加密大暴跌后,DAT 公司们的股票还好吗?

深潮Publicado em 2025-10-12Última atualização em 2025-10-13

当一种商业模式本身就受到质疑时,便宜未必是买入的理由。

10日下午,特朗普总统在Truth Social上宣布对中国商品征收100%关税。这个消息瞬间引爆了全球金融市场的恐慌情绪。

随后的24小时内,加密货币市场经历了历史上最大规模的清算事件,超过190亿美元的杠杆头寸被强制平仓。比特币从117,000美元急速下挫,一度跌破102,000美元,当日跌幅超过12%。

美股市场同样难逃厄运。10月10日收盘时,标普500指数下跌2.71%,道琼斯工业平均指数下跌878点,纳斯达克综合指数下跌3.58%,均创下4月以来最大单日跌幅。

然而,真正的重灾区,是那些将加密资产作为财库储备的 DAT(Digital Asset Treasury)公司。

MicroStrategy 作为最大的企业比特币持有者,其股价同样未能幸免;其他的加密资产储备公司,跳水情况更加明显。根据盘后交易数据,投资者还在持续抛售。

对于这些同时暴露在加密市场和股票市场双重风险下的公司来说,最坏的时刻已经过去了么?

为什么DAT公司跌得更狠?

DAT公司首先要面对的是资产负债表的直接冲击。以MicroStrategy为例,该公司持有约639,835枚比特币,当比特币价格下跌12%,意味着其资产价值瞬间蒸发近100亿美元。

这种损失在会计准则下必须计入“未实现损失”。虽然只要不卖出就不是真正的亏损,但财报上的数字却是实实在在的。

作为投资者,你看到的是一家公司的核心资产在快速贬值。这里面还有关于市场信心的乘数效应。

2025年初,MicroStrategy股票的净资产价值(NAV)溢价曾高达2倍,但到9月底已经压缩到1.44倍;目前差不多在1.2左右。

其他的一些公司,mNAV几乎都在朝着1回归,有些已经跌到了1以下。这些数字的变化反映了一个残酷的现实,市场对 DAT 模式的信心,在极端行情中正在动摇。

在牛市中,投资者愿意给予这些公司溢价,叙事可以是加密创新的先锋。但当市场转向时,同样的故事变成了不必要的风险敞口。

非比特币一类的加密货币,在这轮杠杆导致的大暴跌中遭受了巨大的技术性损害,有的甚至瞬间砸到归零;即使是大市值的山寨币,也因为流动性不足出现腰斩甚至更多跌幅。

而持有这些资产的公司股票,成为了市场情绪恶化的首选做空标的。

当市场恐慌时,投资者需要快速减仓。比特币市场虽然是24/7交易,但大额卖出会严重影响价格。相比之下,在纳斯达克卖出MSTR或COIN这样的股票要容易得多。

卖出价值数百亿美元的黄金不会扰乱市场,但卖出700亿美元的比特币可能会导致价格崩溃并引发大规模清算;这种流动性差异让DAT公司的股票成为了资金快速撤离的通道。

更糟糕的是,许多机构投资者有严格的风控红线。当波动率超过某个阈值时,他们必须减仓,不管愿不愿意。而DAT公司恰恰是波动率最高的标的之一。

说个不恰当的比喻,如果普通科技公司是坐在一条船上,那么DAT公司就像是把两条船绑在了一起,一条在股市的波涛中航行,一条在加密市场的风暴中挣扎。

当两边同时遭遇恶劣天气时,它们承受的冲击不是相加,而是相乘。

谁最惨,谁最抗跌?

翻看前一个交易日的DAT公司跌幅榜单,你能明显发现的规律是,越小的公司,跌得越狠。

Forward Industries跌了15.32%,它的mNAV只有0.053。BTCS Inc.跌了12.70%,Helius Medical Tech跌了12.91%。

这些市值不到1亿美元的小公司,在恐慌中几乎找不到买家。相比之下,MicroStrategy虽然是最大的比特币持有者,跌幅却只有4.84%。

这背后的逻辑很简单:流动性。

当恐慌来临时,小盘股的买卖价差会急剧扩大,一个稍大的卖单就能把股价砸穿。

这份榜单中,Tesla 显得格格不入。它跌了5.06%,几乎是最小的跌幅,但如果算数据,它的mNAV高达985.96。这个数字意味着,市场给Tesla的估值是其持币价值的近1000倍。

因为 Tesla 本质上不是DAT公司,囤币只是副业。投资者买Tesla是看好电动车相关业务,比特币涨跌对其估值影响微乎其微;同样的道理也适用于Coinbase,它跌了7.75%,但作为交易所,它有实实在在的手续费收入。

反观那些纯粹的DAT公司,情况就完全不同了。

MicroStrategy的mNAV只有1.28倍,几乎是按照持币价值在交易。Galaxy Digital的mNAV是5.49倍,MARA Holdings是1.29倍。市场给这些公司的估值,基本就是其加密资产价值加上一点点溢价。当加密市场崩盘时,它们没有其他业务可以缓冲。

当一家公司的市值几乎等于其持有的加密资产价值时(mNAV接近1),这意味着市场认为这家公司除了囤币之外,没有任何附加价值。

Bitmine的mNAV是0.98,American Bitcoin没有披露但估计也很低。这些公司实际上已经变成了披着上市公司外衣的比特币ETF。

问题是,既然现在有真正的比特币ETF可以买,投资者为什么还要通过这些公司来间接持有?

这可能解释了为什么在恐慌中,这些低mNAV的公司跌幅反而更大。它们既承担了加密资产的风险,又承担了股票市场的风险,却没有提供任何额外价值。

再过几个小时美股就要开盘。经过周末的冷静期,市场情绪是否会好转?那些跌幅超过10%的小型DAT公司,会继续被抛售还是会有抄底资金进场?

从数据来看,mNAV低于1的公司可能存在超跌的机会,但也可能是价值陷阱。毕竟,当一种商业模式本身就受到质疑时,便宜未必是买入的理由。

Leituras Relacionadas

Making AI Products Is No Longer the Hard Part; Being Seen Is: Developers, Web3, and Chinese AI Opportunities at mu Shanghai

The article discusses the shifting challenges of AI entrepreneurship, based on insights from the mu Shanghai AI WEEK event in May 2026. As AI tools drastically lower the barrier to creating product prototypes, the core difficulty for startups has moved from "how to build" to "who to build for"—finding real users, sustainable business models, and community engagement. The event itself was structured as an extended, immersive developer community space rather than a traditional conference, attracting a global mix of participants (40% AI, 20-30% Web3). This format emphasized deep networking and collaborative creation over one-way presentations. A key observation is that with powerful models and coding assistants becoming ubiquitous, execution is less of a moat. The new scarce resource is judgment—identifying valuable, defensible scenarios where an application won't be quickly rendered obsolete by the next model update. This pushes competition downstream to distribution, user acquisition, and commercialization. Notably, many Web3 practitioners are migrating into AI, bringing with them expertise in community building, global collaboration, and grassroots marketing—skills highly relevant as AI apps fight for visibility. Meanwhile, opportunities in AI hardware, robotics, and embodied intelligence are seen as more durable, leveraging China's robust manufacturing and supply chain ecosystem as a key advantage. The article notes that major Chinese model companies (like MiniMax) are now actively competing for developer mindshare through community programs, hackathons, and improved tooling, recognizing developers as core users. Ultimately, the conclusion is that while AI simplifies building, the harder part of the journey is ensuring a product is truly needed, understood, and retained by its users.

marsbitHá 2m

Making AI Products Is No Longer the Hard Part; Being Seen Is: Developers, Web3, and Chinese AI Opportunities at mu Shanghai

marsbitHá 2m

Why is the RWA Boom Failing to Benefit DeFi?

The rapid growth of the tokenized real-world assets (RWA) market, now nearing $30 billion on-chain, has largely bypassed the DeFi ecosystem. Only about $2.47 billion is actively locked in DeFi protocols, indicating a penetration rate of just 9%. A major barrier is the "permissioned" architecture of most RWA products, like BlackRock's BUIDL fund, which are designed for institutional compliance. They require whitelisting, off-chain settlement, and strict investor accreditation, making them incompatible with open, permissionless DeFi applications like Aave or Uniswap. This is evident in categories like bonds/money market funds ($16.6B on-chain, $920M in DeFi) and tokenized equities ($2.7B on-chain, $78M in DeFi). Notable exceptions are private credit protocols (e.g., Maple Finance, Centrifuge) and assets like Ondo's USDY, which were designed from inception for DeFi composability, allowing them to be used freely as collateral. Morpho and Aave Horizon also demonstrate successful RWA lending integrations. However, industry reports (IOSCO, ECB) warn that growth may remain confined within traditional financial systems due to fragmented regulations, lack of unified standards, and inherent conflicts between DeFi's open logic and compliance requirements like minimum investments and fixed redemption windows. The RWA sector is effectively split into two markets: a compliant, permissioned on-chain finance market and a smaller DeFi-native market focused on composability. For DeFi penetration to rise significantly, asset issuers must prioritize designs that enable permissionless circulation from the start, moving away from models centered solely on institutional compliance.

marsbitHá 22m

Why is the RWA Boom Failing to Benefit DeFi?

marsbitHá 22m

Clarity Act Outlook: No Yield, No Payment

"Clear Act Outlook: No Yield, No Payment" analyzes the evolving U.S. regulatory landscape for stablecoins, focusing on the interplay between the proposed "Clarity Act" and the existing "Genius Act." The article argues that the Genius Act successfully fostered "payment stablecoins" by permitting tokenized assets like U.S. Treasuries as reserves. This created a structured market where stablecoin issuers (like USDC) must hold these reserves, often purchased as Tokenized Money Market Funds (TMMFs) from giants like BlackRock. These TMMFs are primarily B2B products, ensuring user-facing stablecoins remain non-interest-bearing and used primarily for payments. The upcoming Clarity Act is seen as the next phase, aiming to restrict passive yield on stablecoins. Its goal is to dismantle the arbitrage advantage of offshore stablecoins like USDT by redirecting Treasury demand towards compliant, U.S.-sanctioned TMMFs. For on-chain and compliant offshore dollars, this creates new pressure: they must spur adoption and utility to generate yield, as simple Treasury staking may be restricted. This indirectly promotes dollar circulation and sustained Treasury purchases. Ultimately, the analysis posits that U.S. regulation seeks to create a new dollar distribution model. By separating payment function from yield generation and anchoring both to U.S. debt instruments, it aims to embed the dollar and Treasury demand into the global crypto economy, managing yields through sanctioned intermediaries while leaving room for DeFi and cross-border arbitrage.

marsbitHá 51m

Clarity Act Outlook: No Yield, No Payment

marsbitHá 51m

Money Has Gone to Bonds and IPOs, Leaving Only HYPE Rising in Crypto

The article "Where Has All the Money Gone? Bonds and IPOs Are Soaring, While Crypto Only Sees HYPE Rising" analyzes the recent underperformance of major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum compared to traditional financial markets. It identifies three primary factors diverting capital away from crypto: First, surging bond yields, with the 30-year U.S. Treasury hitting a near 20-year high of 5.12%, are attracting capital seeking safe, predictable returns. This is evidenced by Bitcoin spot ETFs experiencing a significant $10.39 billion net outflow in mid-May. Second, a massive $4 trillion IPO pipeline, highlighted by SpaceX's upcoming listing, is absorbing risk capital that might otherwise flow into crypto. Platforms like Hyperliquid are even channeling on-chain crypto liquidity into pre-IPO trading for traditional stocks. Third, uncertainty surrounds new Federal Reserve Chair Warsh's ability to deliver expected interest rate cuts this year due to conflicting political pressures and stubborn inflation expectations, potentially eliminating a hoped-for source of new market liquidity. Consequently, while traditional equities and bonds rally, the crypto market's post-leverage crash recovery is stalled. The notable exception is assets like Hyperliquid (HYPE), which is rising due to its role in facilitating traditional asset trading, underscoring a market divergence where only crypto projects with novel, cross-market narratives are gaining. The article concludes that Bitcoin's next major catalyst may be the August enactment of the CLARITY Act, but warns of a potential retest of the $70,000 support level before then.

marsbitHá 1h

Money Has Gone to Bonds and IPOs, Leaving Only HYPE Rising in Crypto

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片