Crypto Treasuries May Begin Selling In 2026 As ETFs Increase Pressure: Report

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-02-17Last updated on 2026-02-17

Abstract

Crypto prices have declined significantly from their previous highs, and a new report warns that digital asset treasuries (DATs) may be forced to start selling their holdings by 2026. These companies, which hold large amounts of cryptocurrency on their balance sheets, are facing steep paper losses due to falling token prices. If the bear market persists, they may need to liquidate assets to meet debt obligations or margin calls. Additionally, the growing popularity of cryptocurrency ETFs is increasing competitive pressure on DATs. Both offer crypto exposure, but ETFs are seen as less risky than treasury companies, which often use debt financing. Refinancing risks and potential margin calls could force DATs to sell into a declining market, creating a negative feedback loop that drives prices even lower. Analysts caution that if the current slump continues, forced sales from DATs could amplify market weakness and have ripple effects across the entire crypto ecosystem in 2026.

As crypto prices slide sharply from last year’s highs, a new warning suggests that 2026 could bring additional pressure from an unexpected source: the companies that hold large amounts of digital assets on their balance sheets.

Bitcoin (BTC) is currently trading below $70,000, roughly 50% beneath the all-time high it reached last October. With forecasts predicting a renewed bear market, analysts at The Motley Fool argue that digital asset treasuries (DATs) may soon be compelled to sell part of their crypto holdings.

Mounting Pressure On Crypto Treasury Firms

According to their assessment, falling token prices have left many of these firms sitting on steep paper losses, with some now underwater. If the downturn persists, they may need to liquidate assets to meet debt obligations or respond to margin calls.

At the same time, investors could increasingly favor cryptocurrency exchange-traded funds (ETFs), adding another layer of competition and strain. The concern centers on how these treasury-focused companies financed their crypto strategies.

While all DATs hold significant digital assets, their funding structures differ. Some rely heavily on debt, while others issue equity; the method of capital raising will determine how well they can withstand a prolonged slump.

A key risk is refinancing. If credit conditions tighten or asset values continue to fall, companies may struggle to roll over debt. Leveraged positions could also trigger margin calls, potentially forcing them to sell into a declining market.

Such selling could push prices even lower, setting off a negative feedback loop across the broader crypto ecosystem. At the same time, the rapid growth of crypto ETFs is creating additional competition for digital asset treasuries.

The analysts highlight that both investment vehicles offer investors exposure to cryptocurrencies without requiring them to open accounts on exchanges or manage private keys. However, treasury companies carry more operational and financial risk than passively managed ETFs.

A Prolonged Bear Market Ahead?

While the long-term trajectory of digital assets remains uncertain, the analysts caution that 2026 could be a pivotal year for corporate crypto holders. If prices remain under pressure, forced sales from digital asset treasuries could amplify market weakness.

Such developments would not be isolated events; Motley Fool analysts assert that they could ripple across the entire ecosystem, affecting investors, related companies, and broader market sentiment.

For now, much depends on whether the current slump deepens into a prolonged bear market. Should that occur, the combination of debt burdens, refinancing risks, and intensifying ETF competition may place digital asset treasuries under significant strain — with consequences extending far beyond their own balance sheets.

The 1-D chart shows the total crypto market cap dropping toward $2.3 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Related Questions

QAccording to the report, why might digital asset treasuries (DATs) be forced to sell their crypto holdings in 2026?

AFalling token prices have left many DATs with steep paper losses, and if the downturn persists, they may need to liquidate assets to meet debt obligations or respond to margin calls.

QWhat is a key financial risk for crypto treasury companies that could force them to sell assets in a declining market?

AA key risk is refinancing. If credit conditions tighten or asset values continue to fall, companies may struggle to roll over debt. Leveraged positions could also trigger margin calls, forcing them to sell.

QHow are cryptocurrency ETFs creating additional pressure and competition for digital asset treasuries?

AETFs offer investors exposure to cryptocurrencies without the need to open exchange accounts or manage private keys. As they grow in popularity, they provide a less risky alternative to investing directly in treasury companies, which carry more operational and financial risk.

QWhat could be the broader market consequence of forced sales from digital asset treasuries?

AForced sales could push crypto prices even lower, setting off a negative feedback loop that ripples across the entire ecosystem, affecting investors, related companies, and broader market sentiment.

QWhat factors will determine how well a digital asset treasury can withstand a prolonged crypto market slump?

ATheir funding structure will determine their resilience. Companies that rely heavily on debt are more vulnerable, whereas those that issued equity may be better positioned to handle a prolonged downturn.

Related Reads

From Theft to Re-entry: How Was $292 Million "Laundered"?

A sophisticated crypto laundering operation was executed following the $292 million hack of Kelp DAO on April 18. The attack, attributed to the North Korean Lazarus group, began with anonymous infrastructure preparation using Tornado Cash to fund wallets untraceably. The hacker exploited a vulnerability in Kelp’s cross-chain bridge, stealing 116,500 rsETH. To avoid crashing the market, the attacker used Aave and Compound as laundering tools—depositing the stolen rsETH as collateral to borrow $190 million in clean, liquid ETH. This move triggered a bank run on Aave, causing an $8 billion drop in TVL. After consolidating funds, the attacker fragmented them across hundreds of wallets to evade detection. A major breakpoint was THORChain, where over $460 million in volume—30 times its usual activity—was processed in 24 hours, converting ETH into Bitcoin. This shift to Bitcoin’s UTXO model exponentially increased tracing complexity by shattering funds into countless untraceable fragments. The final destination was Tron-based USDT, the primary channel for illicit crypto flows. From there, funds were cashed out via OTC brokers in China and Southeast Asia, using unlicensed underground banks and UnionPay networks outside Western sanctions scope. Ultimately, the laundered money supports North Korea’s weapons programs, which rely heavily on crypto hacking for foreign currency. The incident underscores structural challenges in DeFi: its openness, composability, and lack of central control make such laundering not just possible, but inherently difficult to prevent.

marsbit8m ago

From Theft to Re-entry: How Was $292 Million "Laundered"?

marsbit8m ago

Google and Amazon Simultaneously Invest Heavily in a Competitor: The Most Absurd Business Logic of the AI Era Is Becoming Reality

In a span of four days, Amazon announced an additional $25 billion investment, and Google pledged up to $40 billion—both direct competitors pouring over $65 billion into the same AI startup, Anthropic. Rather than a typical venture capital move, this signals the latest escalation in the cloud wars. The core of the deal is not equity but compute pre-orders: Anthropic must spend the majority of these funds on AWS and Google Cloud services and chips, effectively locking in massive future compute consumption. This reflects a shift in cloud market dynamics—enterprises now choose cloud providers based on which hosts the best AI models, not just price or stability. With OpenAI deeply tied to Microsoft, Anthropic’s Claude has become the only viable strategic asset for Google and Amazon to remain competitive. Anthropic’s annualized revenue has surged to $30 billion, and it is expanding into verticals like biotech, positioning itself as a cross-industry AI infrastructure layer. However, this funding comes with constraints: Anthropic’s independence is challenged as it balances two rival investors, its safety-first narrative faces pressure from regulatory scrutiny, and its path to IPO introduces new financial pressures. Globally, this accelerates a "tri-polar" closed-loop structure in AI infrastructure, with Microsoft-OpenAI, Google-Anthropic, and Amazon-Anthropic forming exclusive model-cloud alliances. In contrast, China’s landscape differs—investments like Alibaba and Tencent backing open-source model firm DeepSeek reflect a more decoupled approach, though closed-source models from major cloud providers still dominate. The $65 billion bet is ultimately about securing a seat at the table in an AI-defined future—where missing the model layer means losing the cloud war.

marsbit6h ago

Google and Amazon Simultaneously Invest Heavily in a Competitor: The Most Absurd Business Logic of the AI Era Is Becoming Reality

marsbit6h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片