Digital asset treasury (DAT) companies—publicly traded firms that hold cryptocurrencies and finance additional crypto buys by trading at a premium to their holdings—are losing the advantage that once made the model attractive to investors, according to a report from DWF Ventures released this week.
DWF found that among the 20 largest DATs by assets under management, only four trade above their holdings’ value. When the market stops paying that premium, the financing mechanism behind the strategy can weaken, making it harder for these companies to expand without diluting shareholders.
Key takeaways
- According to DWF Ventures, only four of the 20 largest DATs by assets under management trade above an mNAV of 1, indicating a premium over their crypto holdings.
- The report points to broad discounts as evidence that investors are paying less for public “crypto exposure” than they did when the model was new.
- DWF says the mNAV premium investors historically paid tends to have peaked when the strategy drew the most attention and leveraged Bitcoin demand was strongest.
- Separately, Sequans Communications has exited its Bitcoin treasury position entirely after selling its remaining 314 BTC, illustrating how companies may unwind when the model stops working.
Premiums fade for the largest treasury funds
DWF Ventures’ analysis centers on mNAV, a measure designed to compare a company’s market value to the value of its cryptocurrency holdings. The firm reported that just four of the 20 largest DAT companies trade with mNAV above 1—meaning their market capitalization exceeds the value of their crypto assets.
The four companies identified by DWF are Bit Digital, Strive, Hyperliquid Strategies, and BitMine. For the rest of the cohort, the market values their equity below the value of the crypto they hold, signaling that the typical “equity premium” narrative is no longer broadly supported.
DWF attributes this shift to investor behavior: where earlier demand helped these stocks command premiums, current discounting suggests capital markets participants are less willing to pay extra for crypto exposure through a treasury structure rather than simply owning the underlying asset.
The strategy’s origin—and why performance has mattered
DAT branding grew around a model associated with Michael Saylor’s Strategy, which pioneered the Bitcoin treasury approach in 2020. As DWF notes, once that blueprint became widely known, many DAT stocks began to underperform a simpler alternative: holding Bitcoin directly.
Even for companies that did manage to outperform in certain periods, DWF says the edge over holding the cryptocurrency itself has generally been small. That matters because the treasury thesis does not rely only on asset price exposure—it relies on being able to access capital efficiently. When the market no longer offers a premium, the structural advantage can evaporate.
DWF also highlights that the premiums investors paid for DAT stocks were not constant over time. The firm points to a pattern where the “equity premium to NAV” was strongest when investor attention surged and leverage demand for Bitcoin was elevated.
Where the premium peaked—and what the market is now signaling
According to DWF, the premium cycle appears tied to timing and market conditions. The report states that the strategy’s premium investors paid generally peaked when the approach was new and attracting fresh interest.
As an example, DWF cites Strategy’s mNAV peak in late 2024 during Bitcoin’s rally, when demand for leveraged BTC exposure was strong. The broader inference is that DAT valuations may improve when markets are eager to buy more Bitcoin exposure—especially through structures that can, at least in theory, expand holdings over time using equity issuance.
However, the latest data suggests those conditions have changed. DWF’s findings describe a market that is increasingly unwilling to price treasury companies above their crypto holdings, leaving less room for the strategy to compound through incremental capital raises.
Exits and earlier warnings about a “model break”
The new DWF report arrives as another example of treasury model unwinding comes into view. Earlier this week, French semiconductor company Sequans Communications disclosed it has sold its remaining 314 BTC, completing an exit that began with a redemption of convertible debt in May. After the sale, Sequans reported it holds no cryptocurrency on its balance sheet.
While Sequans’ disclosure is specific to its own balance sheet, it fits a broader theme raised in prior research: if DAT stocks trade at discounts to NAV, the economics of raising new equity to buy more crypto can become counterproductive.
DWF is not alone in making that case. In September 2025, Standard Chartered raised concerns about an “mNAV collapse” even as Bitcoin and crypto markets were rising, warning that such a shift could prompt consolidation among DAT firms. Galaxy Digital also sounded a similar note, arguing that the DAT model “critically depends on a persistent equity premium to NAV.”
The logic is straightforward. When shares trade at a premium to the value of holdings, companies can issue stock and use the proceeds to acquire additional crypto without diluting existing shareholders’ stake relative to NAV. But if shares trade below NAV, new fundraising becomes more dilutive and can undermine the central mechanism that makes the strategy attractive.
Galaxy research analyst Will Owens captured the risk succinctly, writing that “if the premium collapses, or worse, flips to a discount, the model begins to break.”
That concern has become more relevant during the current market backdrop. The article notes Bitcoin moved from a record high of more than $126,000 in October to below $60,000 before recovering to around $86,000. Even with the rebound, the relationship between crypto prices, leverage demand, and treasury-company valuation premiums appears to have weakened compared with earlier phases of the cycle.
What investors should watch next
With DWF showing that most of the largest DAT firms now trade below the value of their crypto holdings, the key question for shareholders is whether any renewed equity premium emerges as leverage demand and market sentiment improve—or whether discounts persist, forcing more companies to restructure, dilute, or exit treasury strategies entirely.
Be the first to comment