Author: @BlazingKevin_, the Researcher at Movemaker

Nasdaq announced new regulatory measures for digital asset companies last Thursday. Specifically, if these companies wish to fund their cryptocurrency purchases by issuing new shares, the plan must first be submitted for a shareholder vote to ensure investors' right to know.

This undoubtedly dampened the crypto market, as the "DAT strategy" is seen by many as the latest wealth code. From an external perspective, it appears to be a simple and crude financial tool: companies raise funds through public offerings, use the money to buy coins, and then rely on market increases to achieve positive feedback on their stock prices. In a short time, this model has rapidly ignited public opinion, even being packaged as a "financial gimmick" collusion between Wall Street and the crypto circle. From market performance, BTC-related DAT has encountered a brief cold wave, the ETH narrative seems to have completed its first round of rollercoaster, while SOL's treasury model appears to be poised for action. What logic and risks are hidden behind this glamorous facade?

Development Model of DAT Enterprises

The core idea of DAT (Digital Asset Treasury) is not complex: listed companies raise funds by issuing new shares, then directly use the raised cash to buy cryptocurrencies, filling their balance sheets with mainstream tokens like BTC, ETH, and SOL. In an ideal cycle, companies can repeatedly perform the spiral operation of "financing—buying coins—coin price increase—stock price rise—refinancing," as if it were a capital accelerator that can infinitely compound.

To make this narrative coherent, treasury operations typically have three paths:

1. Business Rebranding: Near-bankrupt companies transform into "crypto financial service providers," for example, binding themselves to new narratives through staking or yield strategies.
2. Mergers and Acquisitions: A private company focused on crypto business is packaged into a listed shell company to obtain compliance status at a low cost.
3. SPAC Model: Utilizing a Special Purpose Acquisition Company to enter the capital market as a "shortcut."

The first two methods are not new, but what has been brought back to the forefront is the SPAC tool once used by Circle. Its appeal lies in the fact that even without customers, products, or mature business logic, as long as the balance sheet is filled with Bitcoin, it can quickly list on the exchange with a stock code, directly packaging and selling Bitcoin dividends to public investors.

This approach is vastly different from the strategy of the past. The latter at least emphasized BTC's "store of value" attribute, while the new players almost buy up mainstream tokens first and then temporarily concoct a business story. These companies resemble hedge funds dressed in the guise of public companies, yet they still manage to attract waves of capital chasing crypto assets.

The true value of SPACs is not just to allow companies to bypass the lengthy IPO process for a quick listing. The key is that companies can sell highly imaginative plans to investors even in the absence of actual business—such as "BTC holdings soaring to $1 billion by year-end." In this process, the founding team can even bring in giants like Galaxy to participate in PIPE (private investment in public equity) before the merger, locking in astonishing valuations ahead of time. The SEC's regulations appear to be followed on the surface, but in essence, they circumvent the sensitive identity of "investment funds."

More importantly, SPACs provide companies with the opportunity to leverage early on: stockpile coins, then double down through equity or debt financing, continuously amplifying firepower with crypto assets as the underlying. This mechanism allows founders to completely bypass the traditional path of "building a product first, then proving value," driving growth directly through narrative and financial tools. Compared to IPOs, SPACs offer them greater imaginative space and operational freedom.

The Combination of PIPE and Convertible Bonds is an important supplement to the entire script:

1. First, identify suitable shell companies or SPACs.
2. Collaborate with them to design a tailored crypto asset reserve strategy.
3. Work with investment banks to issue PIPE and convertible bonds, directly selling shares to institutions.
4. PIPEs are often sold at a discount, leaving arbitrage space for institutions.
5. Convertible bonds protect investors from downside risk while providing some upside returns, making them a preferred choice for stable capital.

Unlike the initial "anti-inflation reserve" narrative of Strategy, today's PIPE players are more aggressive; they not only buy coins but also layer on staking, lending, and other operations to release on-paper profits more quickly. The secondary market's reaction is also extremely direct: whenever such transactions are disclosed, the company's stock price often skyrockets several times instantly. For Wall Street, this is a skilled financial packaging technique—translating "buying coins" into a complex financial structure and then extracting expensive premiums from investors through information asymmetry.

Of course, not all companies are focused on BTC, ETH, and SOL. For smaller enterprises, those mid-tier tokens ranked in the top 50 are often more enticing targets. They are highly volatile, with astonishing potential returns, attracting waves of small treasury companies to gamble, but more often than not, they are fleeting and ultimately washed out by the market.

What are the differences between ETH and SOL DAT compared to BTC?

The backgrounds of companies holding cryptocurrencies are becoming increasingly diverse, no longer limited to the crypto-native industry. For example, among BTC holders, there are traditional business companies like Strategy (business intelligence) and Metaplanet (hotel real estate) that use Bitcoin as a strategic reserve for value storage; there are also companies closely related to the industry, such as Mara (intellectual property/mining) and Bullish (digital asset trading).

BTC DAT Faces a Cold Wave, but mNAV Remains Stable

In August of this year, Strategy's stock price fell by a cumulative 16.8%, and the valuation premium the company enjoyed for years due to its Bitcoin holdings was almost completely eroded. This is not a simple stock price adjustment, but rather a prelude to the gradual loss of luster of the Bitcoin enterprise treasury story.

In fact, as emerging DAT strategies like Ethereum gradually gain a foothold, the industry position of Strategy, the "pioneer," is being diluted. More critically, there has been a turning point in financing methods. The company originally planned to finance Bitcoin purchases through preferred stock but only raised $47 million, far below external expectations. The funding gap forced it to restart common stock issuance, which undoubtedly broke the previously promised "control dilution" principle. In the context of the capital market, this means a loss of credibility.

This turning point is not an isolated case. Observing the capital flows of BTC, ETH, and SOL, it is not difficult to find that the market is moving towards diversification, with Bitcoin treasury enterprises feeling the pressure of capital diversion first. As the earliest group to attempt this model, they are also the first to enter a period of adjustment and pain. Currently, about one-third of listed companies holding Bitcoin have stock prices that are even lower than the on-paper value of their Bitcoin. This is particularly fatal for small enterprises: tight liquidity makes every equity financing exceptionally difficult, while heavy convertible bond interest and approaching repayment deadlines further compress survival space.

The companies that can truly succeed often share two common traits: one is that community consensus is strong enough, and the other is the ability to continuously increase "Bitcoin holdings per share" and build financial engineering around it. Conversely, those lacking sustained strategic support are mostly eliminated by the market. For example, SOS Limited, after transitioning from crypto mining to commodity trading, not only faced difficulties in its main business but also struggled to sustain its Bitcoin strategy, ultimately lagging far behind its peers. This shows that the "heavy investment in Bitcoin" model is more favored by the market than "symbolic allocation."

Of course, these companies still face the impact of extreme volatility. When a company's net assets exceed its market value, it may brew a reversal opportunity, but for financially precarious companies, simply retaining a small amount of Bitcoin on paper is clearly insufficient to change the fate of bankruptcy. Moreover, when corporate strategies extend to tail-end tokens, the risks double. These assets lack the hard asset properties of Bitcoin and stable buying support, making them prone to collapse first during market adjustments.

ETH DAT Offers Diversified Returns, but mNAV is Fully Discounted

According to the latest Strategic ETH Reserve data, over 70 companies, listed firms, or institutions worldwide have incorporated ETH into their strategic reserves (with individual holdings exceeding 100 coins). The total holding amount has surpassed 4.7 million coins, valued at approximately $20 billion, accounting for 3.89% of Ethereum's total supply. Among them, about 14 companies have explicitly disclosed their "Ethereum treasury strategy," with total holdings close to 3 million ETH, valued at approximately $12.86 billion.

Unlike the "single holding" approach primarily adopted by Bitcoin treasury enterprises, those entering the ETH treasury track exhibit significant differentiation in asset utilization models. Their strategies can be roughly divided into four categories: one relies on third-party staking services for stable returns ("delegated"); another directly embeds into the network through self-operated nodes and liquid staking ("self-operated"); a more aggressive category combines lending, liquidity provision, and MEV optimization to maximize capital efficiency; and some are exploring advanced leverage strategies like circular lending to amplify asset returns.

Among the current holding companies, the movements of the top five are particularly representative:

• BitMine became the largest corporate holder just two months after launching its ETH treasury strategy, with holdings exceeding 1.52 million coins, targeting 5% of ETH's total supply. Notably, Peter Thiel has acquired 9.1% of its shares. If staking is initiated subsequently, the profit potential is considerable.
• SharpLink Gaming, originally a sports betting company, officially positioned ETH as a core reserve asset in June and brought in Ethereum co-founder Joseph Lubin as chairman of the board. Its holdings are nearly fully staked, forming a stable source of passive income.
• The Ether Machine, formed through a SPAC merger, plans to hold over $1.5 billion in ETH, with management publicly stating that they will focus on staking, re-staking, and DeFi operations, even mentioning attempts at circular lending on Aave.
• Bit Digital has completed its transformation from a traditional mining company to an Ethereum asset management and staking platform, with a clear strategic positioning.
• ETHZilla has shifted from biotechnology to the entertainment and gaming industry while developing ETH-related accumulation tools, with Peter Thiel's investment team also appearing behind it.

Overall, the logic of ETH treasury differs from that of Bitcoin. The core value of Bitcoin is more reflected in its positioning as a "reserve asset," while ETH's advantage lies in its native revenue channels. The current nominal yield rate for Ethereum staking is about 2.95%, with an inflation-adjusted real yield rate of 2.15%. If 30% of the existing corporate holdings are staked, and ETH prices remain at the $4,000 level, the corresponding annualized yield scale would be approximately $79 million. This figure reflects that ETH treasury enterprises can obtain relatively stable cash flow beyond price fluctuations.

On the operational level, companies mainly have two paths to choose from: one is to directly operate validation nodes; the other is to leverage liquid staking protocols (such as Lido, Coinbase, RocketPool). The U.S. SEC has clarified that such protocols are not classified as securities, clearing compliance barriers for institutional participation and allowing them to additionally obtain liquidity tokens as derivative assets.

These derivative assets (like Lido's stETH) have high composability in the DeFi market and can further be used as lending or liquidity mining tools. For example, the ETH and stETH liquidity pool on Aave v3 has exceeded 1.1 million ETH. As more corporate treasury funds flow in, the size of this liquidity pool is expected to continue expanding, significantly enhancing market liquidity while improving yields.

The core competitiveness of ETH DAT lies in the hierarchical and scalable structure of its yield. This gives it a stronger latecomer advantage compared to Bitcoin DAT.

SOL DAT Aims to Catch Up, but Scale is Still Small

An increasing number of listed companies are starting to hold SOL on their balance sheets. Currently, Solana's total market capitalization is approximately $107 billion, and data shows that listed companies hold over 4 million SOL, valued at over $800 million. However, the stock prices of these companies are not impressive, possibly because the reserve market for Solana has yet to see a true leading strategy, and because SOL ETFs have not yet been approved.

However, a new wave of capital is rapidly joining in. Currently, the SOL held by listed companies accounts for only 0.69% of the circulating supply, while Pantera Capital recently committed to investing $1.25 billion, and Galaxy, Multicoin, and Jump jointly committed to investing $1 billion, which together is 3.5 times the current holdings of listed companies.

More specifically, Galaxy, Multicoin, and Jump plan to acquire a listed company to create a digital asset financial company focused on Solana. Meanwhile, Pantera, led by former Tiger Management executive Dan Morehead, also plans to raise $1.25 billion to acquire a Nasdaq-listed company and transform it into an investment company focused on SOL, tentatively named "Solana Co." Notably, Pantera and Galaxy previously bought a significant amount of SOL at low prices from the bankrupt FTX, making a substantial profit. In simple terms, their new actions can be understood as—having made enough money, they are ready to increase their bets.

The rise of the DAT company model represents a new and advanced value capture method for these institutions. Through DAT, they can not only hold SOL while waiting for price increases but also earn stable profits through various DeFi protocols, achieving multiple asset appreciation.

The trends of Bitcoin over the past two years indicate that when institutions begin to systematically accumulate a certain crypto asset, that asset often enters a relatively stable upward channel. The example of Ethereum has already demonstrated this. The differences between Solana and Ethereum DAT companies are also quite clear: a significant part of the reason institutions choose ETH is its decentralization, while Solana is valued for its public chain attributes and user-facing application potential.

From the perspective of DAT's absorption efficiency of trading supply, the $2.5 billion SOL DAT plan brought by Galaxy and Pantera is equivalent to a financing scale of $30 billion for ETH or $91 billion for BTC. The efficiency of SOL DAT can be higher than that of ETH for two reasons: first, circulating supply does not equal tradable volume; currently, 63.1% of Solana's tokens are staked, leaving very few available for trading; while ETH's staking rate is only 29.6%, with a larger tradable volume, making it harder to push prices. Second, in terms of relative capital impact, SOL's market capitalization is far lower than that of ETH and BTC, making the relative valuation of investing $1 in SOL DAT far exceed the same investment in ETH and BTC.

Moreover, with the SOL ETF expected to pass by the end of this year, this wave of buying behavior may have a more pronounced impact on prices.

Expectations for BNB and Other Tail-End Assets' DAT

BNB DAT

CEA Industries: Aiming for 1% of BNB's Total Supply

CEA Industries (stock code: BNC) recently announced that it has increased its BNB holdings to 388,888 coins, valued at approximately $330 million. The company plans to reach a holding of 1% of BNB's total supply, or about 10 million BNB, by the end of 2025. This move highlights its strategy of incorporating digital assets as a core part of its strategy, similar to MicroStrategy's approach in the Bitcoin space. Additionally, CEA Industries is collaborating with 10X Capital to accept a $500 million private investment from YZi Labs, which includes $400 million in cash and $100 million in crypto assets, to further expand its BNB reserves.

Nano Labs: Gradually Increasing BNB Reserves

Nano Labs (Nasdaq code: NA) currently holds approximately 128,000 BNB, with an average acquisition cost of $713 per coin, totaling about $10.8 million. The company has increased its holdings by 8,000 BNB through OTC transactions, demonstrating its commitment to BNB as a long-term value reserve. This strategy may lay the foundation for further expansion in the digital asset space.

Liminatus Pharma: Establishing "American BNB Strategy" Subsidiary

Liminatus Pharma (Nasdaq code: LIMN) plans to raise up to $500 million in stages through its newly established subsidiary "American BNB Strategy" to strategically invest in BNB over the next few years. This initiative marks a traditional biopharmaceutical company's active embrace of digital assets, exploring the possibility of incorporating BNB into its asset allocation.

Windtree Therapeutics: Allocating $520 Million for BNB Strategy

Windtree Therapeutics (Nasdaq code: WINT) announced plans to raise up to $520 million, with 99% of the funds allocated for purchasing BNB to enhance its digital asset treasury. The company has reached an agreement with Kraken to serve as its custodian for BNB holdings. This move reflects the active transformation of traditional biotechnology companies in the digital asset space.

Hua Xing Capital: The First Hong Kong Listed Company to Directly Hold BNB

Hua Xing Capital signed a memorandum with YZi Labs in August 2025, planning to invest $100 million to purchase BNB, becoming the first Hong Kong listed company to directly hold BNB. Additionally, Hua Xing Capital plans to launch compliant BNB fund products and establish a stablecoin and on-chain applications based on BNB.

B Strategy: Planning to Raise $1 Billion to Establish BNB Treasury Company

B Strategy plans to go public in the U.S. and establish a treasury company focused on BNB investment, targeting to raise $1 billion. The company has received strategic support from YZi Labs.

Amber International and Hash Global: Launching BNB Fund

Amber International (Nasdaq code: AMBR) has partnered with Hash Global to launch a BNB fund, aiming to use its $100 million crypto asset reserve for BNB investments. This fund serves as a blockchain-native income product, designed to provide institutional investors with a stable source of returns.

DAT Layout of Ethena and SUI

Ethena (ENA): Strategic Investments from StablecoinX and Mega Matrix

Ethena's native token ENA is attracting the attention of institutional investors. StablecoinX plans to raise $895 million through a SPAC merger to reserve ENA tokens. Additionally, Mega Matrix has submitted a $2 billion structured registration statement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for reserving USDe and ENA.

SUI: Strategic Layout of Sui Group Holdings

Sui Group Holdings is the only publicly listed company supported by the Sui Foundation, holding approximately 102 million SUI tokens, valued at about $345 million. The company plans to continue raising capital to purchase more discounted locked SUI tokens to increase the holdings per share of SUI, thereby creating value for shareholders.

Whether non-mainstream DAT can generate sufficient influence and even sustain a positive flywheel is crucial. The most important factor is not whether mNAV remains above 1 and in a premium state: mNAV may drop below 1, leading to discounts, but for these companies, selling crypto assets at a discount is an accelerated path to demise.

The core direction for evaluating non-mainstream DAT should be financing capability and buying capability:

The former represents the level of optimism and confidence in the crypto asset, whether the company has good financing channels to buy in during discount periods or when crypto assets enter a downward cycle. This is the best endorsement for DAT companies, and the positive effects generated by financing scale can, to some extent, promote mNAV. Observing the DAT processes of the aforementioned three crypto assets, both BNB and Ethena's DAT companies have very strong and broad financing capabilities, making them more likely to promote positive developments in coin-stock prices in the long term.

Secondly, the ability to continuously buy is also key. Continuously and disciplinedly executing their investment strategies and proving their research and timing abilities to the market is the foundation for building a brand and winning premiums. Having enough ammunition to continue buying when discounts appear is the best confidence injection to prove to the market.

BNB, Ethena, and SUI have not yet experienced this stage, but when the FOMO of mainstream DAT subsides, the survival of tail-end asset DAT companies will depend not only on the two factors mentioned above but also on whether they can provide more asset play possibilities for crypto protocols, which may be a watershed in tail-end DAT competition: Wall Street has only brought in incremental funds; how to amplify leverage in the market is key to utilizing the capital volume. How to achieve maximum asset efficiency, innovate programmable liquidity, and capture multidimensional value, etc. Precise financial engineering and tangible returns will allow the outstanding tail-end DAT players to stand out.

Rational Perspective on the DAT Flywheel

DAT is not a high-end financial innovation; it is essentially more like a regulatory arbitrage tool: in the context where existing crypto asset regulations are not yet fully clarified, Wall Street or some listed companies achieve rapid allocation of crypto assets through the DAT structure. This wave of DAT enthusiasm appears to mimic the strategic layout of MicroStrategy, but the core driving force comes more from the market's FOMO sentiment during a period of still loose official regulatory channels. In other words, the prosperity of DAT carries a clear speculative color in the short term, and its sustainability relies on the dual influence of market sentiment and regulatory policies.

In terms of the flywheel mechanism, DAT can amplify returns during bull market phases: asset market value rises, mNAV premiums increase, and liquidity enhances, forming a positive feedback loop. However, once the market reverses, this mechanism can also amplify risks. When mNAV discounts or premiums disappear, some DAT companies may be forced to liquidate assets, triggering a chain selling pressure that amplifies short-term price volatility. The complex structure of DAT, while attracting institutional funds, also exacerbates information asymmetry, making it difficult for retail investors to fully understand risk exposure and the true value of assets.

From a valuation logic perspective, DAT may cause the market to revert to a "story-driven" phase: prices in the short term rely more on market expectations, concept heat, and institutional participation. Hot money entering may push prices up, but this increase lacks underlying value support. While the rise of Ethereum DAT is expected to boost on-chain staking, DeFi activity, and ecosystem participation, its long-term impact on corporate profitability and the overall health of the ecosystem remains highly uncertain.

In summary, the DAT flywheel can create short-term returns and market attention during market booms, but investors need to rationally recognize its limitations: high leverage amplifies upward returns but also magnifies downward risks, and regulatory pressures, liquidity tightening, and mNAV discounts are all key factors that could break this inflated structure at any time.

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。