BitGo revenue halves as trading slows, but net income rises

By Elena Vasquez

BitGo, the digital-asset custody firm, reported $2.85 billion in third-quarter revenue, a 50.9% decline from a year earlier, according to The Block’s Nov. 10 report on X. The outlet also recorded a 34.1% sequential decline and linked both comparisons to slower digital-asset trading activity.

What changed in BitGo’s third-quarter results?

Journalist Minseung Kang, writing for The Block in a Nov. 10 report on X, said BitGo’s third-quarter revenue fell 50.9% from a year earlier and 34.1% from the previous quarter. The year-over-year contraction left the firm with less than half its prior-year quarterly revenue, while the sequential drop reduced revenue by roughly one-third. The report connected both declines to slower digital-asset trading activity.

The cited item did not provide a revenue breakdown by service or activity. It also gave no figures for custody assets, clients, transaction volumes or fee rates, so the available material cannot show whether one business line accounted for most of the contraction. The immediate operating signal is narrower: reduced trading activity accompanied a substantial top-line decline.

In plain terms, trading weakness pulled down revenue in both comparisons.

Why did net income rise while revenue fell?

The same report said BitGo’s net income increased 94% from a year earlier to $44.1 million. The principal driver was $71.5 million in unrealized gains arising from higher values for the firm’s own digital-asset holdings.

Those figures should not be treated as interchangeable. The $71.5 million unrealized gain alone exceeded the $44.1 million in reported net income, so gains on holdings supported profit alongside offsetting costs and other items. Because the cited gain remained unrealized, it did not establish equivalent realized revenue or cash proceeds, and its value can reverse if the relevant asset prices decline.

Adjusted EBITDA moved in the opposite direction, posting a loss of $4.3 million. Positive net income and negative adjusted EBITDA show that the reported profit did not carry into positive adjusted operating performance. The cited report did not reconcile the two measures or quantify the adjustments between them, which limits any precise assessment of underlying operating strength.

In plain terms, asset valuation gains, not stronger adjusted operating performance, explain the rise in net income.

What does the result say about business quality?

The numbers point to two distinct pressures. Revenue weakened as digital-asset trading activity slowed, making transaction conditions the immediate business constraint rather than the rise in reported profit. At the same time, BitGo’s digital-asset holdings created material accounting gains when their values increased, adding a mark-to-market component to the results.

That exposure also runs in reverse. A decline in the value of those holdings could reduce or reverse the unrealized gain, although the source does not indicate whether that occurred after the reported quarter. The report does not disclose the holdings’ composition, size, realized gains or sale activity, so it cannot support an estimate of how persistent the benefit might be.

The source also provides no cash-flow statement, client metrics, custody balances, fee mix or management forecast. Without those disclosures, readers cannot determine from the cited figures how much of the quarter’s profitability came from durable operations rather than asset-price movements. The defensible conclusion is that BitGo’s adjusted operating result remained negative while accounting net income benefited from higher digital-asset values.

The practical takeaway is that the quarter combined weaker trading-linked revenue with greater reliance on unrealized asset gains.

The forward-looking market test is whether a recovery in digital-asset trading restores revenue while the $71.5 million unrealized gain persists; the cited report sets no deadline beyond its Nov. 10 publication.