Organized by: Scof, ChianCatcher

Edited by: TB, ChainCatcher

As more and more publicly listed companies incorporate SOL into their balance sheets, this is no longer an isolated phenomenon but may signify the emergence of a new treasury model. Companies are no longer just observing the crypto market but are beginning to experiment with SOL as a sustainable asset allocation tool.

In this issue of Space, we invite Margie, Head of Asia Market at Solayer, Richard Liu, Co-founder of Huma Finance, Darcy, Head of Investor Relations at SonicSVM, and Ru7, CMO of SOON, to focus on this potentially emerging "SOL version of MicroStrategy" trend:

After Bitcoin, can SOL become the next pivot for corporate treasuries? Will continuous buying change the price logic of SOL? What impact will the entry of institutional players have on DeFi and staking yield models? If a publicly listed company can generate cash flow by staking SOL, will more companies follow suit and treat SOL as a "productive asset"?

Is this a real trend, or just another round of FOMO?

For details, please see X:

https://x.com/i/spaces/1jMJgkYVRDjJL

Question 1: With more and more publicly listed companies incorporating SOL into their treasury, will this break the current market structure? How might this "treasuryization" trend change the industry's positioning and expectations for SOL?

Richard: I believe this reflects a growing recognition of Solana. A few years ago, when FTX collapsed, Solana faced immense pressure, but it persevered and formed a strong ecological cohesion. Today, Solana is developing rapidly across multiple tracks, and the migration of projects like Ribbon proves this.

Essentially, this is a positive feedback from the market regarding Solana's resilience and potential.

In contrast, BTC has companies like MicroStrategy holding it long-term, which influences its price movements. I believe Solana will not replicate this path; it is more likely to carve out a broader path through its own application expansion capabilities.

Especially with the staking mechanism, the yields and application logic it brings make it reasonable and attractive for companies to incorporate SOL into their treasury. This trend will not happen overnight but will evolve gradually as the infrastructure matures, similar to Ethereum in its early days. BTC is undoubtedly digital gold with a solid status; however, it is no longer certain who will prevail in the smart contract platform space. Three years ago, most people thought EVM was the only choice, but now many see Solana as a strong competitor.

Combining technical capabilities with staking yields, I believe allocating funds to Solana will become a choice for more and more companies.

Darcy: Treasuryization is just one aspect of Solana; it doesn't necessarily have to follow Bitcoin's "digital gold" path. Bitcoin is more often seen as a store of value, while Solana is a public chain network with deep application value.

Currently, there is indeed a new trend in the market: whether institutions hold positions is becoming a standard for measuring the maturity of a public chain. This is similar to how we used ETF fund inflows to judge the investment trends and price movements of BTC or ETH in the past. In the future, investors may also consider "whether institutions hold SOL" as a key indicator of its development prospects. From a corporate perspective, the treasuryization trend of Solana may gradually reshape the existing market structure.

I can feel that the Solana team is very proactive and systematic in this regard. Moreover, on-chain data shows that previously about 80% of on-chain activity came from retail users or airdrop participants, but this proportion has now dropped to 50-60%. This indicates that more and more large participants are entering the market.

I believe this is not only a trend for Solana but also a trend for the entire crypto market— the crypto world will increasingly become "an institutional playground."

Margie: I would like to add an observation from the supply and demand perspective. The total supply of Solana is limited, and currently, about 65% of the tokens have been staked, which means the actual circulating supply in the market is relatively low. If more and more publicly listed companies buy Solana and hold it long-term, it will further reduce the circulating supply in the market. In this context, once market demand rises, it may trigger supply-demand tension in the short term, thereby driving prices up.

However, I believe the market's real focus is not just on who is buying but also on why these companies are buying. If they are incorporating Solana into their treasury for long-term strategic reasons, it indicates they have clear confidence in Solana's future.

This is something worth continuous attention. We might as well observe for a while longer to see if these actions are sustainable and whether they will form a structural trend.

Ru7: I have worked in the traditional finance industry, so I pay special attention to the significance of the treasuryization concept for Solana.

I believe that "treasuryization" itself is a significant boost for Solana. If the market gradually shifts from being retail-driven to institutional long-term holding, it will make Solana more stable, and its volatility will significantly decrease. This is because companies, as investors, tend to operate on longer cycles and do not trade as frequently as retail investors, possibly adjusting on a quarterly or even lower frequency.

Additionally, institutional participation will improve Solana's liquidity. Many Web2 users will indirectly participate in Solana investments through platforms like Robinhood, wealth management institutions, or large asset management companies like Wellington and BlackRock. This will gradually increase Solana's weight in "alternative asset" portfolios, thereby gaining a status similar to BTC.

As Solana is incorporated into more asset portfolios, it may gradually grow into a corporate-level strategic asset. In the long run, it could even be comparable to gold and Bitcoin in certain functions.

Institutional holdings for Solana are not just about capital inflow; they also serve as an ecological endorsement. It can enhance the confidence of developers and long-term investors and is expected to attract more traditional financial capital into the Solana ecosystem.

Question 2: What unique advantages and potential risks does Solana have as a corporate treasury asset compared to Bitcoin? Why are companies willing to choose it?

Richard: I will throw out a possibly radical viewpoint: I have never believed that Bitcoin would be the most core and vital asset in the crypto space, from the past to the present. Although Bitcoin is referred to as "digital gold," in reality, the functions and influence of gold cannot compare to internet infrastructure.

Bitcoin, as an asset, does not possess infrastructure attributes. In contrast, public chain platforms like EVM or Solana have the capability to build vast ecosystems that can support a rich array of real applications. I firmly believe that, in the long run, chains that can carry and foster application ecosystems will have far greater vitality than Bitcoin.

This is Solana's first advantage: it has enormous long-term market space, potentially far exceeding Bitcoin.

The second advantage is that Solana is an asset that can generate yields. Bitcoin itself does not have direct yield-generating capabilities, while Solana can produce stable on-chain yields through staking, DeFi, payments, and other applications.

Currently, Solana's DeFi is still in the development stage but is progressing rapidly. If we find that Solana is more suitable than EVM when building certain functionalities, Solana's yield-generating capability will further enhance. This creates a fundamental distinction between it and Bitcoin: Bitcoin relies on "faith," while Solana's sustainability can be based on actual value creation within the ecosystem.

Of course, Solana also faces significant risks: its scale is much smaller than Bitcoin, and its ecosystem maturity is not sufficient. Therefore, companies that choose to incorporate Solana into their treasury are mostly those willing to take on certain risks and hope to form a differentiated strategy through this choice.

Especially in the current phase where SOL ETFs have not yet been approved, early entrants can leverage this to create their brand differentiation. This is not only an advantage for the company itself but may also guide other companies to follow suit later.

However, to form a scaled trend, time evolution is still needed, as well as continuous efforts from the Solana platform itself in brand building and promoting projects.

Ru7: I see Bitcoin more like gold, as a store of value; while Solana is closer to Tesla or Nvidia, a growth-oriented tech company with strong technology and a diverse ecosystem. Solana not only has applications in DeFi, NFTs, and Web3, forming a complete business loop, but also possesses a clear business model and growth potential.

From a traditional investment perspective, investing in Solana is akin to early investment in Tesla, focusing on its long-term market space and strategic value. Of course, it also carries high volatility risks, which pose challenges for traditional treasury management. At the same time, Solana is highly dependent on the developer ecosystem, and the activity level of the ecosystem directly affects its price performance.

Despite this, I remain optimistic about Solana's long-term potential; it meets the conditions to become an important asset in the crypto market.

Darcy: The positioning of Solana and Bitcoin is fundamentally different. Bitcoin is more like a store of value asset, while Solana has the characteristics of being stakeable and yield-generating, with current annual yields between 6% and 8%, which adds a layer of holding value compared to Bitcoin, which relies solely on price appreciation. At the same time, Solana is closer to an internet company, with a diverse ecosystem that includes DeFi, NFTs, Web3 applications, and possesses platform-level commercial attributes. If we use traditional analogies, Bitcoin is like gold, while Solana is more like Tesla or the Android operating system.

As more and more companies and even financial institutions participate in staking, Solana's staking yields could evolve into an "on-chain benchmark interest rate." This could not only attract institutional holdings but also give rise to various structured products in the ecosystem, such as leveraged combinations based on staking, fixed-income products, or on-chain "convertible bonds." Thus, Solana's asset logic becomes more robust, shifting from speculative assets to fundamental financial tools.

Additionally, Solana carries a more pragmatic narrative: making Web3 affordable and accessible to everyone. This goal is closer to the actual needs of developers and entrepreneurs than Bitcoin's "trustless currency" and is more likely to drive mass adoption. I believe it is this combination of technical usability and yield structure that gives Solana a unique advantage in corporate treasury scenarios.

Question 3: Upexi announced last month that it would invest 95% of its financing into Solana treasury construction. Is Upexi an isolated case or the beginning of a trend? Will more companies follow its strategy to incorporate SOL into their financial systems and create a sustained influx of institutional participation? Do you think there will be a "SOL godfather" type of publicly listed company like MicroStrategy that plays a long-term pricing central role? Is such a role possible in the SOL market?

Darcy: We are more focused on the medium to long-term trends of Solana. Although the path may not be entirely clear, the direction is evident. While there is short-term speculation, I do not see it as a bad thing. On the contrary, it can accumulate attention and trust capital, driving Solana towards institutional development and attracting more applications and financial institutions to enter the market.

Upexi's investment in Solana has drawn market attention and may even inspire other companies to follow suit, similar to MicroStrategy's path of purchasing Bitcoin. Although this phenomenon comes with speculative risks, the signal of "institutional entry" it releases is still important. It represents the alignment of short-term actions with long-term goals, ultimately expected to converge into a systemic institutional trend.

Ru7: I believe it is very likely that "Solana godfather" companies or representatives will emerge in the future, just like MicroStrategy did for Bitcoin. Their buying behavior will become an anchor point for market confidence, reinforcing the long-term value perception of Solana.

In the current context of macro uncertainty, the market needs such concrete signals. This role may not just be a single person or company but could be a collective of institutional groups formed by asset management companies, hedge funds, and others. Once these institutions begin to consistently buy Solana, they will assume the role of "pricing central," influencing market sentiment and strategies, much like the development path of the Bitcoin market.

As mainstream acceptance of capital increases, Solana is expected to become the third widely recognized asset after BTC and ETH. As long as one institution or investor takes the lead, this process could be realized within this cycle and push the crypto industry into a higher level of institutionalization.

Margie: Before Upexi, projects like SolStrategy had already established a relatively deep presence in Solana. However, compared to them, I think Upexi's approach can be described as "All in Solana," which is very aggressive and currently one of the more pioneering cases. On the day Upexi announced its purchase of Solana, its stock price skyrocketed from $2 to $22, although it later retraced, the market's attention to this move was very high.

As for whether Upexi will lead more companies to follow suit, I think the key lies in whether it can continue to invest deeply in the Solana ecosystem. If Upexi does not just stop at the numbers on the financial statements but truly engages in ecological construction and realizes practical applications and transformations, then its actions could become a template for a corporate treasury strategy rather than just a one-time investment.

Regarding whether a "Solana godfather" type of publicly listed company like MicroStrategy will emerge, I find this topic particularly interesting. We can look back at MicroStrategy's path. Since 2020, they have converted most of their cash reserves into Bitcoin, accumulating over 25 Bitcoin investments in three years. This shows that their actions are not one-off but are based on a clear long-term asset allocation logic. At the same time, they have developed financial derivatives and technological layouts around Bitcoin, becoming part of the Bitcoin narrative.

In the Solana market, we have not yet seen any company that can create such a strong and sustained influence in terms of capital and narrative like MicroStrategy. Although Upexi's actions are aggressive, I believe it is still in a relatively early stage and cannot yet assume the role of "pricing central."

However, I think such a role is possible in the Solana market. The key is whether such companies or individuals can establish a clear long-term strategy, rather than just a one-time treasury allocation. If such a company truly emerges in the future, it could have a profound impact on Solana's pricing logic, market sentiment, and even the narratives in mainstream media.

Richard: Personally, I believe that in the long run, Bitcoin does need the presence of a "godfather" figure because its narrative is built on faith. If Solana also needs to rely on such a "godfather" figure for support, I would see that as a failure.

Why do I say this? Because Solana itself is a practical infrastructure, and its value should come from its ecosystem. If it needs a "godfather" to endorse it, that indicates that Solana's own ecosystem and value creation capabilities are insufficient. For me, Solana's "church" should be its ecosystem itself, including the Solana Foundation and the developer community.

Just like in the Web2 era, tech companies built strong platforms and application ecosystems without relying solely on financial capital. Financial capital can participate and support, but innovation and leadership must come from the platform itself. Whether it's Android or Tesla, that's how it works. Solana should be the same. Its "church" should come from within the ecosystem, not be defined and supported by an external company or investor.

Question 4: If more institutions incorporate SOL into their treasury and participate in staking, will the yield model of DeFi be reshaped? Will the entry of institutions bring stability or dilute the existing users' yield space?

Richard: I have a very deep personal feeling about this. Before we brought in institutional investors, our asset management process was relatively simple, but once we placed assets into an SPV, facing investors from Wall Street, all processes had to be extremely standardized, with clear definitions for financial structures, fund allocations, and risk indicators. This high-intensity scrutiny, while causing short-term pain, significantly improved our operational standards and transparency.

I believe the Solana ecosystem will also undergo a similar process. The entry of institutions will significantly raise the threshold for the entire ecosystem, marginalizing projects that lack real yields and support, while high-quality projects with genuine business models will gain more attention. This filtering process is healthy; although it will bring a period of adjustment, it will be beneficial for the ecosystem in the long run.

I do not believe institutions will immediately change the market structure of Solana, but they will gradually push Solana from a meme coin narrative towards a role more aligned with payments and financial infrastructure. This is an irreversible trend; it just needs time to settle and realize.

Darcy: I also believe this is a foreseeable trend. Solana will definitely want to present a more institutionalized and high-end image in the future, and from the perspective of DeFi participants, the entry of institutions will bring changes to the yield model.

First, as institutions incorporate funds into their treasury, the overall security and stability of the ecosystem will improve, but the APY will correspondingly decrease, and yield volatility will reduce. At the same time, to seek higher yields and liquidity, institutions and users may participate more in LST (liquid staking) protocols, such as JitoSOL, mSOL, bSOL, etc., further promoting the integration of DeFi and staking systems.

On the other hand, the entry of institutions will indeed dilute some of the existing users' yields. Institutional capital has longer cycles and lower trading frequencies, and as the network's robustness improves, the short-term yield space for retail investors will be compressed. However, the future ecosystem will also gradually differentiate, allowing retail investors to choose high-risk, high-reward meme coins or complex products, while users preferring stable yields can participate in staking.

As the stability of the ecosystem improves, Solana and the entire crypto market will also be viewed by more people as a reliable asset allocation rather than just a speculative tool. I believe this is an inevitable direction of evolution.

Ru7: In fact, the Solana ecosystem itself has strong "blood-generating capabilities." Even if more institutions incorporate SOL into their treasury in the future, leading to a decrease in individual yields due to rising staking rates, the diversification and product innovation capabilities of the Solana ecosystem will bring more structured yield products, continuously innovating the entire yield model rather than simply diluting the existing users' yield space.

Solana is a developer-driven ecosystem, with new protocols and financial products emerging continuously, which will make the yield model richer and provide users with more choices. The entry of long-term institutional capital will not only enhance the stability of the capital pool but also create economies of scale, attracting more users to participate, thus forming a positive cycle.

I think this change is similar to credit bonds, ETFs, and other financial products in traditional finance; in the future, the Solana ecosystem will see more layers of yield products. Users can freely choose based on their risk preferences, such as opting for high-yield products similar to credit bonds or stable, low-risk products like U.S. Treasuries. As the ecosystem becomes richer, users will not be diluted; instead, they will gain more choices and a better asset allocation experience.

Solana does not need to rely on a "godfather" figure for support; its ecosystem and technological innovation are its greatest value. Just like Tesla, people are not simply looking at Musk but at the company's determination to send people to Mars. The future of Solana lies in the development potential and expectations of its ecosystem itself, rather than relying on a company or institution for endorsement.

Question 5: Currently, SOL lacks the scarcity and "faith layer" user structure similar to Bitcoin, which poses a challenge for companies to promote long-term treasury strategies. How do you think we should stimulate holders' willingness to hold SOL long-term or even continue to increase their positions? What can be relied upon to establish sufficient confidence and consensus?

Richard: My position is that the Solana ecosystem itself is the greatest support. Long-term holders are likely to come from within the Solana ecosystem, especially from leading projects like Jupiter and Helios. In the future, platforms like Huma, if they grow to a similar level, will also become the most steadfast supporters of Solana. These projects not only possess strong vitality and resources but will also continue to accumulate SOL due to their reliance on the Solana ecosystem.

I believe that the true driving force behind Solana's long-term development will not be external financial groups but the projects within the ecosystem. They bring not just capital but comprehensive ecological interaction and construction, and their support and value release for Solana will far exceed mere financial investment.

Returning to the fundamental difference, Bitcoin primarily relies on faith because it is digital gold, while Solana is a network, an infrastructure. Its core value lies in the builders and developers within the ecosystem. In the future, when we see projects like Jupiter continuously supporting Solana, the strength of the ecosystem will naturally grow stronger.

Darcy: I completely agree with Richard's viewpoint. Solana does not need a religious leader figure. When a project lacks practical applications, it needs to rely on faith to maintain its value; once it has practical applications and enters the lives of many, there is no need to artificially create faith. Actual use cases and application logic are the best value support.

I have previously mentioned that Solana is more like Android for Web3; it represents a pragmatic, inclusive, and feasible vision. Through code, it enables more people to afford and utilize Web3, whether in gaming, payments, DePIN, or payment experiences like Visa, all of which are real applications that users can directly experience.

Therefore, I believe Solana's path should be to promote the popularization of Web3 rather than to pursue a religious narrative or elitism around Web3. Its development momentum comes from applications, not faith.

Ru7: I understand that the starting points of traditional finance and cryptocurrency investments are inherently different. In the crypto space, many investments stem from cultural attributes and beliefs, while Solana resembles a technology company with practical application scenarios and profitability, even more like Apple than just Tesla. This is because Solana has a rich application ecosystem that goes beyond a single product, encompassing diverse scenarios such as DeFi, payments, NFTs, and DApps, much like how Apple has phones, computers, watches, and the App Store.

From an investment perspective, Solana possesses a strong developer ecosystem and continuous innovation capabilities, with solid fundamentals. For traditional financial institutions, this is precisely the type of asset they are willing to allocate; they focus on a five to ten-year return cycle, and Solana's future growth potential clearly aligns with this logic.

I also look forward to seeing more institutions like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and BlackRock incorporate Solana into their core allocations, potentially even becoming a major component of ETFs, thereby attracting more users and capital to pay attention to Solana. When this phenomenon occurs, Solana will become a brand frequently mentioned and used in daily life, much like Apple, thus forming a true layer of belief. This belief will no longer be an empty cultural narrative but a consensus formed based on the widespread application and usage frequency.

Especially in the payments sector, the Solana network is already capable of supporting users in purchasing real goods with cryptocurrency, and in the future, it can help more underdeveloped countries improve payment efficiency. I believe this tangible application will continuously enhance the market's confidence in Solana and the willingness to hold it long-term.

Margie: From a market perspective, to stimulate more people to hold or continue to increase their positions in Solana long-term, I believe it is essential to establish a clear and long-term narrative, such as emphasizing that Solana is the fastest blockchain in the world, with ultra-low latency and other technical advantages. This narrative needs to be reinforced repeatedly to create market memory, just as we continuously emphasize the million TPS capability when promoting Infinite SVM.

Secondly, the Solana ecosystem itself is already very strong; we need the leading projects and founders within the ecosystem to continue to speak out, actively building confidence. If the market can associate these leading projects with Solana's long-term value, then this sense of trust will be easier to form, and users will be more willing to hold Solana long-term.

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。