Author: Jeff Dorman, CFA
Translated by: TechFlow
Original Title: Which Listed Companies Are Buying Crypto Assets and Who's Making Money?
Crypto Treasury Companies: Facts and Misconceptions
After six consecutive weeks of gains, the Bloomberg Galaxy Crypto Index (BGCI) finally pulled back last week, while stocks and US Treasuries both rose. Despite ongoing discussions about the "dysfunction" of the US Treasury market, it's worth noting that over the past two years, the US 10-year Treasury yield has actually been fluctuating within a 100 basis point range, which is another typical example of narrative dominating facts.
Speaking of narrative, the increasing number of US listed companies purchasing Bitcoin and other digital assets has undoubtedly become a market highlight. But as usual, this trend is accompanied by many misunderstandings. Therefore, we will try our best to clarify the facts and misconceptions behind these new digital asset buyers.
Some call these companies "Bitcoin Treasury Companies," while others call them DATs (Digital Asset Treasury Companies). Regardless of the name, these companies are essentially new shell companies used to hold digital assets. This differs from the original Bitcoin treasury companies. For over five years, we have been discussing the phenomenon of publicly listed companies incorporating Bitcoin into their balance sheets for various reasons.
These companies can be categorized as follows:
Some are ordinary companies that experimentally hold Bitcoin, such as Tesla and Block;
Some are crypto-native companies like Coinbase and Galaxy, which naturally hold these assets through their core business;
Some are Bitcoin mining companies whose core business is holding Bitcoin.
The growth of Bitcoin on these companies' balance sheets is easily trackable and sometimes even drives stock prices up. However, in most cases, Bitcoin holdings do not overshadow their core business. Moreover, until recently, the accounting standards set by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) regarding Bitcoin holdings posed significant downside risks to earnings per share (EPS) compared to potential upside gains.
Conversely, these companies' impact on Bitcoin prices is usually limited, as they often do not purchase large amounts of Bitcoin through the open market. Most companies simply accumulate Bitcoin through daily operations, and for those that do purchase Bitcoin, the purchase volume is relatively small.
Source: BitcoinTreasuries.net
[The translation continues in the same manner for the rest of the text, maintaining the original structure and translating all non-HTML content to English.]"Many people believe that ETF is a victory for real-time settlement assets, but the opposite is true. Bitcoin ETF is actually cramming a real-time settlement system (blockchain) into an outdated T+1 settlement product (ETF). Isn't this a regression? As an industry, we should strive to bring global assets onto the blockchain, rather than forcibly stuffing on-chain assets into Wall Street's old systems."
Although we acknowledge this is a necessary step to drive adoption and interest, the point still stands. There is a significant difference between "blockchain technology" and "crypto assets". We are more focused on bringing the world's most popular assets (such as stocks, bonds, real estate) onto the blockchain, rather than forcing low-quality crypto assets into outdated systems. However, the trend of stuffing crypto assets into stock shells will not stop. Let's look at what is happening now.
SPACs (Special Purpose Acquisition Companies) and reverse mergers have existed for a long time, but rarely been comprehensively adopted for a single purpose. However, this is the current situation. If you own a listed stock shell, it can be used to acquire crypto assets and hope to trade at a significant premium to net asset value (NAV). These new structures are usually slightly different from MicroStrategy. Some companies only hold BTC, trying to completely replicate the MSTR model (though far less brand recognition and capital market expertise); others have purchased new assets - some hold ETH, some hold Solana (SOL), some hold TAO, with more new assets emerging. Arca currently receives 3-5 new proposal ideas from investment banks every week.
Here are some recently announced and financing transactions (may not be exhaustive):
SharpLink Gaming (SBET)
Recent Activity: May 2025
Financing Method: $425 million PIPE
Crypto Asset Acquisition: ETH
Trump Media & Technology Group (DJT)
Recent Activity: May 2025
Financing Method: Raised $2.3 billion through stock and convertible debt sales
Crypto Asset Acquisition: BTC
GameStop Corp. (GME)
Recent Activity: May 2025
Financing Method: $1.5 billion convertible debt
Crypto Asset Acquisition: 4,710 BTC
Jetking Infotrain (India)
Recent Activity: May 2025
Financing Method: Raised 6.1 million rupees through equity sale
Crypto Asset Acquisition: BTC
Meliuz (CASH3.SA – Brazil)
Recent Activity: May 2025
Financing Method: Raised 150 million reais through stock issuance
Crypto Asset Acquisition: BTC
Details: Brazilian fintech company Meliuz announced its first stock issuance, planning to raise 150 million reais (approximately $26.45 million) for BTC acquisition. The company plans to distribute 17,006,803 common shares as the initial batch.
Sol Strategies Inc. (CSE: HODL, OTCQX: CYFRF)
25 million CAD unsecured revolving credit line provided by Chairman Antanas Guoga;
27.5 million CAD (approximately $20 million) convertible debt from ParaFi Capital;
Up to 500 million USD convertible debt line from ATW Partners, with the first 20 million USD completed in May 2025.
Initial Investment: January 2025
Financing Method:
Crypto Asset Acquisition: Solana (SOL)
Cantor Equity Partners / Twenty One Capital (CEP)
Recent Activity: May 2025
Financing Method: Added 100 million USD to its crypto business Twenty One Capital, bringing total financing to $685 million. Existing shareholders (including Tether, Bitfinex, and SoftBank) simultaneously committed BTC in-kind through existing equity structure.
Crypto Asset Acquisition: BTC
Upexi Inc.
Recent Activity: April 2025
Financing Method: Raised 100 million USD to establish Solana reserve
Crypto Asset Acquisition: Solana (SOL)
Details: Purchased SOL through a 100 million USD PIPE, and plans to further increase "Sol-per-share" through equity and debt issuance.
DeFi Development Corp (formerly Janover)
Recent Activity: April 2025
Financing Method: Raised 42 million USD to establish Solana reserve treasury, with plans to further raise 1 billion USD
Crypto Asset Acquisition: Solana (SOL)
These cases demonstrate that an increasing number of listed companies are incorporating crypto assets into their financial strategies, typically funded by proceeds from debt or equity issuances.
[The rest of the translation follows the same professional and accurate approach, maintaining the original structure and meaning while translating to English.]Today, every crypto venture capitalist holding a large amount of high-inflation, low-demand junk tokens is discussing how to stuff these tokens into an equity shell company. However, this does not automatically create demand, just as most newly launched ETFs fail to attract investors. Creating an investment tool and creating demand are two different things. While these investment tools will continue to be created, it is still uncertain whether these stocks will truly attract market demand.
Is there a possibility that these shell companies can maintain a premium above NAV in the long term? The answer is possible, but under strict conditions.
Perhaps one day, MicroStrategy (MSTR) will become the "Berkshire Hathaway" of the crypto field. At that time, Bitcoin might become an extremely scarce and sought-after asset, where companies are even willing to accept lower acquisition offers from Michael Saylor, simply because he can pay with precious Bitcoin.
Another way to potentially sustain shell company premiums is for these companies to become more creative in choosing underlying assets. For example, they could hold high-quality tokens like HYPE that are currently not listed on any centralized exchange, thereby providing a new investor group access to HYPE. This scarcity and uniqueness might attract investors willing to pay a premium. However, these scenarios are only long-term possibilities.
In any case, just like ETFs, some shell companies will succeed, and some will not. But if bankers want to keep the "profit train" moving, they must start becoming more creative. If they simply stuff crypto assets into an equity shell company, they will need to continuously innovate the content within the shell company—making it valuable and difficult to obtain through other means.
However, I believe these equity shell companies will not negatively impact crypto assets themselves, at least not in the short term. Without debt structures, there is no forced selling mechanism. And I feel we might continue trying to dispel misunderstandings about these shell companies for a long time, just as we have done with many crypto topics.
Tokens Can Still Serve as Capital Formation Tools
The recent trend of shifting from token financing to shell company equity financing can be seen as "two steps forward, one step back". But this does not mean token sales have stopped, just that discussions about them have decreased.
We often say: "Tokens are the greatest capital formation and user acquisition mechanism in history, capable of unifying all stakeholders and creating lifelong brand advocates and core users." The concept is simple: instead of issuing equity or debt that prevents investors from becoming product users and customers from benefiting from company growth, why not directly issue tokens to customers to unify all stakeholders at once? This was the direction attempted by ICOs in 2017, until US regulators completely halted it.
The good news is that regulatory pressure is weakening, allowing some token financing to return. The bad news is that currently, most token financing is still limited to "pure crypto" domains—crypto and blockchain-native companies that could not exist without blockchain technology. What's missing is a world where non-crypto native companies (like ordinary gyms, restaurants, and small businesses) can also start issuing tokens to finance their businesses and unify stakeholders.
"Internet Capital Markets" is a term used to describe this emerging theme. This concept is not new (in fact, we've been writing about it for seven years—my first blog post about crypto touched on this concept, back when Arca didn't even have a website). But now, this idea has finally been adopted to some extent.
Launchcoin is one of the key platforms driving the next generation of token issuance. Launchcoin (which has its own token) supports Believe, a token issuance platform leading the emerging "Internet Capital Markets" narrative. On the Believe platform, tokens debut through bonding curves, then move to the Meteora platform to enhance liquidity. This platform is highly attractive because many credible Web2 enterprises have already tokenized through Believe. While direct token value accumulation has not yet been achieved, its potential is enormous, making Launchcoin a pioneer in this narrative.
In other words, Launchcoin and Believe are working to realize a vision where every municipal institution, university, small business owner, sports team, and celebrity can issue their own token.
We have already seen many examples showing that tokens can be used to fill gaps in company balance sheets or for restructuring. For instance, Bitfinex successfully raised funds through its LEO token, and THORChain through its debt token. These token financing models are what make the crypto industry exciting, rather than pure equity shell companies.
But currently, both models coexist, and understanding the differences is crucial.
