Why do most Treasury DAOs engage in discounted trades?
Original Author: @Matt_Hougan
Translation: Peggy, BlockBeats
Editor's Note: The Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) model was once seen as a "moat" in the crypto market, but as Bitcoin fell back to the $80,000 range, the flywheel effect stalled, and the market entered a period of adjustment.
Recently, there has been frequent controversy in the market regarding the DAT model. Supporters believe that DAT is a bridge connecting crypto and TradFi, which can drive ecosystem development. Leading companies like MSTR still maintain a near 1.03 mNAV, proving that quality projects have resilience and are poised to achieve a premium through strategies such as debt, lending, derivatives, and more.
On the other hand, critics warn that DAT is inherently leveraged speculation, prone to a "death spiral" in bear markets. The VC model exacerbates selling pressure, and meme coin DATs pose even more concentrated risk. Regulatory uncertainty (MSCI delisting, Hong Kong Exchange rejecting transition plans) further amplifies discounts, deepening market divergence, with the average decline of tail-end DATs exceeding 70%.
On November 21, crypto analyst Taiki and Multicoin Capital co-founder Kyle Samani engaged in a direct confrontation on the X platform regarding "Whether DAT will sell spot assets to repurchase shares."
Taiki Maeda's highly interactive post pointed out directly: "DAT turns decentralized pure assets into a VC-backed scam, bringing selling pressure." This viewpoint reinforces the narratives of the "death spiral" and "centralization risk," especially with a greater impact on meme coin DATs.
Kyle emphasized that there is little evidence to suggest that DAT will sell spot assets to repurchase shares, believing that this behavior is not a systemic issue but rather isolated cases or misunderstandings, implying that DAT focuses more on long-term value growth. Taiki, in response, argued that when mNAV falls below 1, DAT is highly likely to be forced to sell assets to repurchase shares, leading to a "death spiral." He cited the current mNAV<1 for $FWDI as an example to question Kyle, pointing out precedents where treasury assets were sold to repurchase shares in bear markets (such as ETHZILLA and small DATs).
This sharp debate, combined with the community's acquiescence to the idea that DAT is "meaningless," further magnified the market's concern about the structural risks of DAT.
This article, based on outlining the core valuation logic of DAT (mNAV, discount, and premium factors), combined with the latest debates, discusses the sustainability of the DAT model, regulatory challenges, and the trend of polarization, helping you see through the controversy which companies may trade at a premium and which are destined to trade at a discount.
The following is the original text:
I have seen a lot of terrible analysis about DAT (Digital Asset Treasury companies). In particular, many people's views on whether they should trade above, below, or at their held asset value (the so-called "mNAV") are very unreliable.
Here is my take on this.
When evaluating a DAT, the first question to ask is: How much would this company be worth if it had a fixed lifecycle?
If you consider a very short time frame, the value of this approach is obvious. For example: Suppose you have a Bitcoin DAT that announces it will shut down this afternoon and distribute the Bitcoin to investors. Then its trading price will be exactly equal to the value of its Bitcoin (i.e., mNAV is 1.0).
Now extend the time frame. What if it announces it will close in one year? Then you have to consider all the reasons why a DAT's trading price may be above or below its Bitcoin value. Let's review these factors.
Three Reasons for Discounted Trading
The three main reasons why DATs trade at a discount are: illiquidity, operating costs, and risk.
1. Illiquidity: You wouldn't want to pay full price today for Bitcoin you'll receive a year later. But you would be willing to pay a discounted price. Would you ask for a 5% discount? Or 10%? If it were me, I would definitely go for 10%. This would decrease the value of our DAT.
2. Operating Costs: Every dollar of operating expenses or executive compensation ultimately comes out of your pocket. Suppose our 12-month DAT has a $100 per share Bitcoin holding but pays executives $10 per share annually. Then you would certainly demand a 10% discount to Net Asset Value (NAV).
3. Risk: Companies can always make mistakes in various aspects. You also need to factor this risk into the price.
Four Ways of Premium Trading
Now let's see why a DAT might trade at a premium. In the U.S., there is only one reason: if it can increase the amount of cryptocurrency per share.
I have seen four main ways DATs attempt to do this.
1. Debt Issuance: If you issue debt in dollars and buy cryptocurrency, and the cryptocurrency rises against the dollar, you can repay the debt and increase the amount of cryptocurrency per share. This is typically a strategy for increasing its per BTC share. (If Bitcoin prices fall, it's the opposite.)
2. Lend Out Cryptocurrency: If you lend out cryptocurrency and receive interest payments, you can increase the amount of cryptocurrency per share.
3. Use Derivatives: If you hold cryptocurrency and engage in operations such as selling covered call options, you can earn returns and accumulate more assets this way. Of course, this also means you may be giving up some of the upside potential.
4. Acquire Cryptocurrency at a Discount: A DAT may acquire cryptocurrency at a discount through various means, such as:
Buying locked assets from a foundation to sell specific assets without disrupting the market;
Acquiring another DAT that is trading at a discount;
Repurchasing its own stock if it is trading at a discount;
Acquiring a cash-flow-generating business and using that cash flow to purchase cryptocurrency.
One challenge a DAT faces is that the reasons for trading at a discount are mostly known, while the reasons for trading at a premium are mostly unknown.
Therefore, a DAT faces a high threshold: most will trade at a discount, with only a few exceptional companies trading at a premium.
Back to our example: If you have a Bitcoin DAT that will settle 12 months from now, you can:
(1) Calculate its operating costs;
(2) Add a risk discount;
(3) Offset these discounts with your expected ability to increase per-share Bitcoin.
That's its fair value!
You might be thinking: Well, Matt, DATs do not have a fixed lifecycle. They will go on indefinitely!
Indeed, this makes the issue more complex. But in reality, this means everything will be magnified. Costs and risks will grow exponentially over time, so close attention is required. Similarly, DATs that can continually increase per-share cryptocurrency may be very valuable.
As I reviewed ways for DATs to increase per-share cryptocurrency, I noticed a significant characteristic: each method benefits from scale.
Larger-scale DATs will find it easier to issue debt than smaller-scale DATs; they have more cryptocurrency available for lending; they can access more liquid options markets; and they will have better opportunities in mergers and other discount transactions.
Over the past six months, the price of DAT has moved almost in sync. However, in the future, I believe we will see more differentiation. Some companies will perform well and trade at a premium, while more will underperform and trade at a discount. This model is a framework to help you determine which companies fall into which category.
You may also like

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.