Key Takeaways:
Of the top 20 DATs ranked by AUM, only 4 are trading at above mNAV > 1. This reflects the current state of the market where access premium is no longer valued as highly as before.
Since inception, the top DATs have mostly underperformed just simply holding the asset. Among those that outperformed, the excess returns are minimal in comparison to the risk that holders take.
On a shorter time horizon (<3 months), DATs can outperform their underlying asset by 15-40% given that mNAVs are at lows and the underlying asset price rises - essentially a catch up bet if conditions align.
Moving forward, DATs will be assessed more on its operators and capital structures as that differentiates the value of companies beyond just assets accumulated.
Treasury management is not a new concept. It has mainly revolved around fiat assets and bonds in traditional finance and are usually used as capital vehicles for illiquid or private asset classes such as real estate and private equity or credit.
Digital Asset Treasuries (DATs) have been around for several years, led by Strategy making their first Bitcoin purchase back in August 2020. What started out as a capital diversification strategy quickly became a full allocation into BTC, with the company formalizing its status as a corporate Bitcoin treasury in 2025. Since then, the total value of assets held by crypto treasury companies have surpassed $180B, marking a 70% YoY increase on average since 2020. Most growth occurred in 2025, whereby small / microcap companies pivoted into holding digital assets as a strategy for higher returns, creating a mini bubble back then.
While many companies have included digital assets in their balance sheet today, our report focuses on companies whose core business model focuses on the accumulation and management of digital assets. We look into the performance of crypto treasury companies against its underlying assets, assessing different models and highlighting the risks of different companies.
What are DATs?
DATs can be defined as any publicly listed company utilizing the accumulations of digital assets on its balance sheet as a core business model. Unlike ETFs which are built to track the underlying asset closely, DATs are more of a vehicle of speculation on the sentiments of the asset. DATs’ performance also depends on a variety of factors that are affected by how the company chooses to raise financing, timing of deploying capital and managing exposure, which explains the presence of different vehicles for the same underlying asset. The table below shows a comparison of the mechanisms of a DAT vs. ETF.
Market to Net Asset Value (mNAV) is a measure of a company’s market capitalization over the actual value of its crypto assets holding. When mNAV is trading above 1, it represents a premium against its crypto holdings which reflects positive investor sentiment in the company / underlying asset and vice versa. The data below shows that the majority of DATs trade at below the value of the holdings, referencing a slight negative sentiment towards holding companies. Note that mNAV numbers do not take into account any debts or preferred structures.
Companies holding the same underlying asset can still have wildly differing premiums. This is due to the difference in strategies for accumulation and issuing new shares. Bit Digital and Strive both carry out more aggressive reserve accumulation and actively carry out At-the-Market (ATM) offerings to keep the reflexive loop going, while companies that have extremely high discounts to NAV are much more passive. This explains the wide dispersions for mNAV and highlights the need to consider external factors before investing into one.
The Reflexive Loop
The general goal of DATs is to generate higher returns over the underlying asset by growing the number of tokens per share, increasing shareholder’s stake. There are several strategies that allow companies to do so:
Issuing New Shares ATM: one of the most common methods. By selling shares at a premium to raise cash, the company can use proceeds to buy more tokens to directly increase shareholder value. This assumes that the company will always be able to raise at a premium, and usually only works in an uptrend (when mNAV > 1).
Convertible Debt: frequently used by Strategy (MSTR). Premium is usually priced at 35-55% above spot price, and if they successfully convert it at that price - it means that MSTR got a 0% loan with no debt obligations. Thus, it adds on to the accretive loop as they can continue raising money based on current collateral.
Increasing Alternate Revenue Streams: Through staking, mining or alternate business lines. Sharplink recently announced a $200m allocation into stETH and a $125m onchain yield fund in collaboration with Galaxy. Cypherphunk Technologies (CYPH) became the largest mining fleet for ZEC, receiving over 18% of the network’s emissions. All these help to generate more cashflow for the company and tokens per share for shareholders without reducing its principal.
The strategies are aimed to be accretive to shareholders, but ultimately, overall performance still heavily relies on underlying token performance. Looking at the top companies, it is clear that most DAT premiums fall over time and it is hard to see them recover as demand for shares does not outweigh the underlying gains in price.
Most companies peak at the initial offering given buzz is always at the highest at that stage. Strategy peaked in November 2024 as BTC began its run up to ATH, which was where demand for speculation and leverage was the highest. An exception to this is Bit Digital, which has managed to maintain a significant premium to mNAV through increasing non -crypto revenue streams and the timing of equity financing. Over 89% of its Q2 revenue came from its cloud infrastructure business (White Fiber), which helped in maintaining share value despite a fall in digital assets holdings value in the same period.
Since inception, most companies have managed to increase their token per share which theoretically increases shareholder value. Factoring in token prices would tell a different story as companies like BMNR and BTBT faced significant drawdowns on ETH based on their entry timing. Overall, NAV per share has increased up to 400% for DATs purely focused on the accumulation of digital assets, which is a signal that the business model does work.
However, looking at token vs. share prices since inception, investors have generally been better off holding the underlying token. Even in instances where shares have fared better, the outperformance is minimal - whereby the risk of holding DATs may not make sense. This also depends on the time horizon of buying these shares.
Since July, we have seen strong outperformance of shares by 15-40% against tokens, with mNAVs increasing from lows of 0.5-0.8x to 0.7-1.0x. Particularly, both PURR and CYPH saw a 31% and 38% greater increase vs. the underlying token during this 3 month period. Tokens per share did not increase much during this period, signifying that share prices are still ultimately more sentiment driven, as price appreciation came when outlook of crypto markets became more positive. On a longer term horizon beyond 3 months, the token remains a better bet for investors.
Factors of Consideration
The question remains: should you buy a DAT? While it has historically been seen as a levered bet for investors to play catch up, we would argue that the market around it is a lot more mature and hence, there are many other factors to consider when making the choice.
Availability of the underlying asset: DATs entered as a vehicle for providing digital assets exposure to institutions that were highly regulated previously. Thus, the mNAV premium was seen as an access premium for institutions. However, as SEC proposed to quicken the listing process by over 75% for ETFs, the access premium has reduced significantly over the years. Institutional buyers have a lot more assets to choose from for ETFs, regulated private funds and custodian infrastructure allowing for direct deployment - which was not possible before.
Operating costs and strategies of the company: This is a mix of assessing the operating team’s ability to diversify revenue and adjusting financing strategy in response to market conditions. For example, Strategy’s capital structure prioritizes debt holders and has consistent pressure to fulfil dividend obligations. This potentially puts a strain on BTC reserves as it introduces forced selling which would cause dilution to existing shareholders. Once confidence in the team is affected, it will be hard to attract new investors to come onboard and initiate a downward spiral on Strategy’s mNAV.
Overall
The market size of DATs have grown tremendously and assessment of these companies are far more complex now. The earliest entrant had an advantage whereby available capital to raise financing was much larger due to the inability to access the underlying asset itself, which allowed Strategy to compound through persistent premiums to net asset value. However, the edge had disappeared for most of the companies that pivoted in 2025.
The reflexive loop means that once mNAV drops below 1, it is hard for companies to reverse it. Companies that rely on convertible or collateralised financing carry higher risks as the asset becomes priced by equity market sentiment and the company’s financing terms more than the underlying asset. Therefore, only a minority of the companies have delivered higher returns vs. simply holding the asset directly.
Moving forward, we expect to see more new entrants coming into the market as crypto market sentiment improves. However, companies will increasingly be assessed based on the board and capital structures supporting them rather than the amount of assets accumulated.