From Bold Bet To Systemic Risk? Digital Asset Treasury Firms Confront The Costs Of Conviction

What Happened

This raises a critical question: Are firms truly strong enough to sustain their digital asset treasury strategies—or have many simply copied (Micro) Strategy’s high-profile playbook amid the hype? To find out, BeInCrypto consulted several leading experts to delve deeper into whether these companies can endure the current market environment or risk triggering broader systemic stress.

DAT firms, or Digital Asset Treasury companies, are publicly traded companies that acquire digital assets as a core part of their business strategy. Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) started this trend in 2020 by accumulating Bitcoin. Soon, many more followed.

Similarly, Solana-focused firms have invested $3.76 billion in the asset. BeInCrypto recently reported that DATs collectively manage $105 billion in the three asset classes.

In fact, after the market crash, Metaplanet’s mNAV fell to 0.99, marking the first instance of the metric falling below the 1.0 threshold. While it recovered shortly after, the drop still raises concerns. Similarly, other firms faced similar setbacks.

Timot Lamarre, Head of Market Research at Unchained, argued that Bitcoin treasuries are fundamentally different from altcoin treasuries, which often exploit retail investors.

Lamarre also pointed out that a few firms may thrive by giving indirect Bitcoin exposure to investors who can’t buy it directly. Still, ultimately, the most successful treasuries will be those that hold Bitcoin directly — without leverage or complexity.

“The larger risk lies with the treasury company’s stockholders rather than bitcoin holders. Bitcoin holders can ride out bear markets with bitcoin held in self-custody, where companies can go under. Past catalysts for massive bear markets have been fraud and hacks,” the analyst noted.

Market Context

Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) firms have emerged as a key narrative in 2025, with many institutional players betting big on digital assets as part of their balance-sheet strategies. However, the volatility in crypto markets has put these treasury models to the test.

Fakhul Miah, Managing Director of GoMining Institutional, told BeInCrypto that companies holding digital assets like Bitcoin operate in a volatile, mark-to-market environment, so price drops don’t imply insolvency if they’ve planned for market cycles.

Well-managed treasuries run stress tests, keep liquidity reserves, and align funding with long-term goals — unlike those built on short-term price momentum.

“It’s also important to note that the mNAV declines we’re seeing aren’t purely a reflection of recent Bitcoin price weakness, though BTC has since recovered. Many of these companies were initially priced for perfection during their early accumulation phases, when market sentiment and FOMO drove their market caps far ahead of fundamentals. As such, when BTC prices corrected, their mNAVs naturally reacted more sharply, reflecting the same volatility that propelled their earlier gains,” he added.

He noted that as the market matures and corporate balance sheets align more closely with Bitcoin’s underlying fundamentals rather than speculative valuations, volatility is likely to stabilize over time.

Nonetheless, if mNAVs continue to decline, could that pressure firms to sell their holdings and, in turn, trigger market volatility? According to experts, this is indeed possible. Speaking to BeInCrypto, Fabian Dori, CIO at Sygnum Bank, said,

“Basically, this risk exists. The likelihood of it happening mainly depends on the debt structuring of the individual companies. To monitor the likelihood the market attaches to a ‘forced de-leveraging’ scenario, it might for example, be interesting to analyze the credit spread of (convertible) bonds relative to the broader market and relative to peers, or the implied volatility term structure and skew for options on the company,” he mentioned.

In addition, Lamarre detailed that the major participants in the Bitcoin treasury space — such as Strategy — maintain strong collateral positions and could withstand even a significant decline in Bitcoin’s price without being forced to liquidate. Smaller firms, however, that take on excessive leverage could spark short-term turbulence in the market.

In his view, the current market is actually helping to strengthen the ecosystem by recrepricing risk where governance was weak and capital mismatched. Well-structured firms can handle short-term pressure without disrupting the market, making this more of a refinement phase than a credit crisis.

Why It Matters

“Even for bitcoin treasury companies, it should be expected that for the vast majority of companies, mNAV will trend toward one over time,” he said.

How Much Risk Do Declining mNAVs Pose to Corporate Balance Sheets?

Miah agreed, saying that some forced selling could happen at the margin. Nevertheless, it’s unlikely to threaten the system unless a major player, such as Strategy, faced a default.

Details

What Are DATs?

According to the latest data from Bitcoin Treasuries, 205 public companies hold BTC on their balance sheets. Furthermore, overall public companies hold over 1 million Bitcoins, with Strategy alone controlling 640,418 BTC.

The trend extends beyond BTC. Strategic ETH Reserve data showed that 16 public firms control over 4.75% of Ethereum’s current supply and have committed over $22 billion.

Corporate Crypto Portfolios Tested by Falling mNAVs

While the funding scale reflects confidence in these assets, holding them has not been without challenges. Artemis Analytics data shows that the mNAV of companies holding BTC, ETH, and SOL has continued to drop sharply, hitting new lows.