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

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-02-17Última atualização em 2026-02-17

Resumo

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

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

a16z: From Companies to DAOs, DUNA May Become the Next Generation Organizational Form

This article, "From Companies to DAOs: How DUNA Could Become the Next Organizational Form," traces the 500-year evolution of business collaboration. It begins with medieval structures like the *commenda* and Florentine *compagnia*, which exposed partners to personal risk. The modern corporation, exemplified by the Dutch East India Company (VOC), was a revolutionary leap, enabling large-scale, capital-intensive ventures by offering limited liability and reducing coordination costs. However, corporations introduced new challenges like principal-agent problems and bureaucratic overhead. The piece argues that software and internet-native protocols are now reducing these traditional overheads. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) emerged as a new model for coordination without centralized management. Yet, DAOs face a significant legal vacuum: they lack legal recognition, leaving members exposed to unlimited personal liability, and their tokens are vulnerable to being classified as securities under unclear regulations (e.g., the Howey Test). This has forced projects into suboptimal workarounds like offshore foundations. The article identifies the Decentralized Unincorporated Nonprofit Association (DUNA) as a potential solution. Recently legalized in states like Wyoming, the DUNA provides a legal wrapper for decentralized networks. It grants key protections—legal personality, limited liability, and perpetual existence—to a group without imposing a traditional hierarchical management structure. This allows token-holder communities to govern, hold assets, and contract as a single legal entity, aligning with their decentralized nature. While DUNA doesn't solve all governance challenges or magically resolve securities law questions, it represents a crucial step. It fills the legal recognition gap, offering a native legal form for internet-scale, decentralized collaboration and extending the separation of personal risk from organizational venture into a new domain.

marsbitMesmo agora

a16z: From Companies to DAOs, DUNA May Become the Next Generation Organizational Form

marsbitMesmo agora

2026 Mid-Year Report On-Chain RWA: Tokenized Stock Market Cap Doubles in a Year, But 90% of Rights Are Hollow Shells

The 2026 Mid-Year Report on On-Chain RWA highlights a significant growth in tokenized stock market capitalization, which nearly doubled from $951 million in March to $1.89 billion by July. However, the report reveals a fundamental contradiction in this "layer 2.5" ecosystem: products with the strongest legal foundation (like regulated U.S. infrastructure) lack liquidity and distribution, while freely tradable offshored wrapper products often lack substantive ownership rights. The increase is driven largely by a few products (SECZ, FGRS, STRCx) and platforms (Ondo, xStocks, Securitize collectively hold over 85% share). While distributed value across networks like Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain has grown, the market remains fragmented. Products referencing the same underlying asset (e.g., Apple stock) are distinct legal liabilities with different intermediaries and jurisdictional rules, offering varying degrees of legal claim. The report cautions that headline numbers are misleading, as they reflect changes in distributed token value—driven by issuance, conversions, and price movements—not pure investor inflows. True "canonical shares" with legal ownership, wide wallet distribution, institutional liquidity, and independent on-chain price discovery do not yet exist at scale. Tokenized treasuries show stronger product-market fit, and ETFs may be easier to scale than single stocks. The core takeaway is a trade-off: legal certainty versus liquidity and composability.

marsbitHá 49m

2026 Mid-Year Report On-Chain RWA: Tokenized Stock Market Cap Doubles in a Year, But 90% of Rights Are Hollow Shells

marsbitHá 49m

Coldcard Hardware Wallet Hacked: 594 Bitcoin Withdrawn in 25 Minutes

The Coldcard hardware wallet has been compromised, with hackers stealing approximately 594.5 Bitcoin (~$40 million) from 500 addresses in just 25 minutes. The root cause was a critical software bug, undetected for five years, which disabled the device's secure chip for generating true random numbers. This led to the creation of private keys based on predictable data like the processor's serial number, drastically reducing cryptographic security. The attackers exploited this offline by brute-forcing possible seed phrases, finding active addresses on the public ledger, and signing transactions. Initially, Coinkite (Coldcard's maker) claimed only older models were at risk but later admitted all devices running the compromised firmware were vulnerable. CEO Rodolphe Novak (NVK) apologized but ruled out financial compensation for affected users. To secure funds, owners must urgently update their firmware to specific safe versions, generate a completely new seed phrase on the updated device, and transfer all assets to new addresses created with that new seed. While a BIP-39 passphrase can help, it does not replace this migration process. Other Coinkite products like TAPSIGNER were not affected. This incident underscores that even specialized hardware requires rigorous, independent code audits, especially for cryptographic functions. It parallels past failures, like a 2006 OpenSSL bug in Debian, and raises questions about whether automated code analysis can ever fully replace human scrutiny in critical security areas.

cryptonews.ruHá 3h

Coldcard Hardware Wallet Hacked: 594 Bitcoin Withdrawn in 25 Minutes

cryptonews.ruHá 3h

Trading

Spot
活动图片