is the market exempt? Section 99(4B) of the Finance Act 1986 takes securities admitted to trading on a recognised growth market, and not listed on any market, outside the charge. AIM and the AQSE Growth Market both qualify, so trades in those lines are SDRT-exempt regardless of where the company is incorporated. This is the limb that a Main Market admission removes — and removing an exemption is not the same as creating a charge.
3. Is the company inside the new-listings relief? A relief for companies first admitted to a UK regulated market on or after 27 November 2025 removes stamp duty and SDRT on their shares for three years from that first admission. Several of this cohort listed inside that window.

Only a line that clears all three — a chargeable security, on a non-exempt market, outside the new-listings relief — attracts the standard 0.5% on purchase. Our reading of the legislation; we have not obtained a ruling on any individual company, and incorporation and register arrangements can change.

Two of this cohort show why the blanket version fails. It is tempting to say that KR1 became chargeable on its Main Market admission of 25 November 2025, and The Smarter Web Company on its admission of 3 February 2026, because both left the Aquis Growth Market. Neither conclusion is safe. KR1's place of incorporation is not established anywhere on this page, so limb one is open. The Smarter Web Company's admission fell after 27 November 2025, so limb three — the three-year relief — is squarely in play. What can be said is narrower and still useful: while both sat on the Aquis Growth Market the growth-market exemption applied to them, and on admission to the Main Market that particular exemption stopped applying. Whether a charge then arises turns on the other two limbs, and nothing about the underlying bitcoin was involved either way. Our inference, applying the legislation to two filed admission dates; the incorporation and relief positions of both companies are unverified.

2. Business property relief, cut from 6 April 2026

From 6 April 2026, business property relief on “not listed” shares — which is to say AIM and AQSE Growth Market shares — was cut to 50%. They also sit outside the allowance introduced from the same date: the 100% rate of agricultural and business property relief is now capped at £2.5m of combined qualifying property — raised from the £1m originally announced — and “not listed” shares of this kind do not draw on it, because they are already restricted to 50%. That produces an effective 20% inheritance tax rate after the two-year holding period, rather than the full exemption these shares used to attract. Main Market names never had business property relief at all, because they are “listed”.

Do not read that as a reason to prefer the Aquis names. Two cautions, and the first is much stronger than “it depends”. For most of this cohort the realistic answer is no relief at all, not 50%. Section 105(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 denies business property relief where a company's business consists wholly or mainly of making or holding investments. A vehicle whose business is buying coins and holding them is very likely caught by that: holding an asset in the hope it appreciates is close to the definition of holding an investment, and being listed on a growth market does nothing to cure it. So the venue test is not the first hurdle of two — it is the easy hurdle, and s.105(3) is the one that actually decides it. We have not verified the position of any individual company here, and nobody should assume 50% applies to any of them. Second, a 20% effective inheritance tax rate on a holding that has fallen 80% is not a saving. Tax treatment is the last question to ask about a speculative micro-cap, not the first.

The UK cohort, company by company

Read the holdings column with its date and its source, never on its own. Sterling figures come from UK announcements; where a UK announcement quotes a dollar figure alongside, we have kept both exactly as published and converted nothing. Companies are grouped by venue, because that is the fact most reporting gets wrong.

A correction while we are here. There is no UK-listed cryptoasset treasury company called Oxford Metrica, despite the name appearing in secondary coverage of this sector. The nearest real entities are Oxford Metrica, a private research and analytics consultancy with no listed crypto vehicle, and Oxford Metrics plc, an AIM-quoted smart-sensing and motion-capture business with no crypto treasury at all. If you find that name in a UK treasury list, the list has not been checked.

The contraction: the reverse gear running in real time

Any page that describes the upside flywheel without its reverse gear is defective, so here is the reverse gear — and in the UK cohort it is not a thought experiment. It is running now, with dates.

The mechanism. A treasury company that buys coins by issuing shares only creates value per share while its shares trade above the value of its assets per share. Above net asset value, issuing equity and buying coins leaves every existing holder with more coins per share, which is the whole thesis. Below net asset value, the same action destroys value per share. The rational move flips to buying back stock, which means accumulation stops. If the company also owes interest or must repay notes in pounds, and the operating business does not generate that cash, the only remaining sources are issuing more equity into a falling price or selling the coins. The multiple that governs all of this is set out in mNAV explained.

Bitcoin fell hard through 2026, and the UK announcements show the machine changing direction. Every item below is dated.

• Satsuma Technology is liquidating and delisting. A group of shareholders holding more than 20% of the issued share capital requisitioned a resolution to return substantially all of the company's capital in cash. The board majority opposed it. Shareholders passed it anyway on 20 July 2026 — 90.63% for the capital return and 90.59% for delisting. Trading was suspended at the company's own request on 1 July 2026; the remaining 668 bitcoin were scheduled for sale on or around 3 August 2026. Under the timetable set out in the RNS of 24 June 2026, the last day of trading is due to be 11 September 2026 and cancellation of listing 14 September 2026. Both of those dates, like the court confirmation hearing set for 8 September 2026, are still ahead as at 26 August 2026. Press estimates put shareholder recovery at £26.8m–£30m against the £163.6m raised in August 2025 — under 20p in the pound — with the shares down more than 99% from their 2025 peak. The vote and the timetable are filed facts; the recovery range is a press estimate. The lesson is precise: bitcoin bought at an average above $113,000, funded by convertibles denominated in fiat, and then bitcoin below $68,000 at the point the notes came due. Leverage killed it, not volatility.
• Vaultz Capital voted to abandon its bitcoin policy. A general meeting on 21 July 2026 passed all resolutions withdrawing the bitcoin treasury policy and authorising disposal, repositioning the company as a cash-backed acquisition platform. It had accumulated at around £88,640 per coin against a market in the £47,000–£50,000 region by August 2026. Fellow UK-listed Hamak Strategy, which holds 6,500,000 Vaultz shares, publicly backed the exit. As at 26 August 2026 there is no announcement confirming the coins have been sold — the authority exists, the execution has not been reported.
• Vault Ventures already sold its bitcoin — in August 2025, roughly a year before the others, redeploying part of the proceeds into Ethereum.
• Phoenix Digital Assets cut its holding from 247 BTC to 99 BTC across the first half of 2026, and sold its Ethereum position entirely in the same period. Aggregator and press; not read from a primary announcement.
• Supernova Digital Assets has roughly £3,000 of cash against £1.132 million of current liabilities. Its own unaudited interim results, announced 30 July 2026 for the period to 30 April 2026, also report an operating loss of £1,225,000 for the six months. This is a listed company holding roughly £2.5m of crypto that cannot meet near-term obligations without selling those assets or securing new financing. Filed fact. It is the clearest illustration of the risk most readers never have explained: an asset that is supposed to appreciate does not pay the bills, and a treasury vehicle with no operating cash flow becomes a forced seller at the worst possible moment.
• B HODL is buying back its own shares instead of buying bitcoin. A buyback programme was announced on 9 July 2026 under authority granted 6 February 2026, with a second tranche on 21 August 2026 and a near-daily run of transaction-in-own-shares announcements through July. The board's stated reason is the discount to net asset value at which the shares trade, and its view that the price does not reflect the value of the treasury. Filed fact. Set that beside The Smarter Web Company still placing shares through an equity line at around 31p, and you can watch both gears of the same machine turning in the same market on the same day.
• The Smarter Web Company is deeply underwater on cost. On 3 August 2026 it bought at an average of £47,052 per coin against a net average cost of £82,886, and reported a quarter-to-date BTC Yield of minus 4.80%. It had also, on 23 July 2026, disposed of 177.8909127 BTC at an average $65,762 to repay $11,698,540 of a convertible instrument about two weeks early, eliminating 7,718,551 potential shares. Filed facts.
• London BTC Company's announcement flow has moved to Nevada gold — a gold discovery on 15 July 2026, assays on 5 August, antimony targeting on 14 August and a critical-minerals expansion on 24 August 2026. The company describes this as a deliberate hybrid strategy. Either way, the ticker still says BTC.

Read that list against the marketing language of 2025, when bitcoin on a corporate balance sheet was routinely described as a permanent reserve that would never be sold. Inside about twelve months, one UK company voted itself out of existence, two abandoned the policy, one halved its position twice over, one ran out of cash, and one started buying its own shares back instead. The “never sell” framing did not survive contact with a drawdown.

Why does UK disclosure tell you more than a US 8-K?

Because the two regimes ask for different things, and the UK one asks sooner. This is the one respect in which a UK reader is genuinely better served than an American one, and it is worth knowing how to use.

The UK rule is a speed rule. Article 17(1) of UK MAR requires an issuer to inform the public of inside information concerning it as soon as possible, through a Primary Information Provider. It applies equally to Main Market, AIM and AQSE Growth Market issuers. Article 17(4) permits delay on three conditions; AIM and AQSE Growth Market issuers, as SME growth market issuers, need not keep a written record of the reasoning, only be able to justify the decision.

The US rule is a deadline rule. Form 8-K has a four-business-day deadline and a closed list of triggering items, and a crypto purchase does not obviously sit on that list — so it usually goes into the voluntary Item 8.01. Many US vehicles therefore report weekly, monthly, or only in the quarterly 10-Q or annual 10-K.

The practical difference shows up in what a UK announcement actually contains. UK treasury companies announce each purchase at 07:00 with the running total, the average price and the funding source. The Smarter Web Company and Connecting Excellence both do exactly this. That is a level of granularity a US shareholder frequently does not get.

None of which helps if you read an aggregator instead. Third-party treasury trackers are useful for finding names and useless for numbers, and this cohort proves it four times over. Vault Ventures still appears in bitcoin treasury tables at zero BTC a year after it sold. Coinsilium's 182 BTC is a 31 December 2025 balance that was still being recycled through August 2026 press and a broker initiation note as though current. B HODL's 166.487 BTC comes from press summaries of an announcement rather than the announcement. Stack BTC's widely quoted 68.1898 BTC has no confirmed as-at date at all. The same problem is visible in the far larger US cohort we map in which companies hold crypto on their balance sheet: one widely cited tracker showed SharpLink at 868,699 ETH while the company's own Form 8-K said 888,938. If a number matters to you, open the announcement.

What does the FCA say about crypto treasury strategies?

More than most readers realise, and in a document almost nobody outside the City reads. FCA Primary Market Bulletin 59, published 23 October 2025, carries a dedicated section on cryptoasset treasury strategies. In summary, it:

• notes that acquisitions are typically funded from existing cash, or by issuing new equity or debt;
• expects companies to explain the benefits and the risks — naming cryptoasset price volatility, the impact on the company's financial position and share price, and service provider failure;
• requires companies to consider whether an acquisition amounts to a reverse takeover under UKLR 7.1.4R — either on the 100% class tests or as a fundamental change of business — which can trigger cancellation of listing;
• reminds issuers that developments may be inside information under Article 17 of UK MAR; and
• tells issuers unsure about reverse-takeover classification to seek individual guidance through the Electronic Submission System.

The FCA also wrote to listed companies reminding them of their obligations under the UK Listing Rules, the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules and UK MAR. We found no worked example of a UK company being required to treat a cryptoasset acquisition as a reverse takeover; if one exists we have not seen it, and we say so rather than implying the rule has bitten.

Now the perimeter, which is usually left off. UKLR 7 applies only to companies in the equity shares (commercial companies) category of the Official List. On this page that is two names: The Smarter Web Company and Satsuma Technology. Everything else — the whole AQSE Growth Market group, the one AIM company, and the Main Market Transition-category names — sits outside the UK Listing Rules regime, and a UKLR 7.1.4R reverse-takeover analysis does not reach them at all. They are not unregulated: AIM and the AQSE Growth Market each run their own rulebooks covering substantial transactions and changes of business, and UK MAR applies across all three venues. But if you read Primary Market Bulletin 59 and assume it governs the Aquis micro-cap you are looking at, you have applied a rule to a company it does not bind. Our reading of the UKLR perimeter; note that the Official List category is unverified for several Main Market names in the table below, so this list of two is as good as the categories we could confirm.

Custody: who actually holds the coins

You do not hold the keys. In almost every case neither does the company. Custody quality is the risk the FCA specifically named as “service provider failure”, and the disclosure across this cohort ranges from genuinely detailed to an open admission that nothing can be guaranteed.

The detailed end. The Smarter Web Company's RNS of 3 August 2026 discloses five institutional custodians — Coinbase Inc. and Coinbase Custody Trust Company LLC and other Coinbase entities, Xapo Bank Limited, Fidelity Digital Assets Ltd, Anchorage Digital Bank National Association, and Payward Financial Inc. (Kraken Financial). It states that it does not self-custody, and declines to disclose the allocation between the five for security reasons. It also explicitly references “recent events” in custody. Press reporting attributes that reference to the Coldcard hardware-wallet firmware and entropy vulnerability exploited from 30 July 2026, with estimated losses above $100m across more than 5,000 wallets — that attribution is a press report, not a statement by the company.

The candid end. Falconedge's announcement states plainly that it cannot guarantee that its own digital wallets, nor those of custodians holding on its behalf, will not be compromised. That is an honest disclosure and it should be read as one: it is telling you that a risk exists which no amount of process removes.

The rest of the cohort, briefly. London BTC Company uses Fidelity Digital Assets and executes through Tap Global. Coinsilium holds through Forza (Gibraltar) Limited with third-party regulated institutional custody. Panther Metals opened a treasury account with CoinCorner. Several others disclose nothing specific at all.

There is a related disclosure gap worth naming, because it is the same species of problem. Falconedge reports a monthly “bitcoin yield” — 0.7% for July 2026, 10.2% compounded since the strategy launched on 1 December 2025, generating a further 0.1514 BTC in the month — and describes it as steady returns operating independently of bitcoin's spot price. The announcement we read does not explain how that yield is generated. Any bitcoin-denominated yield has to come from somewhere: lending, options writing, market making or counterparty credit. The risk profile is completely different in each case. Treat an undisclosed yield mechanism as an unpriced risk, not as a feature.

Why do so many UK crypto treasury lists get the basics wrong?

Four reasons, all of which you can defend against once you know them.

1. The companies keep renaming themselves. At least nine in this cohort have changed name, and the ticker usually did not change with it:

• StreaksAI → TAO Alpha (May 2025) → Satsuma Technology (July 2025). “Tao Alpha” and “Satsuma” are one company, not two.
• Vinanz → London BTC Company (3 July 2025), no change to ticker or ISIN.
• Helium Ventures (HEV) → Vaultz Capital (V3TC, June 2025).
• Kasei Holdings → Kasei Digital Assets → StackBitcointreasury → Stack BTC (January 2026).
• Hamak Gold → Hamak Strategy; Bluebird Merchant Ventures → Bluebird Mining Ventures.
• NFT Investments → Phoenix Digital Assets → Phoenix Digital Assets (Gibraltar).
• Aqru → Supernova Digital Assets; Quetzal Capital → Tap Global Group.

2. The tickers are actively misleading. LSE:BTC is London BTC Company, an operating equity — not bitcoin, which data vendors, forums and search engines confuse constantly. AQSE:SOL is Supernova Digital Assets, not the Solana token. Buying either is buying a share in a company.

3. The venue is misreported. Tap Global moved from AQSE to AIM in June 2025 and is still widely described as Aquis-listed. Bluebird Mining Ventures and Panther Metals are Main Market companies routinely called AIM companies. Blue Star Capital's venue is genuinely unresolved between sources. And the sector as a whole is described as an AIM phenomenon when it is overwhelmingly a Main Market and Aquis one.

4. Numbers get recycled without their dates. Covered in the previous section, and it is the failure that costs readers the most.

There is a fifth, subtler one, and Panther Metals illustrates it. Its share price reportedly rose sharply on the announcement of a $5.4m bitcoin treasury plan; the verified holding is around one coin. Its own Bitcoin Strategic Update disclosed a series of unsolicited approaches from bitcoin holders seeking a route to convert coins into listed equity — that is, people offering to subscribe for shares in kind with bitcoin. That tells you what some of these vehicles are actually for: providing a listed wrapper for existing coin holders, rather than providing coin exposure to new equity investors. It is exactly the territory Primary Market Bulletin 59 addresses when it asks whether a cryptoasset acquisition amounts to a reverse takeover.

How to check any of this for yourself

A snapshot goes stale. A method does not. Everything on this page came from documents you can open, in this order.

1. Go to the regulatory feed, not the press. UK company announcements are filed as RNS and held on the FCA's National Storage Mechanism, and are also published through the London Stock Exchange's news service. Aquis publishes announcements for its own issuers at aquis.eu.
2. Establish the venue before anything else. The admission announcement states the market and, for the Main Market, the Official List category. Get this wrong and your stamp duty, your inheritance tax position and your platform choice are all wrong with it.
3. Read the purchase announcement, not the headline. A UK purchase RNS should give you the coins bought, the average price, the running total, the funding source and often the average cost of the whole position. If it does not, note the gap.
4. Find the share count, every time. Take it from the monthly Total Voting Rights announcement or the latest placing RNS. Divide the coin count by it. That number — not the headline holding — is what you own per share.
5. Check the funding channel and whether it is secured. An equity line dilutes but cannot force a sale. A facility secured against the coins can. The Smarter Web Company discloses both, in the same announcement.
6. Read the going-concern language in the interims and the annual report. This is where Supernova's £3,000 cash figure lives. It is not in any aggregator table.
7. Check the rename history. Companies House for UK-incorporated names, and the company's own announcement archive. Several of this cohort are incorporated in Gibraltar, the Isle of Man or the British Virgin Islands, so Companies House will not have them.
8. Confirm platform availability at the point of purchase, not from a comparison article. Eligibility for an ISA and availability on your platform are different questions.
9. Treat aggregators as a way to find names only. Then click through to the announcement and check the date on it.

What we could not verify

Leaving the gaps visible is more useful than filling them. As at 26 August 2026, these are the open points behind the table above.

• Blue Star Capital's venue is unresolved between the AQSE Growth Market and the LSE. Stamp duty, business property relief and index eligibility all turn on it.
• Official List category is unverified for Hamak Strategy (we inferred Transition from the 2024 mapping), KR1, Panther Metals and GSTechnologies. The distinction affects continuing obligations, sponsor requirements and index eligibility — and it sets the UKLR 7 perimeter, so we can only confirm two companies here as being inside it. For Argo Blockchain we could not establish the London venue at all, only that it is dual-listed on the London Stock Exchange and Nasdaq, which is why its row sits in the unresolved group rather than under a Main Market heading.
• KR1's portfolio is undated to us. We established no dated NAV and no holdings breakdown, so we publish no figure for it at all rather than repeat an undated one.
• Coinsilium's holding is eight months old. The 182 BTC figure is a 31 December 2025 balance. We found no 2026 treasury update.
• London BTC Company's current holding is unknown to us. The last purchase-dated total is 85.97 BTC from July 2025; we could not extract a year-end figure from the annual report to 28 February 2026.
• B HODL's 166.487 BTC came from press summaries rather than our own reading of the announcement, and we could not establish whether the buyback is funded from fiat reserves or from bitcoin sales — the latter would be materially more significant.
• Stack BTC's 68.1898 BTC has no confirmed date. Only the 21 BTC figure for early March 2026 is dated.
• Vaultz Capital's disposal has not been confirmed by announcement — only the authority to dispose. This is the most likely near-term UK sector headline.
• Satsuma's final outcome is not yet filed. We could not confirm that the bitcoin sale around 3 August 2026 completed, at what realised price, or the outcome of the 8 September 2026 court confirmation hearing and the final per-share return. The £26.8m–£30m recovery range is a press estimate.
• Phoenix Digital Assets' 247-to-99 BTC reduction and its Ethereum exit are aggregator- and press-sourced, and the completion date of the Gibraltar redomicile is unconfirmed.
• Platform coverage for the AQSE Growth Market on Trading 212 and Freetrade is unverified, and IG's coverage rests on an Aquis news page we did not fetch.
• A widely repeated claim that “over 13% of Aquis firms now hold or plan to buy bitcoin” could not be traced to any Aquis statement. We do not repeat it.
• Auditor going-concern qualifications have not been checked for Supernova, Vaultz or Stack BTC, and are worth checking given Supernova's cash position.

What this page deliberately does not do: forecast any price, rank these companies, describe any of them as an opportunity, or suggest an allocation. It is a description of what a set of public documents said on one particular day about a fast-moving, speculative and heavily promoted corner of the market. If you are considering any of it with money that matters, take regulated advice. If you spot an error, we would rather hear about it than not — see our corrections policy below.

Related guides on crypto and UK tax

The rest of this cluster, in the order that usually makes sense:

• What are digital assets? A UK primer
• Crypto Capital Gains Tax in the UK
• Crypto tax calculator
• Complete UK Capital Gains Tax guide
• Complete UK ISA guide
• Investment scam checklist
• Investing hub