DAT is not only a new asset allocation tool but also an institutional experiment that combines equity financing with on-chain assets, representing a deep coupling of two major financial systems.
Author: Huobi Growth Academy
1. DAT Market Overview
Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) has become a new phenomenon at the intersection of capital markets and the crypto market in recent years. Its core logic is to raise funds through public equity financing tools—including publicly traded company stocks, convertible bonds, ATM issuances, PIPE private placements, etc.—and allocate mainstream crypto assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum on the balance sheet, creating returns for shareholders through operations and revenue management. Essentially, it is "using equity financing to purchase on-chain assets," allowing traditional secondary market investors to gain exposure to leveraged, structured, and tradable crypto assets in the form of stocks. This mechanism not only bridges on-chain and traditional finance but also creates new trading logic and investment narratives in the market.
Compared to ETFs, DAT exhibits significant differences across multiple dimensions. First is the difference in liquidity pathways. The operation of ETFs relies on a cumbersome subscription and redemption mechanism, requiring the involvement of authorized participants and market makers, with fund settlement often taking one to two days, while DAT stocks can be traded instantly in the secondary market, making their efficiency more aligned with the liquidity characteristics of on-chain assets. Second is the pricing basis. ETFs typically anchor to net asset value (NAV), with relatively limited volatility, making them more suitable for long-term allocation; DAT stocks are driven by market value (MV), exhibiting greater price elasticity and higher volatility, allowing hedge funds and arbitrage institutions to engage in structured operations based on premiums and discounts. The third distinction lies in the leverage structure. ETF funds generally lack leverage capacity, while DAT companies can layer leverage through convertible bonds, ATM issuances, PIPE financing, etc., expanding their asset base and amplifying excess returns during upward cycles. Finally, there is discount protection. The premium and discount of ETFs are quickly corrected by arbitrage mechanisms, while DAT stocks, once they fall below their treasury net value, effectively allow investors to purchase underlying crypto assets at a discount price, theoretically providing a form of downside protection. However, this protection is not absolute; if the discount arises from passive deleveraging, companies may sell underlying assets to repurchase stocks, potentially triggering more severe downward pressure.
Since 2025, DAT has accelerated its development in the direction of Ethereum, becoming a focal point of market attention. BioNexus was the first to announce its Ethereum treasury strategy, marking the inaugural year of corporate holding of ETH; BitMine (BMNR) disclosed in August that it holds 1,523,373 ETH, becoming the world's largest Ethereum treasury with a market value reaching several billion dollars; SharpLink (SBET) has continuously increased its ETH holdings through high-frequency ATM financing, holding over 800,000 ETH and pledging almost all its assets, thereby directly converting Ethereum's productive asset attributes into cash flow. These companies have brought traditional investors' funds into crypto assets through equity market financing activities, promoting the institutionalization and financialization of Ethereum prices. Meanwhile, the activity of decentralized exchanges also reflects the liquidity characteristics of this new mechanism. In August 2025, the spot trading volume on the DEX platform Hyperliquid exceeded that of Coinbase in a single day, indicating that capital flows are rapidly migrating between on-chain trading, equity markets, and derivatives markets, with DAT becoming an important node in this cross-market capital flow. Some companies have even introduced innovative methods in shareholder incentives. For example, BTCS announced that it would attract long-term investors through ETH dividends and loyalty rewards, enhancing market stickiness while countering short-selling behavior through stock lending.
However, the risks associated with DAT cannot be ignored. Its model relies on a premium flywheel during bull markets: rising stock prices drive financing increases, which are used to purchase more crypto assets, and asset appreciation further raises mNAV, stimulating stock prices to continue rising. This cycle can yield substantial returns during upward cycles but may become a risk amplifier during bear markets. When mNAV shifts from premium to discount, investors lose confidence in management, and companies often sell underlying assets to repurchase stocks to stabilize valuations, creating a negative feedback loop. If multiple DATs simultaneously enter a discount state and take similar measures, the market may face systemic risks. Leverage is another key concern. DAT companies widely use convertible bonds, short-term financing, and equity issuances to layer leverage, amplifying returns during upward movements but potentially triggering margin calls or forced liquidations during downturns. A significant drop in on-chain asset prices could lead to concentrated sell-offs, particularly in cases where assets like Ethereum have high concentration, making the risks more pronounced.
Market research has simulated possible scenarios. In the baseline scenario, companies gradually adjust positions through over-the-counter trading, exerting limited downward pressure on ETH prices; in a severe scenario, if 20%-30% of Ethereum treasury holdings are concentrated and sold within weeks, prices could drop to $2,500-$3,000; in an extreme scenario, if regulatory tightening or funding chain breaks occur, forcing liquidation of over 50% of holdings, Ethereum prices could fall to $1,800-$2,200. Although the probability of extreme situations is low, their potential impact should not be underestimated. It is noteworthy that DAT executives' compensation is often highly linked to stock prices, leading them to favor short-term measures when facing stock price discounts, such as selling coins to repurchase stocks to boost market value, rather than adhering to long-term strategic holdings. This mismatch in governance and incentives makes DAT more susceptible to pro-cyclical amplification of risks under pressure.
Nevertheless, the prospects for DAT remain promising. In the next three to five years, DAT is likely to develop in parallel with ETFs, forming a complementary pattern. ETFs provide stable β exposure, suitable for passive investors; DAT offers high elasticity and engineered financial return opportunities, making it more suitable for hedge funds, family offices, and institutional investors seeking excess returns. More importantly, the DAT model is expanding from Bitcoin and Ethereum to high-quality altcoins, providing some projects with capital market channels akin to "IPO moments," further institutionalizing the crypto industry. The gradual clarification of regulatory frameworks, improvement of information disclosure mechanisms, and diversification of shareholder incentive tools will collectively determine the long-term sustainability of DAT. Overall, DAT represents an important experiment in the integration of capital markets and crypto markets, potentially becoming a milestone for a new generation of institutional financial tools or, due to its pro-cyclical characteristics, an amplifier of market volatility. For investors, effectively leveraging the complementarity of ETFs and DAT, and flexibly adjusting strategies between mNAV premiums and discounts, may become a core issue in the future era of crypto finance.
2. Industry Development and Key Events
In 2025, the most striking phenomenon in the market evolution of Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) is the concentrated explosion in the direction of Ethereum. Unlike the previous reserve logic centered on Bitcoin, Ethereum is gradually becoming the protagonist of corporate treasuries. BioNexus was the first to announce its Ethereum treasury strategy in March, officially incorporating ETH into its corporate balance sheet and expanding its holdings through equity financing. This move is seen as a landmark event, symbolizing the inaugural year of corporate holding of Ethereum. Unlike previous exchanges like Coinbase that held ETH for operational needs, BioNexus's approach directly positions Ethereum as a strategic reserve asset, sending an institutional signal to the outside world. This not only enhances the company's visibility in the capital markets but also guides funds to begin recognizing Ethereum as having a reserve status equivalent to Bitcoin. Subsequently, BitMine (BMNR) pushed this trend to a climax. The company disclosed in August that its Ethereum holdings had reached 1.52 million, with a market value exceeding $6 billion, accounting for approximately 1.3% of Ethereum's circulating supply. This scale quickly made BitMine the "Ethereum version of MicroStrategy," gaining significant attention in both capital and on-chain markets. BMNR's model is similar to that of MicroStrategy at the time: continuously expanding its balance sheet through convertible bonds and equity financing, forming a "financing—buying coins—valuation increase—refinancing" flywheel, driving a mutually reinforcing cycle between stock prices and on-chain assets. Market evaluations of it are polarized: on one hand, some believe BMNR has milestone significance in shaping Ethereum's institutional path; on the other hand, there are concerns that excessive leverage and concentrated holdings could amplify systemic risks if the market reverses. Regardless, BMNR has become one of the most watched DATs in 2025, directly altering the funding landscape for ETH.
In parallel, SharpLink (SBET) has adopted a more frequent and aggressive approach to expanding its balance sheet. SBET has continuously issued new financing and buying scales in the secondary market through the ATM financing mechanism, disclosing new figures almost weekly. By the end of August, the company had cumulatively increased its Ethereum holdings by over 800,000, with nearly all of it used for on-chain staking. This strategy directly converts Ethereum's productive asset attributes into cash flow, allowing the company to not only have book gains on its balance sheet but also generate actual revenue returns. SBET's model has attracted significant attention, as its weekly disclosures and high transparency provide confidence to investors while making its strategy easier for the market to quantify, track, and speculate. Critics argue that this "full staking" strategy increases exposure to the security and liquidity risks of on-chain protocols, but supporters emphasize that this path of converting ETH into productive assets could become a best practice for DAT.
It is noteworthy that BTCS has demonstrated another innovative idea in this round of competition. The company launched a combination plan of "ETH dividends + loyalty rewards," distributing dividends in ETH while setting loyalty reward clauses to encourage shareholders to transfer stocks to designated transfer agents and hold them until early 2026. This way, investors can not only receive cash and ETH dividends but also enjoy additional incentives through long-term holding. This approach not only enhances shareholder stickiness but also somewhat suppresses stock lending and short-selling behavior, stabilizing market sentiment. Although there are doubts about the sustainability of "paying dividends in ETH," it undoubtedly showcases the flexibility and creativity of DAT in financial engineering, highlighting the differentiated response strategies companies adopt when facing stock price discount risks.
At the same time, changes at the trading level are also worth noting. In August 2025, the decentralized exchange Hyperliquid's spot trading volume briefly surpassed that of Coinbase in a single day, a phenomenon that is highly symbolic. For a long time, centralized exchanges (CEX) have been viewed as the core of crypto asset liquidity, but with the continuous emergence of DAT stock financing and the deepening interaction of on-chain funds through DEX and equity markets, the liquidity landscape is undergoing reconstruction. Hyperliquid's trading volume exceeding Coinbase is not an isolated incident but a signal of the gradual integration of capital markets and on-chain trading. Funds are forming a new cycle through "DAT stock financing—companies purchasing on-chain assets—staking/re-staking to generate returns—investors arbitraging and trading." This cycle not only accelerates the integration of on-chain and traditional markets but may also amplify liquidity shocks during market stress.
Overall, the evolution of the DAT market in 2025 showcases the embryonic form of a new ecosystem. BioNexus opened the door to the ETH treasury strategy, BitMine established its industry-leading position through large-scale holdings, SharpLink explored different paths with high-frequency financing and full staking strategies, while BTCS created unique shareholder incentive tools in financial engineering. Meanwhile, the changes in Hyperliquid's trading volume reflect the liquidity restructuring between capital markets and on-chain markets. These cases collectively illustrate that DAT is not merely a simple model of "companies buying coins," but has evolved into a comprehensive financial innovation encompassing multiple dimensions such as financing methods, asset allocation, revenue management, and shareholder governance. In the future, this ecosystem will continue to expand and evolve, potentially becoming an accelerator for the institutionalization of crypto assets, or, due to mismatches in leverage and liquidity, an amplifier of market volatility. Regardless of the outcome, DAT has profoundly changed the capital market narrative of crypto assets in 2025 and has become a focal point that global financial observers must closely track.
3. Risks and Potential of DAT
As the DAT model rapidly develops, the underlying risks and systemic concerns are becoming increasingly prominent. On the surface, digital asset treasuries provide the market with new sources of funding and liquidity support, but a closer analysis reveals that their operational mechanisms possess strong pro-cyclical attributes, capable of amplifying gains in bull markets while potentially exacerbating declines in bear markets. This double-edged sword effect makes the role of DAT in capital and crypto markets particularly sensitive and complex. First is the leverage risk. The expansion logic of DAT often relies on equity issuances and convertible bond financing. During bull markets, as stock prices and market values rise, companies can raise large amounts of capital at a low cost, further increasing their positions in Bitcoin or Ethereum, creating a flywheel effect of valuation and positions. However, this leverage model can quickly backfire when the market turns. If the prices of underlying assets experience significant corrections, debt repayment and margin clauses may be triggered, forcing companies to passively sell holdings to address funding gaps. Leverage amplifies returns but also amplifies risks, which is especially dangerous given the high volatility characteristics of crypto assets.
Secondly, there is the discount crisis. The valuation of DAT is anchored to the so-called mNAV, which is the ratio of a company's market value to the fair value of its treasury-held crypto assets. In bull markets, mNAV is typically well above 1, and investors are willing to pay a premium for the company's future expansion and earnings. However, once market sentiment reverses and stock prices fall below net asset value, mNAV shifts from premium to discount, and investor trust in management quickly diminishes. In such cases, companies often sell underlying ETH or BTC to repurchase stocks in an attempt to restore valuations and calm the market, trying to pull stock prices back near net value. However, this approach essentially sacrifices a long-term holding strategy for short-term stock price repair, resulting in a temporary reduction of the discount, but the market bears additional selling pressure, creating a vicious cycle.
Liquidity shocks are another concern. The scale of crypto assets held by DAT is growing larger, and once these holdings are concentrated and released, the impact on the market could be beyond expectations. Especially in cases of insufficient liquidity on decentralized exchanges, coordinated sell-offs by multiple DATs could lead to waterfall declines in the market. Past experiences indicate that assets with high concentration often exhibit nonlinear price declines when faced with passive deleveraging. In other words, even if the overall scale of sell-offs only accounts for a small portion of the circulating market value, it could lead to severe volatility due to insufficient liquidity absorption. This risk is particularly pronounced in tokens with high concentration, such as Ethereum. Regulatory uncertainty is another sword hanging over the DAT model. Currently, there is no unified standard regarding the accounting treatment, information disclosure, leverage ratio limits, and retail investor protection for treasury-type companies. Differences in attitudes across jurisdictions could change the survival environment of DAT at any time. For example, regulators may require companies to disclose on-chain addresses and staking risks, limit their leverage ratios, or prohibit dividend distributions in token form, all of which could significantly impact DAT's financing capabilities and market narrative. For DATs that heavily rely on capital market financing and investor confidence, such regulatory changes not only imply increased costs but could also directly undermine the sustainability of their model.
Additionally, the mismatch between governance structures and incentive mechanisms is a potential issue for the DAT model. Most DAT executives' compensation is directly linked to stock prices, which can stimulate expansion enthusiasm in bull markets but may prompt management to adopt short-term operations in bear markets. When stock prices are discounted and investor confidence declines, executives may prioritize selling underlying assets to repurchase stocks, boosting market value and protecting their own compensation, rather than adhering to a long-term holding strategy. This incentive mismatch not only weakens the strategic stability of DAT but also increases the likelihood of pro-cyclical sell-offs, exacerbating market fragility. Beyond risk analysis, scenario simulations provide a more intuitive understanding. In the baseline scenario, assuming ETH prices experience a mild correction, DAT companies may gradually offload through over-the-counter trading to smooth market impacts, resulting in limited price shocks. However, in a severe scenario, if 20%-30% of ETH treasury holdings are concentrated and sold within a short time, the market may not be able to fully absorb it, and ETH prices could potentially drop to the range of $2,500-$3,000. This level is close to a 30% decline from current prices, sufficient to reshape market sentiment. In an extreme scenario, if over 50% of holdings are forced to liquidate due to funding chain breaks, regulatory tightening, or systemic crises, ETH prices could plummet to $1,800-$2,200. This drop would completely erase the gains since the initiation of the DAT wave, bringing the market back to early 2025 levels. Although the probability of extreme scenarios is low, given DAT's high reliance on financing and leverage, once triggered, the market impact will be profound. Overall, the rise of DAT undoubtedly injects new narratives and liquidity into the crypto market, but it is not a robust "new normal." Its pro-cyclical characteristics determine that it is both an amplifier in bull markets and a source of risk in bear markets. For investors, understanding the leverage chain under the DAT model, the dynamics of mNAV premiums and discounts, and the incentive structures of management is key to assessing its sustainability. In the absence of comprehensive regulation and risk isolation, DAT resembles a high-leverage financial experiment that could either promote the institutionalization of crypto assets or become a catalyst for market turmoil. In the coming years, DAT's risk management capabilities and the maturity of regulatory frameworks will determine whether this model can truly transition from speculative narratives to robust financial tools.
Looking ahead to the next three to five years, Digital Asset Treasuries (DAT) are likely to develop in parallel with ETFs, jointly constructing the investment landscape for the institutionalization of the crypto market. ETFs have already proven their advantages in compliance, stability, and low costs, providing robust β exposure for passive investors, pension funds, sovereign funds, and others. In contrast, DAT, with its higher elasticity, more complex capital engineering, and direct ownership of on-chain assets, is inherently more suitable for hedge funds, family offices, and active institutions seeking excess returns. This division of market structure suggests that ETFs and DATs are not in a zero-sum competitive relationship but rather complement each other, jointly promoting the deep integration of traditional capital and the crypto market. From the perspective of asset expansion, the investment scope of DAT is likely to extend beyond BTC and ETH. As the industry ecosystem matures, high-quality altcoin projects may gain access to similar "IPO moments" through DAT, leveraging equity financing from publicly listed treasury companies to establish early large-scale on-chain positions. This could not only provide institutional backing for related tokens but also create entirely new capital market narratives. For example, core protocols related to Layer 2, decentralized data networks, or stablecoins may become targets for future DAT allocations. If this trend materializes, DAT will not only serve as a leverage tool for BTC/ETH but also act as a "booster" for the next generation of public chains and protocols in the capital market, profoundly impacting the crypto ecosystem.
In terms of operational models, the revenue engineering of DAT will become the next focus. Currently, some companies have begun exploring staking their holding tokens to earn on-chain interest income, converting it into cash flow to benefit shareholders. In the future, this model is expected to expand into diversified methods such as options hedging, basis arbitrage, re-staking, and governance participation. Unlike traditional ETFs, which purely track prices, DAT can form a "dynamic treasury" through active operations, both generating on-chain returns and enhancing influence over the underlying ecosystem. This means that DAT is not only an asset holder but may also become an important governance participant in on-chain protocols, potentially evolving into an "institutional player" in the crypto economy. The gradual clarification of regulatory frameworks will be a key factor in the sustainable development of DAT. Currently, attitudes toward DAT vary across different jurisdictions, with issues such as information disclosure, accounting standards, leverage ratios, and retail protection still unresolved. However, as market scale expands and the investor base grows, regulatory pressure will inevitably increase. In the future, DAT may be required to disclose its on-chain addresses, clarify holding scales and staking ratios, and even standardize dividend distribution models to ensure transparency and investor protection. In a sense, this will enhance the compliance and credibility of DAT, making it easier to attract institutional funds, but it may also weaken the flexibility of its capital engineering. Stricter regulations present both challenges and a necessary path for DAT to transition from a "financial experiment" to an "institutional tool."
In the long run, DAT has the potential to evolve into a quasi-financial intermediary in the crypto market. Its uniqueness lies in its ability to connect both equity capital markets and on-chain asset markets, forming a bridge for cross-market capital allocation. When investors purchase DAT stocks, they are indirectly participating in the holding and operation of on-chain assets, while DAT companies bring traditional capital into the crypto space through equity financing. This bidirectional interaction will enable DAT to play an increasingly important role in global capital flows and asset allocation. Especially in the context where cross-border capital finds it difficult to invest directly in crypto assets, DAT may become one of the compliant channels, providing "indirect exposure" and thereby expanding the investor base for crypto assets. However, this bright prospect is accompanied by significant systemic risks that cannot be ignored. The pro-cyclical nature of DAT means that it may act as an accelerator for price increases in bull markets, but it can also amplify the depth of market declines in bear markets. Unlike the passive holdings of ETFs, DAT heavily relies on equity market financing and the maintenance of mNAV premiums. Once the market environment reverses, the financing chain of DAT may quickly break, leading to large-scale passive deleveraging. In other words, while the prospects for DAT are broad, its ability to truly grow into a robust institutional sector depends on its performance in risk management and regulatory adaptation.
Overall, in the next three to five years, the development of DAT will present two parallel trajectories. On one hand, it will continue to innovate by expanding the range of assets, embedding revenue engineering, and enhancing on-chain participation, gradually building a unique competitive advantage and becoming a highly elastic complement to ETFs. On the other hand, it will also explore more robust and sustainable models in the face of regulatory constraints, leverage control, and market volatility. DAT symbolizes the integration of capital markets and crypto markets, as well as the embodiment of pro-cyclical risks. Only by finding a balance between institutionalization and innovation can it truly become a new type of intermediary in the global financial system, pushing crypto assets from the margins to the mainstream.
4. Conclusion
The rise of Digital Asset Treasuries (DAT) is undoubtedly one of the most iconic events in the capital markets and crypto industry in 2025. It is not only a new asset allocation tool but also a institutional experiment combining equity financing and on-chain assets, representing the deep coupling of two major financial systems. Essentially, DAT directly binds the financing capabilities of publicly listed companies with the high volatility of blockchain assets, creating an unprecedented investment logic and market narrative. For investors, it provides a new channel for amplifying returns while also introducing new risks. In bull market phases, the operational logic of DAT is particularly smooth. The premium on stock prices boosts mNAV, making it easier for companies to raise funds through convertible bonds, PIPEs, or ATMs. The raised funds are further converted into purchases of crypto assets like ETH and BTC, and the expansion of the balance sheet in turn boosts market value, forming a flywheel of "premium—financing—position increase." This mechanism makes DAT an important booster for market upswings, with its market value elasticity far exceeding that of traditional ETFs, making it a target for hedge funds and high-net-worth investors. In this narrative, DAT is not only a product of financial innovation but also a core participant in the flow of funds and valuation expansion during bull markets.
However, DAT in bear markets may present a completely opposite picture. When prices fall and mNAV shifts from premium to discount, market confidence in management wavers. To repair stock prices, companies may sell underlying assets to repurchase stocks in an attempt to temporarily narrow the discount. However, such actions often lead to increased selling pressure, accelerating price declines and causing more DATs to fall into deleveraging dilemmas simultaneously. In this pro-cyclical mechanism, DAT no longer acts as a stabilizer for the market but may become an amplifier of systemic risk. In other words, the risks associated with DAT are not merely individual risks of single companies but the potential impact on the overall crypto asset market when multiple treasury-type companies engage in coordinated sell-offs. From an investment perspective, the functional division between DAT and ETFs is becoming increasingly clear. ETFs are more suitable as foundational tools for long-term allocations, providing transparent, low-cost, and predictable β exposure; whereas DAT, with its high leverage, high elasticity, and active revenue management characteristics, becomes a choice for incremental allocations, especially for institutions and individuals seeking excess returns and willing to take on risks. For family offices or actively managed funds, DAT offers capital engineering advantages that traditional ETFs cannot replicate, but it also requires bearing potential liquidity risks and governance uncertainties. In the future, how investors find a reasonable combination between ETFs and DATs will become a core issue in asset allocation strategies.
In the next three to five years, DAT has the potential to grow into an institutional sector alongside ETFs. Its development path will primarily depend on three factors. First, regulatory clarity. Only when unified standards are established for accounting treatment, information disclosure, leverage ratios, and shareholder protection can DAT attract a broader inflow of institutional funds. Second, information transparency. Public disclosure of on-chain addresses, holding scales, staking ratios, etc., will become important bases for investors to assess risks and valuations, and is also a prerequisite for DAT to establish long-term trust. Third, market resilience. Whether the crypto market can maintain resilience under potential pro-cyclical shocks will directly determine whether DAT is a positive force for institutionalization or a source of increased volatility.
If these conditions are met, DAT may become another milestone in financial history, akin to how ETFs became for index funds. Gradually transitioning from initial market experiments to widespread applications, DAT has the potential to redefine the boundaries between capital markets and crypto markets, allowing crypto assets to truly enter larger-scale investment portfolios. However, if these conditions cannot be achieved, DAT may simply be a brief carnival, ultimately proving to be "a gamble between financial innovation and risk management" in history. The development history of capital markets shows that every new tool brings both efficiency improvements and opportunities, as well as unknown risks. The emergence of DAT is an inevitable product of the current era, combining traditional financing logic with decentralized assets to create a new way of capturing value. However, its long-term viability depends not only on market enthusiasm but also on the maturity of regulatory governance, stability, and risk control mechanisms. Investors, companies, and regulators must recognize that DAT is not a risk-free arbitrage tool but a new challenge to the entire market structure. Ultimately, the future of DAT will depend on the joint shaping of the market and the system. If regulation and market mechanisms can form a positive interaction, DAT has the opportunity to become an important bridge for the institutionalization of crypto assets; conversely, it may exacerbate market turmoil due to its pro-cyclical characteristics and leverage chains, becoming a case of "failed financial alchemy." Just as ETFs were once questioned twenty years ago but have now become foundational tools in global markets, the fate of DAT may also reveal itself in the next decade. Regardless, its emergence has already left a mark in the long river of capital markets that is destined to be remembered.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
