The big difference between bitcoin and crypto treasury companies

The future is on off-chain. That’s right, we spent the past 15 years telling you to get your money onto “the blockchain” and now we’re telling you to pull it out and put it into Charles Schwab so that someone else can buy those scarce digital assets for you.

Of course, I’m talking about this cycle’s leverage of choice: digital asset treasury (DAT) companies.

Gradually, then suddenly, public markets created a new species of crypto company, DATs. Unlike Tesla or Coinbase who hold bitcoin as part of their operating businesses, DATs exist solely to hold coins on their balance sheet, giving shareholders high-beta exposure to these treasuries. The thesis can be quite compelling: these companies could offer a more capital efficient way for investors to gain exposure to the underlying digital assets. They accomplish this by leveraging capital markets (e.g., issuing shares, issuing convertible notes) to generate revenue to acquire bitcoin, ethereum, solana, etc.

But just like not all blockchains are created equal, neither are DATs. With the limited data available so far, it appears that bitcoin DATs are comparatively stable to their volatile crypto counterparts.

The mNAV metric is conventionally the most common way to measure a DAT’s performance – that is, the company’s enterprise value (or sometimes market capitalization) divided by the mark-to-market value of the coins it holds. A 1.0x mNAV means the company trades right at its treasury value; higher than that is a premium – lower, a discount.

The data on DATs: bitcoin

To compare relative volatility and performance of these DATs, let’s take a look at mNAVs for some Bitcoin treasury companies first:

[Micro]Strategy (NASDAQ: MSTR): 1.58x Semler Scientific (NASDAQ: SMLR): 1.04x Metaplanet (OTCMKTS: MTPLF): 1.14x Nakamoto Holdings (NASDAQ: NAKA) is currently trading at about ~1.0x of their current disclosed holdings of 21 BTC ( this is before their anticipated ~$726m smash buy purchase)

Data from Blockworks Treasury Dashboard

Pulling data from Bitcointreasuries.net, we see that Bitcoin treasury companies range between 0.9x – 1.6x mNAV.

Overall Bitcoin treasuries have an average ~1.3x mNAV with tight variance. Bitcoin treasury mNAVs have shrunk since U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs have eaten into these stocks’ premiums, but the premiums are still there for many bitcoin DATs.

The data on DATs: crypto

Now, let’s look at the ETH, SOL, and SUI treasury companies (using a dataset and PIPE structure breakdown from BitMEX Research):

ETH DATs:

BitMine Immersion Technologies (NASDAQ: BMNR):1.9x Dynamix Corporation (NASDAQ: DYNX): 0.16x (a massive discount, however this is a pending merger) SOL DATs:

Upexi, Inc (NASDAQ: UPEXI): 1.2x DeFi Development Corp (NASDAQ: DFDV): 1.8x. SUI DATs:

Mill City Ventures III (NASDAQ: MCVT) 1.8x (with advisor warrants that arguably “encourage volatility,” per Bitmex)

Story Continues

We see a much wider range of mNAV for non-BTC DATs, from 0.16x to 1.94x and an interquartile range of 0.98x – 1.69x.

BitMEX research explains that management teams of crypto DATs are incentivized to increase assets under management as their compensation is usually a function of a percentage of the treasury. Less liquid cryptoassets tend to be more price reflexive when a DAT comes along and smashes buy, and stocks themselves can be highly volatile, even by bitcoin treasury company standards. Even with 2025’s limited data on DATs, we see that non-BTC treasury companies are less tightly clustered and have wider ranging mNAVs compared to their BTC counterparts.Data Source: BitcoinTreasuries and Blockworks

Do bitcoin treasury and crypto treasury investors want the same thing?

The comparison suggests we’re seeing two very different market structures emerge under the DAT umbrella.

My interpretation is that Bitcoin DAT valuations cluster tightly because they are larger, more liquid, and increasingly plugged into institutional flows. Just like Bitcoin, they’ve matured into more predictable vehicles for investors seeking exposure to Bitcoin through equity markets.

Non-Bitcoin DATs are less liquid, contain assets that are themselves more volatile than BTC, and investors have lower long term confidence in the underlying assets.

I mean… does anyone actually want to own SOL in 10 years? If not, then why are some of these management comps extended for 3 decades?

View Comments