Opinion: Crypto treasuries are a step backward in history
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Opinion: Crypto treasuries are a step backward in history
DATs reflect Wall Street's genetic tendency as financial harvesters—skilled at complicating and repackaging simple issues, ultimately executing "dimensional reduction strikes."
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Haotian
While everyone celebrates Wall Street's "financial alchemy" DAT model, has anyone ever thought: are DATs actually moving backward against the tide of history? Below are some views:
First, a quick primer on what DAT, PS, PE, PN... mean:
DAT: (Digital Asset Treasury), simply put, involves issuing shares to investors to raise funds, then using those funds to purchase crypto assets (BTC, ETH, etc.), forming a reserve treasury. Ideally, this creates a positive flywheel effect of issuing shares → buying crypto → issuing more shares and buying more crypto.
Other concepts won't be elaborated here—from traditional finance metrics like PE (Price-to-Earnings, how much you pay for each 1 yuan of profit, classic value investing), PS (Price-to-Sales, how much you pay for each 1 yuan of revenue, sometimes called "dream multiple"), to my made-up PN (Price-to-Narrative, how much you pay for a story—pure speculation)...
Below are detailed points—similar or shocking ones are for reference only:
1) DATs are not "financial innovation," but rather more like Wall Street creating a "regulatory arbitrage" channel to bypass crypto regulations.
However, since Paul Atkins-led Project Crypto and stablecoin bills like GENIUS and CLARITY have taken shape, this aggressive wave of DAT enthusiasm—while appearing on the surface to be a trend of U.S. stock shell companies imitating MicroStrategy’s success—is, in my view, merely a final狂欢 before unofficial compliant channels shrink. Thus, the FOMO around DATs is bound to gradually lose its magic under dual pressure from their own bursting bubbles and government regulatory crackdowns;
2) The "financial alchemy" of DATs may seem magical, but it's actually a classic reflexivity trap.
The logic is clear to many: MicroStrategy’s flywheel of “issuing shares → buying crypto → rising crypto prices → rising stock prices → issuing more shares” looks great—and indeed works well—but when copied by followers, the amplification effect also magnifies the flaws of such reflexive systems: while gains can be amplified during positive cycles, once reversed, it leads to a spiraling collapse.
Especially when mNAV (market net asset value) premium disappears or turns into a discount, the entire model instantly fails—no more share issuance, no more crypto buying, and potentially forced selling;
3) DATs reflect Wall Street’s financial收割gene—skilled at complicating simple issues through packaging, ultimately executing "dimensional reduction strikes."
Setting aside regulatory arbitrage and historical factors behind MSTR, given the availability of BTC, ETH ETFs and increasing crypto-friendly governments and policies, why not just buy Bitcoin directly? Instead, wrap it into institutional-grade digital asset allocation strategies and invent a new concept called DATs.
In essence, it exploits market knowledge gaps, education time costs, compliance complexity—these "complexities"—to sell structured products to the market. While DATs aren’t as aggressive as past instruments like CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) or CDSs (credit default swaps), they follow the same path;
4) DATs represent a historical regression in valuation frameworks, forcibly dragging cryptocurrencies back from mature PS/PE models into the primitive PN era.
The crypto market has evolved over several cycles—from pure concept hype in 2017, to DeFi era focus on TVL and protocol revenue (PS thinking), to some projects initiating dividends and buybacks (PE thinking), and frequent mentions of PMF—this whole process reflects maturation.
But with the rise of DATs, boom—we’re suddenly back to Price-to-Narrative, paying for stories and narratives again. Isn't that moving backward against the natural progression of history? In the short term, native participants might not care, since real hot money does flow in via FOMO; but long-term, it reintroduces significant uncertainty;
That's all.
Having said that, these unconventional DAT approaches might actually succeed. But don’t expect off-chain buying pressure to drive a super bull market. In my view, the real Pandora’s box lies in the potential emergence of entirely new "on-chain leverage" mechanics triggered by DATs.
Put simply, it connects Wall Street-style leverage games with DeFi composability—off-chain providing incremental capital and credibility, on-chain focusing on speculation and leverage amplification. And crypto natives who eagerly await miracles from Wall Street should never overlook the innovative power within the pure on-chain ecosystem.
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
Haotian | CryptoInsight
