Crypto Sees Billions Return as Trading Premiums Fade

Crypto fundraising and public-market plans are restarting, but the investor appetite that once rewarded crypto balance sheets at steep premiums appears to be fading. New reporting points to sharply different valuations for companies trying to access capital—ranging from prediction market operator Kalshi to exchange and wallet provider Blockchain.com—while a DWF Ventures analysis suggests that many digital asset treasury firms still trade below the value of their holdings.

Separately, Bitget’s leadership is signaling limited expectations for recovering funds tied to a $388 million security breach, as some blocked or seized assets have been confirmed and withdrawals resumed in stages. Together, these developments offer a snapshot of where capital is flowing now: less into “premium” crypto exposure, and more toward business models with clearer financing logic and faster risk resolution.

Key takeaways

• DWF Ventures reports only four of the 20 largest digital asset treasury firms trade above their measured net asset value (mNAV), indicating the premium for treasury-style exposure has largely disappeared.
• Kalshi is reportedly in advanced talks to raise about $1 billion at a $40 billion valuation, a major step up from its May valuation but still subject to deal terms.
• Blockchain.com is reportedly targeting a potentially $6 billion valuation while seeking roughly $500 million via an IPO, far below its earlier peak valuation during the last boom.
• Bitget CEO Gracy Chen said she is not optimistic about recovering stolen funds from a $388 million breach, while regulators and counterparties have taken steps to block or freeze certain proceeds.

Crypto treasury discounts: investors aren’t paying the old premium

The digital asset treasury (DAT) model—where public companies hold crypto and use that balance sheet to support financing—may be losing its earlier edge with investors. According to a report cited from DWF Ventures, the majority of DAT firms no longer command the premiums that once helped them raise capital without diluting existing shareholders.

DWF’s analysis found that only four of the 20 largest DATs by assets under management trade above an mNAV of 1: Bit Digital, Strive, Hyperliquid Strategies, and BitMine. That concentration is meaningful because it implies most treasury businesses are trading at discounts to the value of their crypto holdings.

The report’s framing ties this shift to performance. Since Strategy pioneered the Bitcoin treasury approach in 2020, many DAT stocks have underperformed relative to simply holding the underlying asset, according to the same account. In practical terms, the discount matters because treasury companies rely on equity issuance to acquire more crypto while maintaining shareholder value. When shares trade below NAV, issuing stock to raise capital can become dilutive—weakening the core financing mechanism that once appealed to investors.

For traders, the development points to a different valuation discipline: investors appear less willing to pay a “management premium” for crypto exposure embedded inside equities. For founders and public-market aspirants, it increases the pressure to demonstrate that token or crypto holdings alone are not enough—business execution and capital efficiency increasingly determine whether investors pay through a discount.

Bitget’s recovery outlook dims after $388 million breach

Bitget’s response to its security incident underscores how recovery outcomes can diverge sharply from initial loss estimates. Speaking to Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen said she is not very optimistic about recovering funds associated with the exchange’s $388 million breach.

Chen referenced the 2025 Bybit hack to explain why she sees limited near-term upside. As she put it, in the Bybit case only about 3.5% of the roughly $1.5 billion stolen was frozen—clarifying that “freezing” is not the same as “recovery.” Her point aligns with the reality that asset controls can happen quickly, while successful return depends on complex legal and operational processes.

Bitget’s own reporting initially put the loss at $352 million before updating the figure to $388 million. The broader incident also involved multiple enforcement and counterpart actions. NEAR Intents reported blocking more than $50 million tied to the attack and freezing about $500,000. Tether and Circle blacklisted a wallet, freezing $318,013 in USDT and USDC.

Chen also said that North Korea may be responsible based on matching IP addresses, though she noted it has not been proven. Meanwhile, withdrawals resumed in stages, beginning with Bitcoin on Monday and Ethereum on Tuesday.

Investors monitoring exchange risk should watch whether additional wallet tracing leads to more meaningful freezes, and whether recovery frameworks evolve beyond early blacklisting. In this case, the CEO’s stance suggests that even with visible controls, returns on stolen assets remain uncertain.

Kalshi seeks $1 billion at a $40 billion valuation

While treasury discounts signal investor selectivity, capital for other crypto-adjacent businesses still appears available. Reuters reported that prediction market platform Kalshi is in advanced talks to raise approximately $1 billion at a $40 billion valuation—nearly double what the company reportedly commanded in May.

Existing investors Sequoia Capital and Wellington Management are reportedly in talks to lead the round, with people familiar with the matter telling Reuters that other participants could include Tiger Global Management and Dragoneer Investment Group. The discussions are not final, and terms could change.

Kalshi previously closed a $1 billion Series F round in May at a $22 billion valuation, according to the same reporting. Earlier coverage also suggested the company could close the new round as soon as the third quarter, though Reuters framed its account as subject to negotiation.

What to watch is how valuation will be justified in a market that has tightened around crypto-linked balance-sheet stories. Kalshi’s ability to raise at a higher valuation—despite broader caution toward “premium” crypto exposure—suggests that investors may be differentiating based on product traction, regulatory positioning, and revenue model clarity rather than treating all crypto-related companies as interchangeable plays on crypto prices.

Blockchain.com targets a lower IPO valuation than its last boom

Another sign of normalization appears in Blockchain.com’s public-market plans. Bloomberg reported that the exchange and wallet provider is looking to raise about $500 million through an initial public offering, more than four years after it reached a $14 billion valuation during the previous crypto boom.

Bloomberg’s account said Blockchain.com is seeking a valuation in the range of $4 billion to $6 billion and may proceed with a smaller offering if necessary. The company also confidentially filed draft registration documents with the US Securities and Exchange Commission in May, according to the report.

The IPO timing comes as parts of crypto capital markets appear to be reopening. The report linked the renewed effort to Bitcoin climbing more than 30% since mid-August. However, Bloomberg also flagged a reality check: shares of recently listed crypto-focused companies—including Gemini, BitGo, and eToro—are reportedly still down roughly 50% to 80% from their post-IPO highs. That performance profile could temper demand and influences how aggressively issuers price their future offerings.

For potential investors, the valuation gap between Blockchain.com’s last boom-era peak and its current targeted range reflects a broader market reassessment. Even if enthusiasm is returning, it is likely being conditioned by recent public-market outcomes and by expectations for durable operating performance rather than balance-sheet optimism alone.

Across treasury firms, exchanges, and crypto-adjacent platforms, the common thread is capital becoming more selective: premiums are harder to sustain, recovery narratives are cautious, and IPO interest is arriving with tighter pricing assumptions. Readers should track whether treasury discounts narrow, whether more breach proceeds are actually recovered, and how IPO valuations compare to post-listing trading performance once deals finalize.