Beyond FOMO: Emerging Trends and New Landscape Behind Solana's Treasury Movement
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Beyond FOMO: Emerging Trends and New Landscape Behind Solana's Treasury Movement
Listed companies are flocking to add SOL to their balance sheets—Is this a new treasury trend or another round of FOMO?
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsCompilation: Scof, ChainCatcher
As more and more publicly traded companies add SOL to their balance sheets, this is no longer an isolated phenomenon—it may signal the emergence of a new treasury model. Enterprises are no longer merely observing the crypto market; they are beginning to experiment with SOL as a sustainable asset allocation tool.
In this Space, we invited Margie, Head of Asia Markets at Solayer; Richard Liu, Co-founder of Huma Finance; Darcy, Head of Investor Relations at SonicSVM; and Ru7, CMO of SOON, to explore this potentially emerging "SOL micro-strategy" trend:
After Bitcoin, can SOL become the next anchor for corporate treasuries? Will continuous buying alter SOL's price dynamics? How will institutional players reshape DeFi and staking yield models? If a public company can generate cash flow by staking SOL, might more firms follow suit and treat SOL as a "productive asset"?
Is this a real trend, or just another FOMO cycle?
For details, see X: https://x.com/i/spaces/1jMJgkYVRDjJL
Question 1: As more public companies incorporate SOL into their treasuries, could this disrupt current market structures? How might this "treasury adoption" trend reshape industry perceptions and expectations of SOL?
Richard: I believe this reflects growing recognition of Solana. Years ago, after the FTX incident, Solana faced immense pressure, but it survived and developed strong ecosystem cohesion. Today, Solana is rapidly advancing across multiple sectors—projects like Ribbon migrating is proof of that.
At its core, this is positive market feedback on Solana’s resilience and potential.
In contrast, BTC has long-term holders like MicroStrategy influencing its price trajectory. But I don’t think Solana will replicate that path. Instead, through its application expansion capability, Solana is likely to forge a broader route.
Particularly important is the staking mechanism—its yield and utility make holding SOL in corporate treasuries a rational and attractive trend. This won't happen overnight, but will evolve gradually, much like Ethereum did as infrastructure matured. BTC as digital gold is firmly established—but in the smart contract platform race, the winner is no longer so certain. Three years ago, most believed EVM was the only option; now, many see Solana as a serious contender.
Combined with technical strength and staking yield, I believe allocating capital to Solana will become an increasingly common choice among enterprises.
Darcy: Treasury adoption is just one facet of Solana—it doesn’t need to follow Bitcoin’s “digital gold” path. Bitcoin is largely seen as a store of value, while Solana is a public chain network with deep application value.
A new mindset is emerging in the market: whether institutions hold a chain is becoming a benchmark for its maturity. Just as we once used ETF inflows to gauge investment trends and price movements for BTC or ETH, investors may soon use “institutional holdings of SOL” as a key indicator of its prospects. From a corporate perspective, the treasury adoption trend could gradually reshape existing market structures.
I can sense Solana’s team is actively and systematically pushing in this direction. On-chain data also shows a shift: previously, about 80% of on-chain activity came from retail users or airdrop participants; today, that figure has dropped to 50–60%. This indicates increasing participation from larger players.
I believe this isn’t just a Solana-specific trend, but a broader shift in the crypto market—crypto is increasingly becoming an “institutional playground.”
Margie: Let me add a supply-demand perspective. Solana has a fixed total supply, and currently around 65% of tokens are staked, meaning circulating supply is relatively low. If more public companies buy and hold SOL long-term, it further reduces available float. In such a context, rising demand could trigger short-term supply-demand imbalances, driving up prices.
However, what truly matters isn’t just who’s buying, but why. If companies are making strategic, long-term decisions to include Solana in their treasuries, it signals clear confidence in Solana’s future.
This deserves sustained attention. We should observe longer to see if these actions are sustainable and whether they form a structural trend.
Ru7: Having worked in traditional finance, I’m particularly attentive to what treasury adoption means for Solana.
I believe treasury adoption itself is a major endorsement of Solana. If the market gradually shifts from retail dominance to institutional long-term holding, Solana will become more stable with significantly reduced volatility. Corporate investors typically operate on longer cycles, adjusting perhaps quarterly or even less frequently, unlike retail traders.
Additionally, institutional participation improves Solana’s liquidity. Many Web2 users will indirectly invest via platforms like Robinhood, wealth managers, or major asset managers such as Wellington or BlackRock. This could steadily increase Solana’s weight in “alternative asset” portfolios, eventually reaching a status similar to BTC.
As Solana enters more portfolios, it may grow into a strategic enterprise-grade asset. Long-term, it could even be compared to gold and Bitcoin in certain functions.
Institutional holdings aren’t just about capital inflow—they’re an ecosystem endorsement. They strengthen developer and long-term investor confidence, and could attract more traditional financial capital into the Solana ecosystem.
Question 2: Compared to Bitcoin, what unique advantages and risks does Solana offer as a corporate treasury asset? Why would companies choose it?
Richard: Let me share a possibly radical view: I’ve never believed Bitcoin would be the most central or vibrant asset in crypto. While Bitcoin is called “digital gold,” in reality, gold’s functionality and influence pale in comparison to internet infrastructure.
Bitcoin lacks infrastructure attributes. In contrast, public chains like EVM or Solana have the capacity to build vast ecosystems and support rich, real-world applications. I firmly believe that chains capable of hosting and fostering application ecosystems will outlive Bitcoin in longevity.
This is Solana’s first advantage: it has massive long-term market potential, possibly exceeding Bitcoin’s.
The second advantage: Solana is a yield-generating asset. Bitcoin itself doesn’t produce direct returns, whereas Solana generates consistent on-chain yields through staking, DeFi, payments, and other applications.
Solana’s DeFi is still developing but progressing rapidly. If we find Solana better suited than EVM for certain functions, its earning power will grow further. This creates a fundamental difference: Bitcoin relies on “faith,” while Solana’s sustainability stems from internal value creation within its ecosystem.
Of course, Solana faces clear risks: smaller scale and lower ecosystem maturity. So companies choosing to adopt Solana in their treasuries are likely those willing to take calculated risks to pursue differentiated strategies.
Especially before SOL ETFs are approved, early movers can leverage this for brand differentiation. This not only benefits them but may encourage others to follow.
Yet for a scalable trend to form, time is needed—alongside continued efforts by Solana in branding and promoting key projects.
Ru7: I see Bitcoin as analogous to gold—a store of value—while Solana resembles Tesla or Nvidia: a high-growth tech company with strong technology and diverse ecosystems. Solana already has DeFi, NFTs, Web3 applications forming a complete business loop, plus clear business models and growth potential.
From a traditional investment lens, investing in Solana is like early-stage Tesla—valuing its long-term market space and strategic importance. Of course, high volatility poses challenges for traditional treasury management. Also, Solana heavily depends on developer activity, which directly affects price performance.
Still, I remain bullish on Solana’s long-term potential. It has the qualities to become a major asset in crypto markets.
Darcy: Solana and Bitcoin serve fundamentally different roles. Bitcoin is primarily a store of value, while Solana offers stakability and yield generation, currently yielding 6% to 8% annually—adding a layer of holding value beyond mere price appreciation. Moreover, Solana resembles an internet company with a diversified ecosystem including DeFi, NFTs, and Web3 apps, giving it platform-level commercial attributes. By analogy, Bitcoin is like gold, while Solana is more akin to Tesla or the Android operating system.
As more enterprises and financial institutions participate in staking, Solana’s staking yield could evolve into an “on-chain base rate.” This wouldn’t just attract institutional holdings but enable structured products like leveraged staking positions, fixed-income instruments, or on-chain “convertible bonds.” Solana’s asset logic would thus become more robust, shifting from speculative asset to foundational financial instrument.
Beyond that, Solana carries a more practical narrative: making Web3 affordable and accessible to everyone. This goal feels closer to developers’ and entrepreneurs’ real needs than Bitcoin’s “trustless money,” and is more conducive to mass adoption. I believe it’s precisely this combination of technical usability and yield structure that gives Solana unique advantages in corporate treasury scenarios.
Question 3: Upexi recently announced allocating 95% of its funding to Solana treasury development. Is Upexi an outlier or the beginning? Will more companies follow, integrating SOL into their financial systems and triggering sustained institutional inflows? Do you foresee a “SOL patriarch”-like public company emerging—similar to MicroStrategy for Bitcoin—that plays a long-term pricing role? Could such a role exist in the SOL market?
Darcy: We focus on Solana’s medium-to-long-term trajectory. The path may not be perfectly clear, but the direction is. Short-term speculation exists, but I don’t see it as negative. On the contrary, it builds attention and trust capital, accelerating Solana’s institutionalization and attracting more applications and financial players.
Upexi’s move to allocate funding to Solana mirrors MicroStrategy’s early Bitcoin purchases—drawing market attention and potentially inspiring copycats. Though accompanied by speculation risk, the “institutional entry” signal remains significant. It aligns short-term actions with long-term goals, potentially converging into a systemic institutional trend.
Ru7: I believe it’s very possible a “Solana patriarch” company or figure will emerge, just as MicroStrategy did for Bitcoin. Their buying behavior could become an anchor of market confidence, reinforcing Solana’s long-term value perception.
In today’s macro uncertainty, the market craves such tangible signals. This role may not belong to a single entity, but rather a coalition of asset managers, hedge funds, and institutions. Once they begin consistently buying Solana, they could assume a “pricing center” function, shaping market sentiment and strategy—just as happened in Bitcoin’s evolution.
As mainstream acceptance grows, Solana could become the third widely recognized asset after BTC and ETH. With just one institution or investor stepping forward, this process could unfold within this cycle, elevating the crypto industry to a higher stage of institutionalization.
Margie: Before Upexi, projects like SolStrategy had already made deep moves in Solana. But Upexi stands out—it’s practically “All in Solana,” which is extremely aggressive and pioneering. On the day Upexi announced its Solana purchase, its stock surged from $2 to $22, later correcting but drawing enormous market attention.
Whether Upexi inspires broader imitation hinges on whether it sustains deep engagement with the Solana ecosystem. If Upexi goes beyond balance sheet entries and actively participates in ecosystem building—achieving real-world application and impact—its action becomes more than a one-off investment; it could set a template for corporate treasury strategy.
On the possibility of a MicroStrategy-like “Solana patriarch” public company: this topic fascinates me. Recall MicroStrategy’s path: starting in 2020, they converted most cash reserves into Bitcoin, completing over 25 Bitcoin investments in three years. This wasn’t a one-time act but reflected a clear, long-term asset allocation strategy. They also built financial derivatives and tech initiatives around Bitcoin, becoming part of its narrative.
In the Solana space, no company yet matches MicroStrategy’s sustained capital and narrative influence. Despite Upexi’s bold move, I see it as still early-stage—unable to play the “pricing center” role.
Still, such a role could emerge in Solana’s market. The key lies in whether a company or individual establishes a clear long-term strategy—not just a one-time treasury allocation. If such a firm arises, it could profoundly shape Solana’s pricing logic, market sentiment, and even mainstream media narratives.
Richard: Personally, I believe Bitcoin genuinely needs a “patriarch”-like figure because its narrative is built on faith. But if Solana requires such a figure to thrive, I’d consider that a failure.
Why? Because Solana is a functional infrastructure—the value should come from its ecosystem. Relying on a “patriarch” suggests Solana’s own ecosystem and value creation are insufficient. To me, Solana’s church should be its ecosystem: the Solana Foundation and developer community.
Like in Web2, where tech companies built powerful platforms without relying solely on financial capital. Financial capital can participate and support, but innovation and leadership must come from the platform itself. Whether Android or Tesla, it’s always been this way. Solana should be no different. Its “church” must emerge from within the ecosystem, not be defined or propped up by an external company or investor.
Question 4: If more institutions hold SOL in treasuries and stake, will DeFi’s yield model be reshaped? Will institutional participation bring stability, or dilute existing users’ yield opportunities?
Richard: I feel this deeply. Before bringing in institutional investors, our project’s asset management was relatively simple. But once assets entered an SPV and faced Wall Street-backed investors, every process had to be highly standardized—financial structures, fund allocation, risk metrics all clearly defined. This intense scrutiny caused short-term pain but dramatically improved our operational standards and transparency.
I believe Solana’s ecosystem will undergo a similar transformation. Institutional entry will raise overall thresholds—projects without real yields or fundamentals will be marginalized, while high-quality projects with real business models gain prominence. This filtering process is healthy. Though there will be an adjustment period, it’s ultimately beneficial for the ecosystem long-term.
I don’t expect institutions to immediately change Solana’s market landscape, but they will gradually push Solana away from meme coin narratives toward roles in payments and financial infrastructure. This is an irreversible trend, though it requires time to mature.
Darcy: I also see this as inevitable. Solana will surely aim for a more institutional, premium image. From a DeFi participant’s view, institutional involvement will alter yield models.
First, as institutions add SOL to treasuries, overall ecosystem security and stability improve—but APYs will likely decline, with reduced yield volatility. Meanwhile, to seek higher returns and liquidity, both institutions and users may increasingly adopt LST (liquid staking) protocols like JitoSOL, mSOL, bSOL—accelerating integration between DeFi and staking systems.
On the other hand, institutional entry will indeed dilute some existing users’ yields. Institutional capital operates on longer cycles and lower trading frequency, improving network soundness but compressing short-term gains for retail users. However, the ecosystem will gradually diversify: retail users can opt for high-risk, high-return meme coins or complex products, while conservative users stick to staking for steady returns.
As stability improves, Solana and crypto broadly will be seen more as reliable asset allocations—not just speculative tools. This evolution is inevitable.
Ru7: In fact, Solana’s ecosystem inherently possesses strong self-sustaining capabilities. Even if more institutions hold and stake SOL in the future—leading to higher staking rates and lower individual yields—Solana’s diversity and product innovation will spawn new structured yield products, continuously evolving the yield model rather than simply diluting user returns.
Solana is developer-driven—new protocols and financial products emerge constantly, enriching yield models and expanding user choices. Long-term institutional capital not only stabilizes liquidity pools but brings economies of scale, attracting more participants and creating a virtuous cycle.
This shift resembles traditional finance—where credit bonds, ETFs, and other layered products allow investors to choose based on risk appetite. Similarly, Solana’s ecosystem could offer tiered yield products: high-yield options akin to corporate bonds, or low-risk ones like Treasuries. As the ecosystem matures, users won’t be diluted—they’ll gain more choices and better asset allocation experiences.
Solana doesn’t need a “patriarch” to sustain it. Its ecosystem and technological innovation are its greatest value. Like Tesla, people don’t follow just because of Musk—they believe in the mission to send humans to Mars. Solana’s future lies in its own ecosystem potential and vision, not in endorsements from any single company or institution.
Question 5: Currently, SOL lacks Bitcoin’s scarcity and “faith-based” holder structure, posing a challenge for long-term corporate treasury strategies. How can we inspire holders to hold or even accumulate SOL long-term? What can build sufficient confidence and consensus?
Richard: My stance is that Solana’s ecosystem itself is the strongest foundation. Long-term holders will likely emerge from within the Solana ecosystem—especially leading projects like Jupiter, Helios. Platforms like Huma, if they reach similar scale, will also become staunch supporters. These projects possess strong vitality and resources, and due to their reliance on Solana, will continue to bolster SOL.
I believe the true drivers of Solana’s long-term growth won’t be external financial groups, but internal ecosystem projects. They bring not just capital, but holistic ecosystem engagement and development—delivering far greater value amplification than pure financial investment.
Returning to the fundamental difference: Bitcoin relies on faith as digital gold, while Solana is a network, an infrastructure. Its core value lies in builders and developers within the ecosystem. When we see projects like Jupiter continually reinforcing Solana, the ecosystem’s strength naturally grows stronger.
Darcy: I fully agree with Richard. Solana doesn’t need a religious-leader figure. Faith is needed to sustain value only when a project lacks real applications. Once it enters everyday life—powering gaming, payments, DePIN, or Visa-like transaction experiences—faith becomes unnecessary. Real use cases and application logic are the best value anchors.
I’ve said before: Solana is like Web3’s Android—a pragmatic, inclusive, deployable vision. Through code, it enables more people to afford and use Web3. These are tangible applications users can directly experience.
Therefore, I believe Solana’s path should be about popularizing Web3, not preaching Web3 religion or elitism. Its momentum comes from applications, not faith.
Ru7: I recognize traditional finance and crypto investing stem from different mindsets. In crypto, many investments are driven by culture and belief. Solana, however, resembles a tech company with real applications and profitability—more like Apple than just Tesla. Solana boasts a rich app ecosystem spanning DeFi, payments, NFTs, DApps—much like Apple’s ecosystem of phones, computers, watches, and App Store.
From an investment standpoint, Solana has a strong developer base and continuous innovation—solid fundamentals. For traditional institutions, this is exactly the type of asset they want to allocate to, focusing on 5–10 year return horizons. Solana’s growth potential clearly fits this logic.
I hope to see more institutions like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, or BlackRock include Solana in core portfolios, even as ETF components, drawing broader user and capital attention. When this happens, Solana could become a household name like Apple—forming a genuine faith layer. This faith won’t be empty cultural narrative, but consensus built on widespread adoption and usage frequency.
Especially in payments, Solana already enables crypto purchases of real goods. In the future, it could help underbanked nations improve payment efficiency. I believe such real-world applications will steadily strengthen market confidence and long-term holding incentives.
Margie: From a market perspective, to inspire more people to hold or accumulate Solana long-term, we first need a clear, enduring narrative—such as emphasizing Solana as the world’s fastest blockchain, with ultra-low latency and technical superiority. This narrative must be consistently reinforced to create market memory, just as we repeatedly highlight Infinite SVM’s million-TPS capability.
Second, Solana’s ecosystem is already strong. We need top projects and founders within the ecosystem to speak up consistently, actively building confidence. If the market links these flagship projects with Solana’s long-term value, trust will form more easily, encouraging users to hold Solana for the long term.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
ChainCatcher 链捕手
