Digital asset treasury (DAT) companies—public vehicles that hold crypto and aim to finance growth through a trading premium over their crypto holdings—are losing much of their early advantage, according to a report released this week by DWF Ventures.

In its analysis of the 20 largest DATs by assets under management, DWF found that only four trade above their “mNAV,” a metric that compares a company’s market value to the value of its underlying crypto holdings. The implication is straightforward: investors appear less willing to pay extra for crypto exposure through listed balance sheets, shrinking one of the model’s key funding mechanisms.

Key takeaways

• Only four of the 20 largest digital asset treasuries trade above mNAV, meaning most trade at discounts to their crypto holdings.
• DWF links the shift to investors no longer pricing DAT shares at a persistent premium for crypto exposure.
• DAT stocks have generally struggled to outperform simply holding the underlying cryptocurrency, with the reported advantage—when it exists—often modest.
• External warnings about “mNAV collapse” predate the latest market weakening, including concerns raised by Standard Chartered and Galaxy Digital.

Most DATs now trade below their crypto holdings

DWF’s report, published Thursday, examined the largest DAT companies by assets under management and found that just four trade above an mNAV of 1—where market value exceeds the value of held crypto. Those firms are Bit Digital, Strive, Hyperliquid Strategies, and BitMine.

For investors, discounts like these matter because DAT growth strategies typically rely on issuing equity at prices above the value of existing holdings. When shares trade at a premium, companies can raise capital and add to their crypto exposure without diluting existing shareholders’ effective value. When that premium disappears—or flips into a discount—new share issuance becomes less attractive and can dilute shareholders rather than strengthen the treasury.

DWF characterizes the widespread discounts as a sign that the market is no longer willing to pay the same premium for publicly traded crypto exposure.

The “treasury premium” appears to have peaked

DWF points to Strategy, the Bitcoin treasury model pioneer, as an early benchmark for how the premium worked when the approach first captured investor attention. According to the report, the general pattern across DATs has been that mNAV premiums peaked when the strategy was new and demand for the structure was strongest.

DWF highlights Strategy’s mNAV peak in late 2024 during a Bitcoin rally, when demand for leveraged BTC exposure was reported to be particularly strong. The broader framing from DWF is that, as the novelty and momentum around BTC treasury structures faded, the premium investors were willing to pay weakened as well.

DWF also notes that while some DATs have outperformed the underlying cryptocurrency at times, the outperformance has typically been small compared with what investors could have achieved by simply holding the crypto directly.

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph described how Michael Saylor’s Strategy helped popularize the Bitcoin treasury approach beginning in 2020, setting the template DATs later tried to follow.

Real-world evidence: Sequans exits its BTC treasury

The DWF findings arrive alongside a concrete example of a company moving away from the treasury approach. Sequans Communications, a French semiconductor firm that launched a Bitcoin treasury strategy last year, disclosed that it sold its remaining 314 BTC, completing an exit process.

As reported by Cointelegraph, the exit began with a redemption of its convertible debt in May and concluded with the sale of the remaining Bitcoin. After the transaction, Sequans said it holds no cryptocurrency on its balance sheet, according to the report linked by Cointelegraph: Sequans exits bitcoin treasury strategy after selling remaining 314 BTC.

While a single exit does not determine whether DATs as a category will fail, it underscores the practical consequences of a structure that depends on continued investor support. If share prices fail to sustain a premium over NAV, the cost of raising and maintaining exposure via equity becomes harder to justify.

Warnings about mNAV collapse preceded the latest market stress

DWF’s report is not the first to question whether the DAT model can keep functioning without a persistent equity premium. Standard Chartered reportedly raised concerns in September 2025, when Bitcoin and the broader crypto market were described as booming. The bank warned that an “mNAV collapse” could trigger consolidation among digital asset treasuries.

Galaxy Digital made a similar argument, stating that the model “critically depends on a persistent equity premium to NAV.” In Galaxy’s view, that premium is what allows companies to issue shares and buy more crypto while avoiding dilution of existing holders. If shares trade below NAV, raising new equity can become dilutive and undermine the strategy’s financing logic.

In research cited by Cointelegraph, Galaxy analyst Will Owens wrote that “if the premium collapses, or worse, flips to a discount, the model begins to break.”

These concerns align with the timing and direction of market movement. The source notes that Bitcoin fell from a record high of more than $126,000 in October to below $60,000 before recovering to around $86,000, creating conditions in which treasury premiums and leveraged demand could plausibly weaken.

In other words, the issue raised by the earlier institutional warnings has not gone away: it appears to be a structural dependence on investor willingness to pay above NAV, not just a temporary valuation adjustment.

Why the discount trend matters now

For traders and longer-term investors, the shift toward widespread DAT discounts changes how the category should be evaluated. If most treasuries trade below their underlying holdings, the “equity as growth capital” thesis becomes less reliable, and performance may converge toward the crypto market itself—minus whatever inefficiencies arise from the stock wrapper.

It also raises the question of what happens when premiums do not recover quickly. DWF’s findings suggest that the model’s early advantage—capital accessibility driven by investor enthusiasm—has faded, leaving fewer companies able to compound holdings through share issuance without eroding shareholder value.

Investors watching DATs next should focus on whether any remaining premiums can stabilize and on how companies respond when share prices do not justify continued equity-funded purchases—especially as market volatility continues to pressure crypto-linked balance sheets.

Former Democratic congressman Tim Ryan has said the CLARITY Act could still pass this year if lawmakers resolve disputes that blocked a 49–50 Senate vote on Sep. 15.

Tim Ryan, a former Ohio congressman and adviser to Shyft, told crypto.news that lawmakers still have a path to an agreement if they return to negotiations and make concessions. The Senate rejected cloture on a motion to proceed to the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act on Sep. 15, with 49 senators voting yes, 50 voting no, and one not voting. The motion needed 60 votes to advance the bill to debate; it was not a final vote on passage.

Ryan identified unresolved concerns about ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance and stablecoin rewards. In his view, support for clear crypto rules remains bipartisan, even though senators have yet to agree on the details. He said a deal could still be reached in the lame-duck session later this year if both sides are willing to compromise.

“I think there’s still a path,” Ryan said. “The legitimate concerns around ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance and stablecoin rewards need to be addressed.”

CLARITY Act talks could resume after the failed vote

Ryan’s assessment follows a statement from seven Senate Democrats who voted against cloture. As previously covered by crypto.news, the senators described the result as “not the end” of their work on the legislation and pledged to continue bipartisan talks. Their statement came on Sep. 16, one day after the vote.

For Ryan, the distinction between a procedural defeat and a final rejection matters. Senators voted on whether to take up the measure, leaving its provisions open to further negotiation. He said the outstanding issues need answers before the bill can secure enough support to move forward.

The proposed legislation would set federal rules for digital asset markets and divide responsibilities between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Under the framework described in earlier CLARITY Act coverage, qualifying digital commodities and their spot markets would fall primarily under CFTC oversight, while securities-related activity would remain with the SEC. The bill would also set registration requirements for crypto trading platforms and other market participants.

Ryan tied the negotiations to decisions being made by American companies. Businesses hiring workers and committing capital, he said, need rules they can rely on beyond a change in administration. He also argued that jobs and investment are at stake in the congressional debate.

SEC and CFTC actions have limits, Ryan says

With the bill stalled, both regulators have taken steps under their existing powers. Ryan said the agencies can make meaningful progress, but he does not believe their actions alone can provide the lasting framework businesses and consumers need.

“Agency action helps, but companies making long-term investments need long-term certainty,” he said. “If you’re building a business, hiring people and investing capital, you need to know the rules are going to last beyond the next administration.”

On Sep. 17, the SEC granted temporary, conditional relief for certain venues trading tokenized U.S.-listed stocks through permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools. The order lasts five years after publication and requires eligible stock tokens to give holders the same rights as equivalent traditional shares.

The SEC also placed limits on trading symbols and volume, required trading to stop when the underlying stock is halted, and sought public comment on the exemption. Its tokenized stock order concerns securities already within the SEC’s remit, rather than settling how every crypto asset should be regulated.

The CFTC’s Market Participants Division issued a separate no-action position that day for qualifying passive software providers. Subject to stated conditions, division staff will not recommend enforcement over a failure to register as an introducing broker, or as an associated person of one, when the software helps users trade with registered derivatives firms and markets. The CFTC developer relief applies to the activities covered by the letter; it does not change the underlying registration law.

The CFTC also submitted a proposed framework for crypto transactions and markets for White House review on Sep. 17. That submission begins a review process: the proposal would still need to return to the commission for a vote before publication and public comment. CFTC Chair Michael Selig had previously directed staff to examine what market rules the agency could establish using its existing authority.

Bitcoin, XRP and Solana remain part of the classification debate

Asked whether assets could face conflicting treatment, Ryan said uncertainty remains despite guidance from the two agencies. He pointed to Bitcoin, XRP and Solana as assets for which regulators have provided more clarity, while calling for Congress to establish consistent rules that businesses and consumers can use without resolving classification disputes through individual court cases.

The SEC’s March 17 interpretation, issued with CFTC guidance, listed Bitcoin, XRP and Solana among its examples of digital commodities. The SEC based that assessment on its understanding of the assets’ characteristics, terms and functions at the time. The interpretation also said a crypto asset that is not itself a security can be involved in a transaction subject to securities law, and that the agency may refine its views after public feedback.

For U.S. token holders and platforms, Ryan’s concern is how those distinctions apply when an asset is sold or traded. He said businesses and consumers should have consistent rules instead of having to litigate the treatment of assets case by case.

French semiconductor company Sequans Communications has fully exited its Bitcoin treasury strategy, selling its remaining 314 BTC and leaving the firm with no cryptocurrency holdings. The move completes a process that began after the company ramped up its Bitcoin position in mid-2025 and gradually shifted away from the approach as it adjusted its financing and corporate priorities.

According to a statement from Sequans released on Thursday, the exit was tied to the redemption of its convertible debt in May. Management said the company will now refocus on its core cellular Internet-of-Things (IoT) and software-defined radio businesses, with the Bitcoin proceeds previously used to reduce debt and strengthen its balance sheet.

Key takeaways

• Sequans sold its last 314 BTC, finishing a Bitcoin treasury strategy that previously left the company holding more than 3,200 BTC.
• The company linked the exit to its May redemption of convertible debt, using prior Bitcoin sales to help eliminate that obligation.
• Sequans says it now has no cryptocurrency holdings and no outstanding debt, other than government-financed research and development commitments.
• More treasury operators have been scaling back or fully exiting Bitcoin strategies in 2026, according to VanEck research.

Sequans completes its Bitcoin treasury exit

Sequans’ final liquidation of its Bitcoin holdings comes after earlier steps to reduce exposure. The company said it began trimming its BTC less than six months after launching the treasury strategy, selling 970 BTC in November to help redeem half of its convertible debt.

By May 2026, Sequans stated it was “no longer pursuing” the treasury strategy and would monetize the remaining Bitcoin over time. Thursday’s update indicates that monetization has now reached its end point, with the company confirming it has sold its remaining 314 BTC.

From launch to reduction: how the strategy played out

Sequans launched its Bitcoin treasury approach in June 2025, after announcing a $384 million sale of equity securities and convertible secured debentures. At the time, CEO Georges Karam described Bitcoin as “a premier asset and a compelling long-term investment,” framing the purchase as part of a broader treasury plan rather than a short-term trading activity.

However, the strategy’s lifecycle was tightly connected to capital structure decisions. In the months that followed, Sequans used Bitcoin sales to address its convertible debt schedule. The company later moved from debt reduction to broader balance-sheet repositioning, ultimately deciding to monetize the remaining BTC rather than continue accumulating.

Why fully exiting matters for investors and market structure

Corporate Bitcoin treasuries typically balance two competing priorities: pursuing long-term exposure to BTC while maintaining flexibility to manage liquidity, repayments, and business investment. When companies stop accumulating—or liquidate holdings—it can signal that treasury activity has become less aligned with either cash needs or corporate strategy.

In Sequans’ case, management said the Bitcoin sales were used to “eliminate its convertible debt” and strengthen the balance sheet. The result is a simpler capital structure from an investor perspective: fewer moving parts tied to crypto holdings and less exposure to Bitcoin price volatility affecting treasury balances.

Sequans also emphasized that after the final sale, it holds no cryptocurrency and has no outstanding debt beyond government-financed R&D obligations. That framing suggests the company views the treasury era as closed, rather than pausing crypto activity and leaving the door open to future re-entry.

Wider 2026 trend: more treasuries abandon Bitcoin

Sequans’ departure fits a broader pattern in 2026. In late July, Matthew Sigel, head of digital assets research at VanEck, said in a public update that he had identified at least nine companies that fully liquidated or abandoned Bitcoin and crypto treasury strategies in 2026, alongside several others that reduced their holdings.

The reasons cited across exits have ranged widely. VanEck’s Sigel pointed to factors such as debt repayment needs, working capital requirements, shareholder return objectives, and business-strategy changes. In other words, the shift away from Bitcoin treasuries has not appeared to be driven by one single cause.

One example highlighted in earlier coverage is UK-listed Satsuma Technology. Cointelegraph reported that the company raised 100 million British pounds (about $135 million) through convertible loan notes in July 2025 to expand a Bitcoin treasury. A year later, shareholders voted overwhelmingly to return substantially all of the company’s capital and cancel its listing, and the board authorized the closure of trading activities and the sale of its entire 669 BTC position.

Other companies referenced in 2026 reporting as fully liquidating their Bitcoin holdings include Bitdeer, Genius Group, and Prenetics. MARA Holdings and Empery Digital were also mentioned as making substantial sales without abandoning their treasury strategies entirely, underscoring that corporate behavior is diverging rather than uniform.

What to watch next

For Sequans, the immediate question is how quickly the company can translate its renewed focus on cellular IoT and software-defined radio into operating momentum now that crypto exposure has been removed. More broadly, readers may want to track whether 2026’s wave of treasury exits continues—or if companies that reduced holdings begin to reallocate capital back toward Bitcoin as financing conditions and market sentiment evolve.

European financial authorities warned that an advanced quantum computer could undermine cryptography used to secure blockchains, saying the threat could emerge before the technology has a viable commercial application.

The warning from the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs), which includes the European Banking Authority (EBA), European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), brings fresh urgency to a long-running question for bitcoin of whether to freeze or not freeze the BTC in legacy wallets. In the event that quantum computers one day do become capable of breaking bitcoin’s cryptography, roughly 6.9 million bitcoin, worth roughly $586 billion, are currently vulnerable, according to Cryptoquant.

“Threats could materialize earlier than any viable commercial application,” the authorities said in their Autumn 2026 Risk and Vulnerabilities report released Wednesday. An advanced quantum computer “could undermine some cryptography systems widely used to secure communications, transactions, databases and blockchains,” according to the report..

Although the report does not mention timelines for quantum computing becoming commercially viable, a recent IBM report says it will be in use in four years or less.

Bitcoin’s recent price surge has triggered a possible bullish signal for even larger gains.

That signal is the price topping its 365-day rolling simple moving average.

On Sept. 22, bitcoin rose above its 365-day average near $80,900 for the first time in 310 days, Ryan Horst and Joni Zhuleku, founders of Altcoin Pro, said in an email conversation.

Altcoin Pro found that bitcoin was higher 12 months later in each of the five previous instances in which it regained its 365-day average after spending at least 90 days below it. The gains ranged from about 59% to more than 1,400%, though the largest increase came in 2012, when bitcoin was a fringe asset.

A bizarre drama played out on YouTube this past week, when a channel called Mighty Mike Plays posted a video explaining how nine-year-old “Mighty Mike” apparently got a hold of his father Dave’s company card and spent $118,000 on a YouTube ad campaign.

However, the story immediately appeared to have a number of holes, and within a few days there were too many red flags for influencers, who had initially boosted the story’s reach, to ignore.

Just a kid and his dad

Mighty Mike Plays, which features Roblox and Minecraft videos, was created in June of 2024 but only started posting videos in August of this year.

Over the past month, the channel has uploaded 175 long and short form videos — a considerable number for a child of nine.

When it suddenly started reaching the front page of YouTube ads, people began to comment that Mike was going to get in trouble with his father. They were, in fact, being played by the marketing.

On September 14, the channel released a video titled “Message from Dad… Mighty Mike Plays is Over.”

In the video, Dave speaks while Mike plays Minecraft. He states that Mike had spent $118,000 on the YouTube ad campaign and worst of all that the charges were on his company card and now he might get fired.

Dave didn’t explain why he would ever use a company card for anything but company purchases or how using the card even for a $20 ad campaign — as he stated was his intention — wasn’t illegal, but no red flags outside of this were obvious yet.

Read more: Kalshi’s AI ad turned an Asian YouTuber into ‘a white dude’

99 problems and the vid is one

On September 18, a new video was released, once again with Mike playing Minecraft and Dave speaking. Unfortunately, this time the video was nothing but red flags. Dave states that he’s been fired from his job and that the company has demanded that he pay back all $118,000 within 30 days.

He doesn’t clarify what will happen in 30 days if the company isn’t paid back.

Advertisement

Dave doesn’t show any proof of ad spend or any emails with his colleagues where they discuss the circumstances. Instead he suggests that the family will soon lose their home because he’ll have to sell it within the 30-day period.

All of this sounds like fiction, but it only gets more absurd.

Dave states that he doesn’t want to start a GoFundMe or Kickstarter to support his family and doesn’t specify a reason, though it’s thought that if you lie about the reason you need funds on these websites you can get sued and the money can get clawed back.

Instead, he says, he wants to sell merchandise online to try to raise the funds himself — a bizarre decision.

Advertisement

Slop merch, slop campaign

Dave’s website is filled with AI-created merchandise, all selling for immense prices (nearly $100 for t-shirts that say “118k” and “67 wassup chat”), some supposedly already sold out.

And, as eagle-eyed YouTubers quickly pointed out, the terms of service, which previously promised that returns would be allowed within 30 days, now state that ALL SALES ARE FINAL.

It’s unclear if this is legal or binding to anyone who bought the merchandise before the change.

Needless to say, it’s now Dave who’s claiming that he’s going to be suing numerous influencers and YouTubers for suggesting that he’s a scammer, emailing them to say he’s hired a lawyer and will be taking them to court for libel — an expensive move for a man who supposedly just lost his job and owes $118,000.

Regardless, Mike and Dave are posting videos again but have yet to address any of the previous red flags littering their videos.

Advertisement

Protos will follow the story for more information if anything changes.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.