Digital Asset Treasuries under fire as token-holding firms lose steam

TheCryptoTimesPublicado a 2025-09-09Actualizado a 2025-09-09

Digital Asset Treasuries (DATs), public companies formed primarily to buy crypto, are facing a sharp reality check. After months of parabolic stock gains and grand promises, the sector is now navigating declining share prices, reduced Bitcoin purchases, and mounting skepticism about the sustainability of the entire model.

DAT stocks slide despite crypto rally

While major indices like the S&P 500 continue pushing higher, shares of token-holding companies are heading in the opposite direction. According to Architect Partners, a group of 15 DATs dropped an average of 15% last week alone.

Names like ALT5 Sigma, tied to Trump-linked World Liberty Financial’s WLFI token, have fallen nearly 50%. Meanwhile, Kindly MD, which holds Bitcoin via subsidiary Nakamoto Holdings, is down over 80% from its May peak. Even companies exposed to ETH and SOL haven’t been spared, with token values and corresponding equities sinking in tandem.

“There are way too many of them and very little differentiation,” said Ed Chin, co-founder of Parataxis Capital, a firm that recently backed a Bitcoin treasury company in South Korea.

A flood of token buyers, from nail salons to meal kits

More than 100 companies have jumped into the DAT space this year, often through overnight pivots, think cannabis brands, nail salons, and ad agencies suddenly rebranding as Bitcoin holders. Most of these firms hold little more than volatile tokens and a pitch deck.

And yet, speculation still finds a way. On Monday, Eightco Holdings surged 3,000% after announcing plans to buy Worldcoin and bringing on Wall Street analyst Dan Ives as a board member.

The Bitcoin-buying engine is sputtering

Despite occasional outliers, the broader trend is cooling. CryptoQuant reports that DATs acquired just 14,800 BTC in August—down from 66,000 BTC in June. Average purchase sizes have shrunk nearly 86% from 2025 highs. More tellingly, accumulation rates have plummeted from 163% in March to just 8% last month, revealing a dramatic slowdown in net buying behavior.

Exotic financing: high risk, low clarity

In an attempt to extract more leverage, DATs have turned to bespoke financial tools: Bitcoin-backed loans, token-linked convertibles, and structured payouts that often blur the line between strategy and speculation.

Smarter Web Co., a UK-based web firm, issued a bond tied to BTC’s price, meaning its debt burden rises as Bitcoin does. CEO Andrew Webley insisted only 5% of their treasury is exposed. “If Bitcoin goes down, we repay the debt,” he said. “If it goes up, our shares should rise faster.”

DDC Enterprise, formerly a struggling meal company, now claims access to over $1 billion in capital through a maze of debt lines and equity facilities. Its stock, too, has crashed after an earlier vertical rally.

Nasdaq tightens rules amid dilution concerns

The Nasdaq has reportedly begun asking some DATs to obtain shareholder approval before issuing new shares to fund token purchases—a direct hit to the dilution-heavy model that many of these companies rely on.

The Rise And Fall Of Strategy's Mnav Premium, Source: BloombergThe Rise And Fall Of Strategy's Mnav Premium, Source: Bloomberg
Strategy’s mNAV Graphic. Source: Bloomberg

Even heavyweights like Strategy and Metaplanet Inc., once poster children for the DAT boom, have seen their valuations stumble. Strategy was left out of the S&P 500 rebalance last Friday despite qualifying on paper. Its Bitcoin-to-market-cap ratio (mNAV) now sits around 1.5, and its stock has barely moved since April, even as Bitcoin rallied. Earlier this week, the firm bought another $217 million in BTC, but investor response was muted.

Crypto lenders step in—but for how long?

Firms like Two Prime, a provider of BTC-collateralized loans, are seeing increased demand from DATs. CEO Alexander Blume noted the firm has $1.25 billion in active open loans, with individual deals ranging from $10 million to $500 million. New structures like fixed-term bullet loans are being marketed as “breathing room” for firms under pressure.

But critics argue the strategy may be less about growth and more about survival.

As enthusiasm fades, the DAT model looks less like a bridge between crypto and capital markets—and more like a short-term trade built on low float and high hope. With Bitcoin ETFs now offering exposure without the baggage of equity dilution or operational risk, investors are beginning to ask: why buy a company for its coins when you can just buy the coins?

As Travis Kling, CIO of Ikigai Asset Management, bluntly put it:

“I’ve been trying to convince myself to buy some of these DATs. Haven’t gotten there. May never get there.”


Mobile Only ImageMobile Only Image

Lecturas Relacionadas

Why Is No One Buying DeFi Insurance?

"Why DeFi Insurance Remains Unpurchased" explores the paradox of decentralized finance insurance. While DeFi insurance promises automatic, unbiased payouts via smart contracts—eliminating traditional insurers' denial practices—it struggles to attract users. The core issue is economic viability. Premiums are prohibitively high relative to the yields from DeFi protocols. For example, insuring a deposit on Aave or Maple Finance can consume most or even all of the annual yield, leaving returns comparable to or worse than traditional savings. Only the safest protocols, like MakerDAO, offer affordable premiums. Furthermore, the DeFi insurance model is structurally fragile. Unlike traditional insurance where risks are uncorrelated, DeFi risks are highly interconnected (e.g., oracle failures, bridge hacks). A single major exploit can simultaneously threaten multiple protocols, potentially bankrupting the entire insurance pool, which holds only millions against billions in total value locked. The governance model also creates a conflict of interest. In platforms like Nexus Mutual, token holders who vote on claims risk their own capital if payouts are approved, incentivizing denials. Consequently, the market is tiny and shrinking. Nexus Mutual dominates with $81.56 million in assets, but the industry lacks the capacity to cover a catastrophic event like the $292M Kelp DAO hack. Other providers have dwindled or shut down. The article concludes that DeFi insurance faces a "tragedy of the commons": its stability requires widespread adoption, but individual users have no incentive to pay for it, as premiums destroy their yields. Current solutions involve preventative measures like bug bounties and seeking external capital from traditional reinsurance, acknowledging that on-chain capital alone is insufficient to cover on-chain risks.

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

Why Is No One Buying DeFi Insurance?

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片