This article is reprinted with permission from Mankun Blockchain Legal Services, author: Lawyer Liu Honglin, copyright belongs to the original author.
Every era creates new terms to accommodate things that old frameworks cannot explain. Twenty years ago, people were excited about "internet companies," ten years ago it was "unicorns," and in recent years, a new term that has emerged in the capital market is DAT companies.
DAT, short for Digital Asset Treasury Company, literally means "digital asset reserve company." They differ from traditional internet or energy companies, not because of their novel business forms, but because they treat digital currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum as treasury assets on their balance sheets.
There is a macro background to this. After 2020, the world experienced a series of shocks from inflation and interest rate hikes, leading corporate financial executives to suddenly realize: the cash on their books was being quietly eroded, and while dollar deposits and short-term debts were safe, they could not withstand the long-term erosion of currency depreciation. Thus, some companies began to seek new "reserves." Gold was too traditional, real estate too heavy, and Bitcoin seemed like a light alternative—it is scarce, transferable, and has no sovereignty. Thus, the story of DAT unfolds.
In light of the current market situation, DAT companies can roughly be divided into three mainstream forms. The distinction lies not in how much Bitcoin they hold, but in the relationship between their holdings and their main business, and how these two curves together shape the company's risk exposure.
Cryptocurrency Treasury Type
Representative Company: Strategy Inc (formerly MicroStrategy, NASDAQ MSTR)
Strategy's positioning has completely deviated from the traditional software company path, and the market labels it almost as an "enterprise-level Bitcoin ETF." As of September 21, 2025, the company held a total of 639,835 BTC, with an average purchase price of $73,971/BTC. Its stock price elasticity far exceeds that of Bitcoin spot, making it a pure "amplifier."
Investment Points: The value of such companies is highly dependent on the Bitcoin cycle. They have high disclosure frequency and strong transparency, and investors know clearly that they are not buying the main business, but a compliant, auditable Bitcoin leveraged exposure.
Risk Points: Financing rhythm and dilution management. If the market environment deteriorates and the average price of newly financed Bitcoin deviates too much, it may cause structural discounts in the valuation system.
Hybrid Type: Main Business Support + Strategic Holdings
Representative Company: Boyaa Interactive (Hong Kong Stock 0434)
Boyaa Interactive is a board game company with relatively stable cash flow. Starting in 2023, the company gradually introduced Bitcoin assets into its financial reports. As of September 18, 2025, it held a total of 4,091 BTC, with a total investment of about $279 million, at an average price of $68,114/BTC. In mid-September, it added 411 BTC in just three days, with an average price as high as $115,420/BTC, of which 90% of the placement funds were directly used for purchasing Bitcoin.
Investment Points: The key for hybrid companies lies in "proportional management." The main business provides a cash flow time window, while holding Bitcoin brings asset flexibility, and the combination of the two forms a dual-track valuation.
Risk Points: High entry at new positions may amplify short-term fluctuations in the financial statements. If the proportion of holdings continues to rise, the overall valuation logic of the company will gradually shift towards "currency-based."
Cryptocurrency Native Business Driven Type
Representative Company: Coinbase (NASDAQ COIN)
Coinbase's core value is anchored in its platform business: transaction fees, custody, subscriptions, and interest spreads. In the second quarter of 2025, the company held 11,776 BTC and 136,782 ETH on its books, with a fair value of approximately $1.84 billion. However, the market does not view it as a holding company but rather as a global compliance entry point.
Investment Points: The valuation logic of business-driven DATs is closest to that of traditional fintech companies; price fluctuations affect transaction volumes, but non-transaction income (subscriptions, custody) provides counter-cyclical support.
Risk Points: Regulatory and fee pressure. The compliance attribute is a double-edged sword; on one hand, it brings a moat, while on the other, it exposes profitability to direct impacts from policy adjustments.
Representative Company: Riot Platforms (NASDAQ RIOT)
Riot does not rely on buying Bitcoin but instead produces it through computing power and electricity. In August 2025, the company produced 477 BTC and held 19,309 BTC at the end of the period (of which 3,300 BTC were restricted), disclosing that the "all-in cost" of electricity that month was about $0.026/kWh.
Investment Points: The profitability of mining companies is equivalent to a three-variable equation: Bitcoin price × network difficulty × electricity price. In a bull market, their operational leverage is extremely strong; in a bear market, cash flow pressure and the rigidity of capital expenditures will be amplified simultaneously.
Risk Points: The double-kill effect of cyclical fluctuations. They must endure both Bitcoin price corrections and rising electricity costs, and their risk resistance depends on electricity contract price locking and inventory management.
In summary, the treasury type is pure Beta, the hybrid type is a balancing act, the business-driven type is a platform moat, and mining companies are cyclical bets. When researching DATs, investors should not simply look at "how much Bitcoin is held," but should consider the resilience of the main business, the safety cushion of the average holding price, and the transparency of governance and disclosure for pricing.
The emergence of the DAT model has not won unanimous acclaim from the traditional capital market. On the contrary, it has always been accompanied by skepticism and divergence among institutional investors, researchers, and accountants. The core issues focus on several dimensions:
First, there are concerns about "shell companies." Some DAT companies have severely weakened their main business, with revenue and profit having little substantive impact on valuation, leading the market to gradually simplify their understanding to "buying them is just buying Bitcoin." In this case, whether the company still possesses independent value as an operating entity or is merely a "legal shell" providing an alternative for Bitcoin trading is a question in many investors' minds.
Second, there is the issue of volatility. Bitcoin's annualized volatility has long maintained between 60% and 80%, far exceeding that of gold and mainstream commodities. When a company allocates a large amount of assets to Bitcoin, its financial statements are almost inevitably influenced by price movements. For stable-seeking pension funds and sovereign funds, such volatility is difficult to incorporate into traditional portfolio models, directly limiting the weight of such companies in institutional portfolios.
Third, there is confusion in valuation logic. DAT companies possess two valuation curves: discounted cash flow from the main business and market value fluctuations of digital assets. The problem is that the two often do not fluctuate in the same cycle and may even diverge completely. When pricing, the market is prone to mismatches: when the price of Bitcoin rises, the valuation of the main business is ignored; when the price of Bitcoin falls, the value of asset reserves is discounted by the market. This dual-track valuation system makes it difficult for investors to find a stable anchor.
Fourth, there are doubts about management's motives. Large-scale purchases of Bitcoin can be interpreted as strategic asset allocation or as tools for storytelling and pushing stock prices. If disclosures are not transparent, investors may suspect this is "arbitrage" rather than a long-term financial plan for the company. This uncertainty can easily amplify market emotions.
Finally, there is uncertainty in regulatory and accounting treatment. Different markets adopt varying accounting standards; some require cost method valuation, while others require fair value changes to be recorded. This not only makes financial reports of cross-market companies lack comparability but also directly increases the risk of valuation discounts. Before the regulatory framework is unified, DAT companies inherently bear higher valuation uncertainty.
Overall, the controversies brought by the DAT model essentially point to a core question: does it possess corporate attributes, or is it merely a repackaged asset tool? This is also why there is such a huge disparity in the valuations of similar companies in the market.
Therefore, the key moving forward lies in how to judge: which DAT companies are truly healthy and capable of traversing cycles? And which are merely pseudo-propositions taking advantage of the concept for arbitrage? — This is precisely the logical starting point for establishing standards for identifying "good DAT companies."
According to my current understanding, good DAT companies should at least possess four characteristics:
Robust Main Business: Must have independent cash flow that can provide a buffer during cyclical downturns.
Cryptocurrency as Reserve, Not Everything: Holdings should have proportional boundaries to avoid the overall valuation of the company being completely tied to the price of Bitcoin.
Transparent Disclosure: Position sizes, purchase costs, and risk controls must be clear at a glance; otherwise, they are easily labeled by the market as "storytelling."
Strong Counter-Cyclical Ability: Able to maintain operations in a bear market without being forced to sell; in a bull market, holding Bitcoin truly amplifies valuation.
In addition to these four standards, there is another often-overlooked but crucial dimension in investment research—price factors. The average purchase price of Bitcoin directly determines the risk exposure in future financial reports. The lower the average price, the thicker the safety cushion; the higher the average price, the greater the sensitivity of the financial report to short-term fluctuations. For example, Boyaa Interactive's newly added 411 BTC in September 2025 had an average price of $115,420, significantly higher than its historical average of $68,114, which means it may face considerable volatility in future financial reports.
Using these dimensions, we can horizontally compare several typical DAT companies (as of the latest data in September 2025):
DAT companies are not a fixed template but more like a spectrum. At one extreme, Strategy has almost completely abandoned its software business, choosing to shape itself into an "enterprise-level Bitcoin treasury"; at the other extreme, Coinbase's value anchor remains in trading, custody, and compliance ecosystems, with holding Bitcoin being merely a financial annotation. Between the two, Riot provides a typical high-Beta mining company sample, with profits and risks amplified simultaneously; while Boyaa Interactive is one of the few hybrid cases in the Hong Kong stock market, maintaining cash flow from board games while entering Bitcoin through placement funds, attempting to construct a "business + reserve" dual-track logic.
In the future, the capital market's selection of DAT will not focus on "how much Bitcoin is held" on the surface, but rather on whether the company truly possesses a sustainable operational foundation and transparent financial governance. Those companies whose main businesses have hollowed out and rely solely on Bitcoin prices to tell stories may gain short-term popularity in a bull market, but often lack survival capability during cyclical downturns. In contrast, companies that can rely on their main business for support and treat cryptocurrency assets as long-term strategic reserves are more likely to form a stable valuation anchor amid volatility.
From a more macro perspective, the emergence of DAT is essentially an intermediate step in the institutionalization of cryptocurrency assets. They have brought assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum into financial reports, gradually allowing capital markets to view digital assets as part of corporate reserves. This dual logic of "business + holdings" is not only a core consideration for whether DAT companies can be accepted by investors but will also determine which companies can truly traverse cycles and which can only be fleeting.
Related: Wall Street veteran Jordi Visser: Bitcoin (BTC) is entering its IPO phase
Original text: “Mankun Research | How should public companies approach coin-stock linkage for an effective DAT?”
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。
