CoinRank

CoinRank is recruiting independent writers worldwide 💥

What we’re looking for:
→ Deep research & trend analysis
→ Data-driven or on-chain insights
→ Web3 / Crypto / Market narratives
→ English content (self-pitched or guided topics)

What you get:
Global exposure via CoinRank website & media network
Promotion on Twitter, Telegram & partner channels
Official CoinRank contributor identity
Featured articles & social shoutouts
Dedicated author profile with your links

If you want your writing seen by real crypto readers, this is for you.
Apply now: https://forms.gle/j2U7zait2gWQdEAo7

#CoinRank #CryptoWriters #Web3Content #WriteToEarn

#Trump Media Technology Group plans to partner with Crypto.com to distribute digital tokens to DJT shareholders.
Forbes: Fed rate cuts and a weaker dollar may drive Bitcoin prices up in 2026.
Global fintech funding rebounded in 2025, with prediction markets Polymarket and Kalshi leading the way.
#Binance releases 2025 co-CEO open letter: Global users surpass 300 million, annual trading volume reaches $34 trillion.
Data: Yield-generating stablecoins generated over $250 million in returns in 2025.

#OneKey Founder: Transforming into an AI-Driven Hardware Financial Company; Profitable and Growing Significantly
#SlowMist : Phishing Attacks Remain the Leading Cause of Fund Theft in Q4; 300 Theft Cases Reported, $1 Million Recovered
#Coinbase Executive Warns US Stablecoin Policies May Give China an Advantage in Global Payments Competition
Arthur Hayes, Tom Lee, and Michael Saylor's 2025 BTC Price Predictions All Significantly Deviated from Reality
#Binance Discloses Scam: A User Claimed to Have Been Scammed by a "Binance Executive," Forged Screenshots, and Attempted to Induce Customer Service's Statements
#CoinRank

Governance tokens distribute protocol control to communities through transparent, on-chain voting mechanisms.

 

Governance tokens reward active participation and align user incentives with long-term project growth.

 

Despite benefits, governance tokens face challenges such as whale dominance and imperfect majority-rule outcomes.

Governance tokens enable decentralized decision-making in DAOs and DeFi by giving communities voting power, aligning incentives, and replacing centralized control with on-chain governance.

 

WHAT ARE GOVERNANCE TOKENS?

 

Governance tokens are the core mechanism that enables decentralized governance across DAOs, DeFi protocols, and decentralized applications (DApps). Through governance tokens, decision-making power is distributed to the community rather than concentrated in a single team or centralized authority.

 

In most cases, governance tokens are designed to reward active users for their loyalty and contributions to the ecosystem. At the same time, token holders gain the right to vote on major proposals, helping guide the long-term direction of a project. Voting is typically executed through smart contracts, meaning that once a proposal passes, the outcome can be automatically enforced on-chain—reducing human intervention and improving transparency.

📌 Early Examples of Governance Tokens: MakerDAO

 

One of the earliest and most influential examples of governance tokens comes from MakerDAO. MakerDAO is a DAO built on Ethereum that supports the stablecoin DAI, which is backed by cryptocurrency collateral.

 

The Maker protocol is governed by holders of its governance token, MKR. Each MKR token represents one vote, and proposals with the most votes are adopted. MKR holders can vote on a wide range of issues, including appointing team members, adjusting system fees, and introducing new protocol rules. The overarching goal of this governance system is to maintain the stability, transparency, and efficiency of the DAI stablecoin.

📌 Compound: Governance Linked to On-Chain Activity

 

Another widely cited governance tokens model is Compound, a DeFi protocol that allows users to lend and borrow cryptocurrencies. Compound issues a governance token called COMP, which gives community members the ability to vote on key protocol decisions.

 

COMP tokens are distributed proportionally based on users’ on-chain activity. In simple terms, the more a user lends or borrows on Compound, the more COMP they receive. This design directly links governance power to actual protocol usage rather than passive ownership alone.

 

Similar to MakerDAO, one COMP token equals one vote. Users can also delegate their voting power to others, allowing more active or knowledgeable participants to vote on their behalf. Notably, in 2020, Compound relinquished control of its administrator keys, fully transferring governance to governance tokens holders and eliminating alternative forms of centralized control.

📌 Well-Known Projects Using Governance Tokens

 

Beyond MakerDAO and Compound, many prominent projects rely on governance tokens to manage their ecosystems. These include decentralized exchanges, DeFi lending platforms, NFT-based communities, and virtual world projects. While all of them use governance tokens, their governance structures and rules can differ significantly.

📌 How Governance Tokens Differ Across Projects

 

Not all governance tokens operate in the same way. Each project defines its own governance framework, including how tokens are distributed and what rights they grant. Tokens may be allocated to founders, investors, and users under different models and schedules.

 

Some governance tokens allow holders to vote only on specific governance topics, such as parameter adjustments or feature upgrades, while others grant voting rights over nearly all protocol-level decisions. In certain cases, governance token holders may receive financial rewards, while in others, the token serves purely as a governance instrument without any profit-sharing component.

 

>>> More to read: What Are Decentralized Apps (DApps)?

GOVERNANCE TOKENS ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES

 

✅ Advantages of Governance Tokens

 

Governance tokens offer several meaningful advantages, particularly when compared to traditional centralized governance models. One of their key strengths is the ability to reduce misaligned incentives that often arise in centralized decision-making. By using governance tokens, control is distributed across a broad community of stakeholders, helping align the interests of users with those of the protocol itself.

 

Another major benefit of governance tokens is their ability to foster an active, collaborative, and highly engaged community. Token holders are incentivized to participate in governance and contribute to improving the project. Since each token typically represents voting power, governance systems are designed around the idea of fair and proportional decision-making.

 

Most governance frameworks allow any token holder to submit proposals and have them voted on by the community. All voting activity is recorded on-chain and publicly visible, which increases transparency and significantly reduces the risk of manipulation or fraudulent behavior. This openness helps build trust in the governance process and encourages long-term participation.

❗ Disadvantages of Governance Tokens

 

Despite their advantages, governance tokens also face notable challenges. One of the most widely discussed issues is the “whale problem.” Whales are individuals or entities that hold a disproportionately large share of a project’s governance tokens. If a small number of whales control a majority of the voting power, they can dominate governance decisions and steer outcomes in ways that primarily serve their own interests.

 

For this reason, projects relying on governance tokens must ensure that token ownership is genuinely decentralized and distributed as evenly as possible. However, even a fair and widespread distribution does not guarantee optimal decision-making.

 

Majority-rule governance systems have a long history, with mixed results. In some cases, governance token holders may vote in ways that benefit founding teams or large investors at the expense of the broader community. As a result, decisions reached through token-based voting are not always aligned with what is best for the long-term health of the project.

 

>>> More to read: What is DAO in Blockchain?

CONCLUSION

 

Governance tokens are still in an early stage of development, but they have already played a critical role in supporting the growth of many DeFi protocols and DAO-based projects. By granting voting rights that shape how a protocol is governed, governance tokens enable communities to directly influence key decisions rather than relying on centralized control.

 

As a result, governance tokens have become a foundational pillar of decentralization—helping align incentives, distribute authority, and establish more transparent and community-driven systems across the crypto ecosystem.

 

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈What Are Governance Tokens?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

DePIN uses blockchain and IoT to decentralize physical infrastructure while improving security, efficiency, and system resilience.

 

DePIN increases transparency and traceability across sectors like supply chains, storage, and data infrastructure.

 

DePIN empowers individuals and communities through peer-to-peer resource sharing and token-based incentives.

DePIN applies blockchain and IoT to real-world infrastructure, enabling decentralized networks for energy, storage, computing, and data with greater security, transparency, and participation.

 

WHAT IS DEPIN?

 

DePIN, short for Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks, refers to the application of blockchain technology to real-world physical infrastructure and systems. Its core idea is to use blockchain and related technologies to build decentralized networks for tangible infrastructure such as energy grids, supply chains, telecommunications, transportation systems, and other physical assets.

 

Rather than relying on centralized operators, DePIN aims to coordinate infrastructure through distributed networks, enabling multiple participants to collectively operate, maintain, and grow essential services in a more transparent and resilient way.

📌 How Does DePIN Work?

 

At a structural level, DePIN relies on the combination of blockchain technology and the Internet of Things (IoT).

 

Blockchain serves as the trust layer of a DePIN network. It provides a secure and transparent ledger that records transactions, data exchanges, and network activities. Because records on the blockchain are immutable, participants can verify interactions without relying on a single centralized authority, helping establish trust across the network.

 

IoT, on the other hand, connects the physical world to the blockchain. IoT devices continuously collect and exchange real-time data through interconnected sensors and hardware. Within a DePIN system, these devices communicate not only with each other but also with blockchain-based databases, enabling autonomous and responsive interactions inside physical infrastructure.

 

Together, blockchain and IoT allow DePIN networks to manage permissions, resource allocation, and coordination in a decentralized manner.

 

>>> More to read: What is DeFi 2.0 & Why It Matters?

WHY DEPIN MATTERS

 

✅ Security and Efficiency

 

One of the most important reasons DePIN matters is its ability to improve both security and operational efficiency in physical infrastructure. By removing single points of failure, DePIN reduces the risk of tampering, manipulation, or system-wide outages that often exist in centralized infrastructures.

 

With blockchain as its foundation, transactions and data exchanges within DePIN networks are secured through cryptography. At the same time, distributed ledgers make it significantly harder for attackers to compromise the system or gain unauthorized access, strengthening the overall resilience of critical infrastructure.

✅ Transparency and Traceability

 

DePIN also brings meaningful improvements in transparency and traceability, particularly in industries such as supply chain management.

 

By recording every step of production and distribution on the blockchain, DePIN enables companies and participants to verify the authenticity and integrity of goods throughout their lifecycle. This level of visibility helps reduce fraud, counterfeiting, and other illegal activities, while creating a shared source of truth that all parties can rely on.

✅ Democratization of Resources

 

Another key value of DePIN lies in its potential to democratize access to essential resources such as energy and transportation.

 

Instead of relying solely on centralized providers, individuals and local communities can directly participate in the production, distribution, and use of resources. For example, in decentralized energy networks enabled by DePIN, homeowners can generate excess electricity and sell it to neighbors. This creates a more inclusive, efficient, and sustainable resource ecosystem.

✅ Economic Empowerment

 

By decentralizing control over physical infrastructure, DePIN can economically empower individuals and communities.

 

It enables peer-to-peer transactions and introduces token-based incentives to reward participation and contribution. These mechanisms can unlock new opportunities for entrepreneurship and innovation, especially in underserved or marginalized regions where access to traditional infrastructure and financial systems is limited.

 

>>> More to read: What is DeFi? A Comprehensive Guide

DEPIN PROJECT EXAMPLES

 

🚩Filecoin

 

Filecoin addresses the demand for decentralized storage by applying blockchain technology to data infrastructure. It allows users to rent out unused storage capacity and earn cryptocurrency in return.

 

Through a distributed network of storage providers, this DePIN-based storage system enhances data security, redundancy, and availability. Instead of relying on centralized data centers, Filecoin spreads storage across multiple independent participants, reducing single points of failure and improving overall resilience.

🚩 Render

 

Render is a DePIN project focused on decentralized, GPU-based rendering solutions. It connects node operators who want to monetize idle GPU computing power with artists and creators who need scalable resources for intensive 3D rendering tasks and applications.

 

Beyond operating a decentralized GPU compute network, Render also provides a platform that supports services and applications built for artists and developers. This model allows computing resources to be allocated more efficiently while expanding access to high-performance rendering capabilities.

🚩 The Graph

 

The Graph is a decentralized protocol designed for indexing and querying blockchain data. Its primary focus is organizing on-chain data in a way that makes it easily accessible to everyone.

 

Through tools such as Graph Explorer, developers can search, discover, and publish the public data required to build decentralized applications (DApps). As a DePIN-aligned infrastructure layer, The Graph plays a key role in supporting data accessibility across the blockchain ecosystem.

 

>>> More to read: 

Filecoin (FIL): The Future of Decentralized Storage

What is RNDR & Render Network?

What is The Graph? Everything You Need to Know

CHALLENGES & FUTURE OUTLOOK

 

Despite its strong potential, DePIN still faces several challenges. Regulatory uncertainty, scalability limitations, and interoperability issues remain major obstacles to broader adoption. In addition, integrating blockchain systems with physical infrastructure requires robust security frameworks and user-friendly interfaces.

 

That said, the long-term outlook for DePIN remains promising. As technology continues to evolve and mature, DePIN projects are likely to overcome many of these challenges and unlock new opportunities for decentralized physical infrastructure. By empowering individuals and communities to shape and manage their own infrastructure and resources, DePIN has the potential to fundamentally change how we interact with the physical world.

🔍 Conclusion

 

DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks) represents a meaningful shift in how tangible infrastructure can be designed and operated. By combining blockchain and IoT technologies, DePIN introduces greater autonomy, transparency, security, and efficiency into real-world systems. At the same time, it opens the door to more democratic access to essential resources such as energy and transportation.

 

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈What is DePIN in Crypto?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Erik Zhang, #NEO @Neo_Blockchain co-founder and core developer, has publicly accused founder Da Hongfei @dahongfei of failing to honor financial disclosure commitments, calling on him to release a complete and verifiable financial report of the Neo Foundation (NF), including a detailed breakdown of assets and expenditures, in response to long-standing community concerns over transparency and governance.
Erik stated that both sides had previously reached an agreement under which, starting January 1, 2026, Da Hongfei would step away from matters related to the Neo mainnet and instead focus on #NeoX and #SpoonOS.
In response, Da Hongfei claimed that Erik effectively controls the majority of Neo’s funds and consensus voting power, and accused him of repeatedly delaying the transfer of personally held $NEO / $GAS tokens to a foundation-managed multisig wallet—arguing that such actions amount to “protocol capture” at the expense of the community and token holders.

As stablecoins increasingly function like money—serving as settlement assets, payment instruments, and stores of value—regulators now treat them as systemically relevant, requiring safeguards similar to those applied to banks and payment systems.

 

Regulatory approaches diverge by region, with the United States emphasizing function-based risk isolation and the European Union prioritizing unified legislative clarity, both aiming to integrate stablecoins into institutional finance.

 

Rising compliance standards are restructuring the industry, favoring well-governed, transparent issuers and redirecting innovation toward efficiency and scalability within clearly defined regulatory boundaries.

Stablecoin regulation has become a core pillar of global financial governance, reshaping digital finance by embedding stablecoins into financial stability, monetary sovereignty, and institutional risk frameworks rather than treating them as peripheral crypto tools.

 

Introduction: Why Stablecoin Regulation Has Become a Central Global Financial Issue

 

Stablecoin Regulation has rapidly evolved from a niche topic within the cryptocurrency industry into a central issue in global financial governance. In the early stages of crypto market development, stablecoins were primarily perceived as functional tools designed to facilitate trading, reduce volatility, and provide on-chain liquidity. Their role was largely confined to crypto-native ecosystems, serving as settlement assets within exchanges and decentralized finance protocols.

 

However, as issuance volumes expanded and adoption accelerated, Stablecoin Regulation became unavoidable for policymakers. Stablecoins are now deeply embedded in cross-border payments, international settlement flows, and global capital movement channels. In many regions, they are increasingly used as transactional instruments rather than speculative assets. This functional evolution has fundamentally altered their risk profile and regulatory relevance.

 

Regulators across jurisdictions now recognize that stablecoins exhibit clear quasi-monetary characteristics. Without enforceable Stablecoin Regulation frameworks, weaknesses in reserve management, liquidity mismatches, or governance failures could rapidly propagate across both on-chain and off-chain financial systems. These risks resemble traditional financial instability mechanisms, including bank runs and payment system disruptions.

 

As a result, Stablecoin Regulation is no longer limited to project-level compliance. It has become a systemic issue tied to financial stability, monetary sovereignty, and payment system resilience. Understanding the institutional logic and regulatory structure behind Stablecoin Regulation is now essential for assessing the long-term viability of digital finance within the global financial system.

 

Figure 1: Differences in Regulatory Terminology and Legal Classification of Stablecoins Across Jurisdictions

 

Why Stablecoin Regulation Has Been Integrated into Financial Stability Frameworks

 

Quasi-Monetary Characteristics and the Accumulation of Systemic Risk

 

From a functional perspective, stablecoins increasingly perform the core functions traditionally associated with money. They operate as a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a settlement unit within digital financial ecosystems. A significant share of on-chain trading, lending, derivatives settlement, and treasury management activity is denominated in stablecoins. As a result, their role now closely resembles that of bank deposits and settlement balances in traditional finance.

 

This shift fundamentally changes the nature of risk associated with stablecoins. When stablecoins are widely used for transactional and settlement purposes, confidence in their redeemability becomes critical. If issuers fail to maintain transparent, liquid, and adequately managed reserves, even a small shock can trigger large-scale redemptions. Such dynamics mirror traditional financial runs and can escalate rapidly due to the speed and global reach of blockchain-based systems.

 

Stablecoin Regulation is therefore designed to address these systemic risk channels. By imposing requirements related to reserve composition, disclosure, redemption mechanisms, and governance standards, regulators aim to prevent localized failures from cascading into broader financial instability. The integration of Stablecoin Regulation into financial stability frameworks reflects the recognition that stablecoins are no longer peripheral innovations but systemically relevant financial instruments.

 

Macroeconomic Stability and Monetary Sovereignty Considerations

 

Another core driver of Stablecoin Regulation lies in macroeconomic and monetary policy considerations. Stablecoins denominated in major fiat currencies circulate globally and, in some jurisdictions, function as de facto payment instruments. This phenomenon can weaken domestic monetary policy transmission and complicate capital flow management, particularly in economies with less developed financial infrastructure.

 

From a regulatory perspective, unchecked stablecoin adoption may undermine monetary sovereignty by shifting transactional demand away from domestic currencies. Stablecoin Regulation is therefore not intended to suppress innovation but to establish institutional boundaries that preserve macroeconomic control. By embedding stablecoins within regulated frameworks, authorities seek to balance technological efficiency with monetary and financial governance objectives.

 

Figure 2: The Bridging Role of Stablecoins Between Centralized and Decentralized Financial Systems

 

Divergent Stablecoin Regulation Approaches Across Major Jurisdictions

 

The Risk-Oriented Logic of Stablecoin Regulation in the United States

 

In the United States, Stablecoin Regulation follows a risk-oriented and function-based approach. Rather than creating an entirely new regulatory category, U.S. authorities tend to classify stablecoins according to their economic function. As a result, stablecoin issuers and service providers may fall under banking supervision, securities regulation, payment system oversight, and anti-money-laundering requirements simultaneously.

 

The core objective of this approach is risk isolation. By strengthening reserve transparency, redemption guarantees, and compliance obligations, regulators aim to ensure that stablecoins do not become sources of systemic risk during periods of market stress. While this framework raises compliance costs in the short term, it also creates a pathway for stablecoins to be integrated into institutional-grade financial applications over time.

 

The European Union’s Unified Legislative Framework for Stablecoin Regulation

 

In contrast, the European Union has adopted a more centralized and legislative approach to Stablecoin Regulation. Through harmonized regulatory frameworks, the EU seeks to establish consistent standards across member states and reduce opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. This model emphasizes ex-ante authorization, continuous disclosure, and ongoing operational supervision.

 

From an industry perspective, EU-style Stablecoin Regulation significantly increases compliance requirements. However, it also provides legal certainty and predictable regulatory boundaries. Over the long term, this clarity supports market consolidation and encourages the development of stablecoins as standardized financial infrastructure rather than fragmented experimental products.

 

Figure 3: A Cyclical Framework for Risk Identification, Analysis, and Evaluation in the Financial System

 

Structural Impacts of Stablecoin Regulation on Industry and Business Models

 

Rising Compliance Thresholds and Market Restructuring

 

As Stablecoin Regulation becomes more comprehensive, the competitive landscape of the industry is undergoing fundamental restructuring. Projects that previously relied on rapid expansion, aggressive incentives, or high-risk yield strategies face increasing pressure under stricter regulatory scrutiny. Compliance capabilities, governance quality, and long-term sustainability are replacing short-term growth metrics as the primary determinants of competitive advantage.

 

Over time, Stablecoin Regulation is likely to increase market concentration. Highly compliant issuers with strong risk management frameworks are better positioned to survive and scale, while weaker projects may exit the market. This process does not suppress innovation but accelerates the transformation of stablecoins into core financial infrastructure.

 

Innovation Shifts Toward Efficiency Within Regulatory Boundaries

 

Stablecoin Regulation does not eliminate innovation; instead, it redirects it. Future innovation is expected to focus on efficiency improvements within regulated environments, including faster cross-border settlement, institutional-grade payment systems, on-chain treasury management, and deeper integration with traditional financial institutions.

 

By clearly defining permissible activities and risk boundaries, Stablecoin Regulation enables sustainable innovation. Projects that operate within these institutional frameworks are more likely to achieve long-term adoption and systemic relevance.

 

Featured Table: Comparison of Stablecoin Regulation Characteristics by Region

 

 

Stablecoin Regulation Is Defining the Long-Term Boundaries of Digital Finance

 

Stablecoin Regulation is not a rejection of digital finance innovation but an inevitable stage in its institutional maturation. As the global financial system undergoes structural realignment, Stablecoin Regulation is defining the boundaries within which digital assets can operate sustainably. It determines which models can integrate into mainstream finance and which remain confined to experimental margins.

 

With clearer regulatory frameworks, Stablecoin Regulation will increasingly function as a benchmark for credibility, resilience, and long-term value creation. Over the next decade, the evolution of Stablecoin Regulation will play a decisive role in shaping the structure of global digital finance and determining whether crypto-based financial systems can achieve durable, system-level integration.

 

Read More：

STABLECOIN OVERSIGHT GOES GLOBAL

USDe Market Cap Halved: A Test of Trust and Mechanism for Crypto-Native Stablecoins

〈Stablecoin Regulation: Institutional Logic, Regulatory Paths, and Structural Impact on Global Finance〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

#Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin published a new article titled Balance of Power, examining how power concentration and checks should be designed in #crypto systems.
Vitalik argues that many crypto projects overly focus on “business models” — how to continuously acquire resources to sustain teams — while neglecting an equally critical question: decentralization models, or how to prevent excessive power from accumulating within the project itself.
He notes that some systems decentralize naturally, such as open standards like TCP/IP or language systems, where no single actor can easily dominate. However, in many crypto use cases, decentralization does not emerge by default and must be intentionally designed through governance and architecture.

#Circle has minted 1 billion USDC on Solana in the past 9 hours.
CZ: At the current rate, Pakistan is expected to become a leader in the crypto space within 5 years.
#Netflix begins filming a cryptocurrency-themed romantic comedy, "One Attempt Remaining".
Trump deployment address has transferred 94 million USDC to Coinbase in the past 3 weeks.
Delin Securities receives approval from the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission to upgrade its license to Type 1, enabling it to provide virtual asset trading services.
#CoinRank #GM

Messari shapes crypto narratives for institutions, but the AI agent economy may arrive slower, as latency and gas costs still constrain large-scale autonomous on-chain interaction.

 

The report’s DF model reframes survival around organic growth, capital efficiency, and real-world demand, exposing subsidy-driven projects and prioritizing protocols that genuinely redistribute value sustainably.

 

Bitcoin’s reserve narrative, Ethereum’s value-capture dilemma, and chain abstraction together signal a shift from storytelling to efficiency, where friction reduction determines which ecosystems attract capital.

Messari’s 2026 Crypto Theses question AI agent timing, highlight Bitcoin’s reserve role, Ethereum’s value capture crisis, and a market shift from narratives to efficiency.

Messari 2026 Crypto Theses: Why Speculation Is No Longer Enough (Part 1)

Messari’s 2026 Crypto Theses: Power Struggles, Stablecoins, and Skepticism (Part 2)

 

In the opening of this series, I argued that Messari does not merely predict the future of crypto—it actively defines it. The reason is simple. Nearly every major VC, fund, and large holder reads the same report. When Messari signals conviction around Solana, capital rotates into Solana. When it frames DePIN or equity perps as core narratives, builders and investors follow.

 

This reflexive loop is precisely what gives the report its power. But it is also why blind agreement is dangerous.

 

In this final part, I focus on where I diverge from Messari’s conclusions—most notably on AI agents—before stepping back to summarize the report’s true intellectual structure, its DF model, and what actually deserves attention heading into 2026.

 

Report link

 

A DIFFERENT TIMELINE FOR AI AGENTS

 

One of Messari’s boldest claims is that by 2026, AI agents will dominate on-chain activity. Conceptually, the thesis is compelling. Autonomous software cannot open bank accounts, requires 24/7 settlement, and naturally gravitates toward crypto-native money rails.

 

Where I remain cautious is timing.

 

Even today, on-chain latency and gas costs remain significant frictions. This is true not only on Ethereum, but even on high-performance chains like Solana. For thousands—or millions—of AI agents interacting at high frequency, the cost structure simply does not yet work.

 

Each signature, each state update, each arbitrage attempt incurs real expense. At scale, this quickly becomes prohibitive.

 

For this reason, I believe 2026 is more likely to be the breakout year for AI infrastructure rather than a fully autonomous agent economy. Compute tokenization, model verification, privacy-preserving inference, and decentralized validation feel closer to market readiness.

 

The true “agent-native economy,” where AI systems independently earn, spend, hedge, and reinvest capital on-chain, may still be one to two years away.

 

That does not mean the sector should be ignored. It means positioning should be selective. Instead of buying broad, narrative-driven AI tokens, attention is better directed toward hard infrastructure—protocols that AI systems must rely on. One example is Bittensor–style architectures, particularly optimized subnets focused on model validation, performance scoring, or privacy computation.

 

These are closer to “hard currency” within the AI stack, regardless of whether agents fully arrive in 2026 or 2028.

 

WHY MESSARI STILL DESERVES RESPECT

 

Despite these disagreements, the overall value of Messari’s work is undeniable.

 

The 2026 Crypto Theses spans roughly 100,000 words across 275 pages. To better understand its priorities, I used AI to estimate chapter weight by length. The result is revealing.

 

Messari’s true focus lies in three chapters above all others: Chapter 3 (Cryptomoney), Chapter 1 (Investment Trends), and Chapter 5 (Infrastructure and the Multichain World). Together, they form the conceptual backbone of the report.

 

This is not accidental. These chapters correspond to asset definition, survival rules, and execution efficiency—the three layers that determine who survives when narratives fade.

 

CHAPTER 3: ASSETS FIND THEIR FINAL ROLE

 

Chapter 3 carries the heaviest weight in the entire report. Its core objective is to define the final asset identities of crypto’s most important instruments.

 

Here, Messari attempts to prove that Bitcoin has completed its transition away from a speculative risk asset and into a reserve asset. BTC, in this framing, is no longer the last stop in a risk-on trade—it is becoming a mandatory allocation.

 

This aligns closely with my own macro work. Bitcoin used to sit at the extreme end of the risk spectrum. Today, it increasingly behaves like an alternative reserve—volatile, yes, but structurally different from growth tokens or venture-style bets.

 

The open question is no longer whether BTC belongs in portfolios, but how much. Allocation ratios, rather than inclusion itself, become the debate.

 

Ethereum, by contrast, is portrayed as unresolved. Its pricing struggles reflect uncertainty over whether it is a commodity, a settlement asset, or simply infrastructure rent for L2s. Stablecoins, meanwhile, are framed as monetary weapons—tools that export yield, liquidity, and influence across borders.

 

This chapter is where crypto intersects most directly with real-world capital flows, regulation, and macro policy. It is also why it matters more than any pure “Web3 narrative.”

 

CHAPTER 1: THE PARADIGM SHIFT FROM STORIES TO STATEMENTS

 

If Chapter 3 defines assets, Chapter 1 defines survival.

 

Messari argues that by 2026, crypto markets will have fully transitioned from storytelling to accounting. The era of infinite token subsidies masking weak demand is ending. In its place comes the DF model—a framework designed to strip out artificial growth and identify protocols with genuine internal momentum.

 

The formula is simple but brutal:

 

DF = (Organic Growth Rate / Incentive Subsidy Rate) × Capital Efficiency × Cross-Sector Penetration

 

Each component is intentionally unforgiving.

 

The organic-to-subsidy ratio acts as a dehydration filter. If a protocol’s TVL increases tenfold but token emissions increase twentyfold, its DF score collapses. This identifies extraction-driven projects rather than sustainable ones.

 

Capital efficiency asks how much economic activity a protocol generates per dollar of liquidity. High-DF systems turn one dollar into ten dollars of volume or revenue. Low-DF systems burn capital for vanity metrics.

 

Cross-sector penetration is perhaps the most important long-term variable. Does the protocol serve only crypto-native users, or does it satisfy external demand? DePIN selling compute to AI firms, or RWA protocols onboarding traditional funds, score far higher than internal loops.

 

At its core, the DF model is not about growth—it is about wealth redistribution. It asks whether a protocol changes who gets paid, or merely reshuffles incentives among insiders.

 

CHAPTER 5: EFFICIENCY DECIDES THE WINNER

 

The infrastructure chapter delivers a final, sobering conclusion: blockchain competition is no longer about technology superiority. It is about friction.

 

Most public chains are “good enough” from a technical standpoint. The real differentiator is how effectively they eliminate user pain. Wallet management, gas abstraction, cross-chain complexity—these are the bottlenecks preventing marginal capital from entering crypto.

 

Messari believes chain abstraction is the decisive weapon here. Whichever ecosystem hides complexity most effectively will attract not just crypto natives, but capital migrating from traditional financial systems.

 

This is the same marginal money I have referenced in earlier analysis: capital that does not want to learn crypto, but is willing to use it if friction disappears.

 

Efficiency, not ideology, decides the winner.

 

WHAT TO WATCH, AND WHAT TO DEFER

 

Based on Messari’s framework—adjusted by my own skepticism—the priority stack becomes clearer.

 

Near-term focus should remain on Layer 1 ecosystems that either control liquidity flow or meaningfully implement chain abstraction. Equity perpetuals represent a powerful bridge between DeFi and global markets, with real fee potential. DePIN deserves attention, but only where external revenue is demonstrable. Yield-bearing stablecoins will continue to challenge incumbents, albeit with cyclical risks.

 

AI agents belong on the watchlist—but with patience. Infrastructure will likely outperform application-layer agent narratives in the next phase.

 

Crucially, all of this analysis remains crypto-native. The largest determinant of returns still sits outside these chapters, buried in the report’s longest and most consequential section: the interaction between crypto and real-world capital.

 

That is also where my broader research focus lies, and where the next set of reports—such as Bitwise’s outlook and Coinbase’s market forecasts—become essential complements.

 

CLOSING THOUGHTS

 

Messari’s Crypto Theses for 2026 is not perfect. It carries institutional bias, optimistic assumptions, and aggressive timelines. But it remains one of the few documents that consistently identifies structural change before it becomes consensus.

 

Read dialectically. Absorb the framework. Question the timing.

 

Because in crypto, the future is often defined early—but profits accrue only to those who arrive neither too late, nor too soon.

 

The above viewpoints are referenced from @Web3___Ace

〈Messari’s 2026 Crypto Theses: Who Defines the Future—and Who Gets There Too Early (Part 3)〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Messari warns Ethereum risks losing execution-layer value after EIP-4844, as L2s capture fees, ETH turns inflationary, and its valuation leans increasingly on a weak digital gold narrative.

 

Yield-bearing stablecoins may erode USDT dominance by redistributing risk-free yields, but synthetic models like USDe face structural depeg risks tied to funding rates and market cycles.

 

Historical backtesting shows Messari’s forecasts are directionally accurate, yet portfolio bias and liquidity dynamics mean its reports guide narratives, not precise timing or retail-level returns.

Messari’s 2026 Crypto Theses examine Ethereum’s value capture crisis, the rise of yield-bearing stablecoins, and why institutional research demands skepticism despite a strong historical track record.

Messari 2026 Crypto Theses: Why Speculation Is No Longer Enough (Part 1)

In Part 1, I focused on Messari’s structural arguments around L1 valuation traps, chain abstraction, AI agents, derivatives, and DePIN. In this second installment, the discussion shifts from growth narratives to internal tensions within the crypto system itself—particularly Ethereum’s positioning, the evolution of stablecoins, and the importance of maintaining skepticism when reading institutionally produced research.

 

These sections are less about where capital wants to go, and more about where value capture is quietly leaking, and why some long-held assumptions may no longer hold.

 

Report link

 

ETHEREUM’S IDENTITY CRISIS

 

One of the more striking sections of the report is Messari’s extended discussion on Ethereum’s strategic dilemma. The report raises a provocative question: is Ethereum slowly turning into a “settlement garbage dump” for its own Layer 2 ecosystem?

 

To understand this concern, the context matters.

 

The Ethereum Cancun upgrade and EIP-4844 introduced blobs, dramatically reducing data availability costs for L2s. From a user and scalability standpoint, this upgrade was a success. Transaction fees dropped, and rollups became significantly cheaper to operate.

 

However, the economic side effects were far less favorable for Ethereum itself.

 

Before blobs, meaningful activity on applications like Uniswap required users to transact directly on Ethereum mainnet, consuming ETH and contributing to fee burn. After the upgrade, much of that activity migrated to L2s such as Base, where fees are collected at the rollup level. Ethereum still receives settlement fees, but only a fraction of what it once captured.

 

As a result, Ethereum’s gas consumption declined, ETH burn slowed, and by 2025 the asset shifted from deflationary back to inflationary. This is not merely a technical footnote—it directly impacts Ethereum’s monetary narrative.

 

Messari argues that unless Ethereum can reassert value capture through mechanisms like shared sequencers, mainnet execution upgrades, or some form of native sharding that restores economic gravity, its valuation will increasingly rely on a “digital gold” narrative.

 

And on that battlefield, Ethereum faces a structural disadvantage. As a monetary asset, it cannot outcompete Bitcoin on simplicity, immutability, or brand clarity. Without renewed execution-layer relevance, Ethereum risks being squeezed between BTC’s monetary dominance and L2s’ application dominance.

 

YIELD-BEARING STABLECOINS AND THE SHADOW BANKING SHIFT

 

Another major theme in the report is the transformation of stablecoins from passive settlement tools into active yield-bearing instruments.

 

Messari predicts that interest-generating stablecoins will increasingly erode the market share of Tether. The reasoning is straightforward: institutions are no longer willing to forgo 5% risk-free yields simply to hold non-yielding dollars.

 

The report introduces the concept of “risk-free yield extraction.” Historically, USDT holders effectively donated yield to Tether, which reinvested reserves and captured billions in annual profit. In a higher-rate environment, this inefficiency becomes too visible to ignore.

 

Protocols like Ethena represent a direct challenge to this model. Ethena combines liquid staking tokens with delta-neutral hedging strategies to distribute underlying yield back to stablecoin holders. Importantly, USDe’s listing on major centralized exchanges in 2025 granted it real settlement functionality, not just DeFi composability.

 

However, Messari does not ignore the risks.

 

Because USDe is a synthetic stablecoin backed by derivatives hedging, it carries structural depeg risk under extreme market conditions. Its yield originates from two primary sources: staking rewards from LSTs and funding rates paid by perpetual futures traders.

 

In bull markets, long traders subsidize the system, allowing USDe holders to “collect rent.” In prolonged bear markets, that flow reverses, and the system must pay to maintain hedges. Yield is therefore cyclical, not guaranteed.

 

Messari’s optimism here implicitly assumes continued demand for leverage and a constructive BTC market environment. One useful indicator to monitor is LST premium behavior; sustained distortions often signal rising stress beneath the surface.

 

BACKTESTING AND HEALTHY SKEPTICISM

 

Despite its depth and historical accuracy, Messari’s research should not be treated as gospel.

 

As an institutionally aligned research platform, Messari inevitably reflects portfolio exposure and strategic bias. The report’s consistently bullish tone on Solana, for example, aligns closely with its disclosed holdings. This does not invalidate the thesis, but it does demand critical distance.

 

To test this, I used AI-assisted analysis to backtest Messari’s major predictions over recent years.

 

The results are mixed but instructive. In late 2023, Messari’s call that Solana was the only L1 capable of seriously challenging Ethereum proved remarkably accurate, with SOL rising from roughly $20 to above $200 in 2024. Its relative bearish stance on Ethereum also played out, as ETH/BTC continued to weaken into 2025.

 

Predictions around DePIN were partially correct. Large projects like Render and Helium performed well, but many smaller initiatives ultimately collapsed. Stablecoin forecasts fared better, with yield-bearing models emerging as one of the most consistent growth segments in 2025.

 

Overall, the hit rate is strong—but not perfect.

 

This reinforces a broader point: Messari’s reports are best read as directional compasses, not trading manuals. They excel at identifying structural shifts early, but they do not account for liquidity timing, narrative decay, or retail-driven reflexivity.

 

TRANSITIONING TO PART 3

 

If Part 1 examined where crypto infrastructure is expanding, and Part 2 explored where value is leaking and assumptions are breaking, Part 3 will focus on the final layer: how these structural insights translate—or fail to translate—into actual market returns.

 

In crypto, fundamentals matter. But liquidity and narrative still decide who gets paid.

 

That tension is where the next cycle will be won or lost.

The above viewpoints are referenced from @Web3___Ace

〈Messari’s 2026 Crypto Theses: Power Struggles, Stablecoins, and Skepticism (Part 2)〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Dynamic production-based collateral gives on-chain assets financing attributes rather than treating them solely as trading instruments.

 

Custody and risk-control frameworks are the core logic enabling banks to accept crypto assets as collateral.

 

Global experimentation and institutional exploration coexist, but price volatility and regulatory uncertainty remain major challenges.

On December 28, 2025, Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank, issued a pilot loan to Bitcoin mining firm Intelion Data using dynamically produced crypto assets as collateral, marking the first on-chain asset creditization practice within Russia’s traditional banking system.

 

ASSETS ARE MORE THAN JUST DIGITAL TOKENS

 

Historically, crypto assets have played a limited role in mainstream financial systems, primarily serving as trading instruments. Investors bought and sold them to profit from price volatility, but such assets lacked the measurable and stable cash-flow characteristics required by banks for credit assessment.

 

Sberbank’s pilot loan introduces a critical shift. Instead of relying on static token holdings, the loan is collateralized by dynamically produced Bitcoin generated through mining operations. The mining output becomes the credit backing, linking the collateral directly to real economic activity and ongoing production.

 

This structure transforms on-chain assets from price-driven speculative instruments into cash-flow-linked credit claims. Even amid Bitcoin’s price volatility, mining output remains traceable, auditable, and measurable on-chain. This predictability aligns more closely with traditional banking risk models, which prioritize visibility into income generation and repayment capacity.

 

Importantly, this development is not merely a product innovation. It represents an extension of conventional lending frameworks. Traditional collateral typically consists of fixed assets or stable operating income. On-chain asset collateral introduces real-time, dynamic, and transparent economic value, offering banks new tools for risk pricing and credit evaluation.

 

Figure 1: Core framework and execution details of Sberbank’s crypto-collateralized lending pilot

 

CASH FLOW AND CREDIT BECOME QUANTIFIABLE

 

At the heart of bank lending decisions lie three variables: repayment capacity, collateral liquidation value, and risk exposure management. While traditional assets benefit from mature valuation and liquidation systems, on-chain assets have long been excluded due to price volatility and operational complexity.

 

When specific conditions are met, however, on-chain assets can gradually acquire credit attributes acceptable to banks. The first condition is predictable cash flow. Mining enterprises can estimate production volumes and revenue based on historical output data, hash rate projections, and operational costs.

 

Second is auditable ownership. On-chain records provide transparent and verifiable proof of income attribution, enabling banks to confirm that mining rewards or protocol revenues belong to the borrower. Third is a controllable liquidation mechanism. Through custody and enforcement arrangements, banks can ensure collateral recovery in the event of default.

 

Sberbank’s pilot loan is structured around these principles, establishing a quantifiable credit foundation for on-chain assets. Unlike speculative exposure to price movements, this credit derives from real, traceable economic activity. As a result, on-chain assets begin to exhibit a “lendable” profile recognized by the banking system.

 

Figure 2: Conceptual model of on-chain asset creditization

 

CUSTODY CREATES THE SAFETY NET

 

Whether banks accept on-chain assets ultimately depends on custody and risk control. Sberbank employs its proprietary custody solution, Rutoken, to manage collateral assets. This system ensures that collateral cannot be freely transferred during the loan term and maintains clear audit trails and enforceable liquidation procedures.

 

This custody approach mirrors how banks manage traditional collateral such as equities or bonds, rather than relying on automated liquidation mechanisms common in decentralized systems. Custody allows banks to monitor asset movements precisely, execute recovery procedures upon default, and comply with regulatory requirements.

 

Beyond risk mitigation, custody infrastructure forms the backbone of on-chain asset lending. Standardized custody solutions could eventually enable large-scale integration of crypto assets into bank balance sheets and provide replicable operational models for other financial institutions.

 

GLOBAL BANKS ARE TESTING THE WATERS

 

While this marks a first within Russia’s banking system, global practices indicate that on-chain assets are steadily approaching the boundaries of traditional credit markets. As of the third quarter of 2025, Bitcoin-backed loan balances on Coinbase exceeded USD 1 billion, reflecting strong institutional demand for crypto-collateralized financing.

 

In the United States, at least six banks offer BTC-backed loans to institutional clients, typically with loan-to-value ratios ranging from 50% to 70%. These conservative parameters reflect banks’ efforts to balance volatility risk while exploring crypto-backed credit products.

 

In Asia, Japan’s Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) has expanded crypto custody and lending services for institutional clients, with custody assets exceeding JPY 500 billion. European financial hubs such as Switzerland and Luxembourg have clarified the legal status of digital assets, enabling banks to custody and legally process on-chain collateral.

 

These cases demonstrate that on-chain asset creditization is moving from the periphery toward the core of financial systems. Sberbank’s pilot aligns with this global trend, offering valuable operational insights for Russian financial institutions.

 

ON-CHAIN INCOME CAN ALSO BE FINANCED

 

Mining output represents only the starting point. Other on-chain assets with financing potential include proof-of-stake (PoS) staking yields, where nodes generate predictable and auditable income streams; decentralized exchange fee revenues, which provide traceable cash flows from protocol activity; and NFT royalty income derived from secondary market transactions.

 

By the third quarter of 2025, total DeFi collateralized debt reached approximately USD 41 billion, growing 37% year-over-year, with centralized platforms accounting for a significant share. This growth reflects increasing market recognition of on-chain credit instruments and validates the financing potential of blockchain-based economic activity beyond speculation.

 

DUAL ADVANCEMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT AND REGULATORY CLARITY

 

While the creditization of on-chain assets holds significant potential, price volatility remains the primary risk. Sharp fluctuations can trigger cascading liquidations and undermine loan portfolio stability, while valuation and audit frameworks are still insufficiently standardized, raising the bar for bank-level risk management. To mitigate these risks, banks typically apply lower loan-to-value ratios than for traditional assets, implement automatic liquidation thresholds, and dynamically adjust lending models based on market depth and liquidity. Sberbank’s pilot has already adopted parts of this framework, indicating that on-chain asset lending is feasible within a controlled risk environment, though further optimization remains necessary.

 

At the same time, regulatory clarity is a prerequisite for long-term sustainability. Sberbank’s management has emphasized that the loan is a pilot program, with the bank working closely with the central bank to refine the regulatory framework. Key areas include the legal status of pledged assets, the enforceability of liquidation mechanisms, compliance with capital requirements, and asset custody and client protection. Without clear institutional support, even willing banks would struggle to scale such products sustainably.

 

Overall, the creditization of on-chain assets follows a gradual trajectory: initial pilots validate operational processes and risk controls, regulatory frameworks then define standards and boundaries, and finally lending products expand across banking systems to corporate and retail lines. This progression marks the genuine realization of on-chain credit—where creditworthiness is grounded in predictable cash flows rather than price movements, custody and risk controls form the foundation of bank participation, and regulatory coordination ensures long-term viability.

 

Read More:

JPMD AND MONY MOVE BANK MONEY ON-CHAIN

RWA Tokenization: How Real-world Assets Are Moving On-chain

〈On-Chain Assets Enter Bank Lending: The Practical Boundary of Creditization〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

WikiEXPO HK 2026 will take place on July 23–24 in Hong Kong, bringing together over 12,000 professionals, 200+ speakers, and 100+ exhibitors from more than 120 countries, making it one of the largest global fintech gatherings in Asia.

 

The event will focus on core forces reshaping global finance, including fintech and AI, cryptocurrency and digital assets, Web3 and DeFi, forex and liquidity solutions, next-generation payments, and ESG in finance.

 

Positioned in Hong Kong as a bridge between East and West, WikiEXPO HK 2026 aims to provide a neutral, high-level platform for regulators, institutions, and innovators to exchange ideas and promote responsible and sustainable financial innovation.

Hong Kong will host WikiEXPO HK 2026 on July 23–24 at the Hopewell Hotel. As a leading global fintech event, this event is expected to attract over 12,000 professionals, 200+ speakers, and 100+ exhibitors from more than 120 countries and regions.

 

This year’s expo will spotlight key innovations reshaping global finance, including:
• Fintech & Artificial Intelligence
• Cryptocurrency & Digital Assets
• Foreign Exchange & Liquidity Solutions
• Web3.0 & Decentralized Finance
• Next-Generation Payments
• ESG in Finance

 

Attendees can engage with global thought leaders, innovators, and regulators through keynote presentations, panel discussions, fireside chats, and dedicated networking sessions.

 

“Hong Kong is the ideal international financial hub to bridge East and West,” said Loki So, Chief Operating Officer of WikiEXPO. “Leveraging this unique position, we aim to convene global fintech leaders in Hong Kong through this event, offering a dynamic and neutral platform that fosters responsible innovation and sustainable growth in fintech and digital assets.”

 

How to Participate:

 

Free registration is now open: https://bit.ly/wikiexpohk_2026

 

Join the Event’s LinkedIn Group for updates and announce your attendance to your business connections: https://bit.ly/linkedin_wikiexpohk2026

 

Sponsorship & Exhibiting Opportunities:
Contact: Loki So | Email: [email protected] | Telegram: https://t.me/Loki_wikiexpo_coo

About WikiEXPO

 

WikiEXPO is a global hub for financial innovation, uniting visionaries and leaders in fintech, forex, and crypto industries. With a worldwide community of over two million followers, our iconic summits—held in global capitals including Dubai, Hong Kong, Cyprus, Bangkok, Singapore, Sydney, South Africa, and beyond. From cutting-edge startups to industry giants, we connect the brightest minds. After six years of rapid development, WikiEXPO has become one of the world’s largest and most influential events in the forex and crypto fields.

 

Past Speakers at WikiEXPO Global

Dominic Williams: Founder & Chief Scientist, DFINITY Foundation

Evan Auyang Chi-chun: Group President, Animoca Brands

Justin Sun: Founder – TRON, Member – HTX Global Advisory Board

Reeve Collins: Co-Founder – Tether

Joy Lam: Member of Task Force on Promoting Web3 Development – Hong Kong Government, Head of Global Regulatory & APAC Legal – Binance

Alvin Hu: Managing Director, KuCoin Exchange

Kevin Lee: CEO, Gate.HK

Mario Nawfal: CEO, IBC Group

Julian Tehan: CCO, BitMEX

Hasnae Taleb: Managing Partner, Mintiply Capital, The Shewolf of Nasdaq by Nasdaq Stock Market

Mayoon Boonyarat: Director Revenue Tax Policy Division, Ministry of Finance of Thailand

John Riggins: Partner, BTC Inc

Loretta Joseph: Policy Consultant, The Commonwealth, Chairman, ADFSAC

Brian Norman: CFO Auros, Co-Chair Web3 & Blockchain committee – FinTech Assoc HK

Bugra Celik: Director, Digital Assets | Global Private Banking & Wealth, HSBC

Simon Callaghan: CEO, Blockchain Australia

Hassan Ahmed: Country Director, Coinbase Singapore

 

We look forward to welcoming you to Hong Kong in July 2026!

〈Wiki Finance Expo Hong Kong 2026: Asia’s Largest Fintech & Web3.0 event Set for July!〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Altcoin-focused treasury companies are the first to face exit risks, while treasuries centered on major assets are also under pressure.

 

Pure asset holding models are unsustainable; yield generation and liquidity management will determine long-term survival.

 

Alignment with ETF/ETE standards, alongside stronger compliance and transparency, will be critical for the industry’s future.

Amid market corrections and intensifying competition, most digital asset treasury companies are likely to be flushed out, with survivors relying on yield management, liquidity optimization, and standardized compliance frameworks.

 

MARKET VOLATILITY SHAKES THE INDUSTRY

 

In 2025, digital asset treasury companies (DATs) expanded rapidly, offering institutional investors a convenient channel to gain exposure to digital assets. Their portfolios spanned a wide range of assets, from major cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum to Solana, XRP, and selected altcoins. This broad exposure model attracted growing attention from Wall Street participants seeking alternative asset access through equity-like structures.

 

However, market conditions deteriorated in the second half of the year. Heightened volatility and sustained price corrections across digital assets triggered sharp declines in the share prices of many DATs. As asset values fell and liquidity conditions tightened, the industry began facing a dual challenge: balance sheet revaluation and operational liquidity pressure. Investor sentiment weakened significantly, raising fundamental questions about the long-term viability of many treasury-focused companies.

 

Figure 1: BTC Holdings Distribution Across Treasury Entities

 

ALTCOIN TREASURIES FACE DISPROPORTIONATE RISK

 

Industry analyst Altan Tutar has pointed out that DATs centered on altcoins are structurally more vulnerable during market downturns. These companies typically hold assets with weaker liquidity profiles and lower institutional acceptance, making it difficult for their market capitalization to remain sustainably above net asset value (mNAV).

 

During periods of declining market confidence, such treasury structures are often the first to lose investor support, increasing the likelihood of delisting, restructuring, or outright exit. While treasuries focused on major assets such as Ethereum, Solana, or XRP benefit from deeper liquidity and broader recognition, they are not immune to sustained market stress. As the crypto market undergoes structural adjustment, portfolio construction, risk management discipline, and operational efficiency have become decisive factors in determining which firms survive and which are forced out.

 

Figure 2: Entity Type Distribution of Bitcoin Treasury Holders

 

SINGLE-ASSET STRATEGIES LOSE THEIR EDGE

 

Ryan Chow, co-founder of Solv Protocol, has emphasized that companies built solely around holding Bitcoin or a single digital asset lack long-term sustainability. In 2025, the number of listed or quasi-listed companies holding Bitcoin increased sharply. Yet the subsequent market downturn exposed a fundamental weakness: the absence of effective yield and liquidity management capabilities.

 

According to Chow, future survivors will treat digital assets not merely as passive stores of value but as capital that can generate yield and support liquidity strategies. This shift requires treasury companies to move beyond directional price exposure and build mechanisms that actively enhance capital efficiency. Without such capabilities, firms remain overly dependent on market cycles, leaving them vulnerable during prolonged downturns.

 

YIELD AND LIQUIDITY AS CORE COMPETENCIES

 

Chow further notes that DATs with stronger survival prospects tend to implement multi-layered yield management strategies. These may include staking, lending, or selective participation in DeFi protocols, combined with dynamic portfolio rebalancing to respond to changing market conditions. Equally important is liquidity optimization, which ensures sufficient flexibility to manage redemptions, rebalance positions, and navigate stressed market environments.

 

Such active management capabilities significantly enhance resilience during downturns. They also help stabilize investor expectations by shifting the narrative from pure asset appreciation to risk-adjusted return generation. In a volatile market, yield and liquidity management are no longer optional enhancements but foundational pillars of competitiveness.

Figure 3: Bitcoin Treasury Inflows & Outflows Trend (2021-2025)

 

ETE PRODUCTS EMERGE AS STRUCTURAL COMPETITORS

 

Vincent Chok, CEO of First Digital, has highlighted the growing competitive pressure from crypto ETEs (Exchange-Traded E-products). Compared with DATs, ETE structures typically offer superior price transparency, regulatory clarity, and liquidity management. These advantages make them increasingly attractive to institutional and conservative investors seeking compliant digital asset exposure.

 

Chok argues that for DATs to remain relevant, they must progressively align their governance, audit standards, and asset management practices with those of ETFs. Without such alignment, DATs risk being marginalized by regulated investment vehicles that deliver similar exposure with lower perceived risk and higher transparency.

 

INTEGRATING INTO TRADITIONAL FINANCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

 

As the digital asset industry matures, deeper integration between DATs and traditional financial infrastructure has become a strategic necessity. Establishing robust compliance frameworks, conducting regular audits, and adopting standardized asset management processes can significantly enhance investor confidence and operational stability.

 

In practice, this requires DATs to comply with KYC and AML requirements, provide consistent and transparent disclosures, and engage third-party auditors to verify asset existence, financial integrity, and risk controls. By institutionalizing these practices, treasury companies can reduce valuation volatility and narrow the credibility gap between crypto-native firms and traditional financial products.

 

Ultimately, aligning operational standards with those of ETFs allows DATs to achieve comparable levels of governance and professionalism, positioning them as legitimate participants within the broader financial system rather than peripheral or speculative vehicles.

 

INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATION AND STRATEGIC DIRECTION

 

By 2026, the DAT sector is expected to undergo significant consolidation. Market corrections, the limitations of single-asset strategies, and deficiencies in compliance and transparency will drive a large-scale shakeout. Surviving companies are likely to share several defining characteristics: a core allocation to major assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana; well-developed yield and liquidity management frameworks; and operational standards aligned with ETF or ETE benchmarks.

 

Future strategic priorities for DATs include reducing single-asset volatility, improving portfolio stability, enhancing capital efficiency through innovative yield strategies, and strengthening investor trust through transparency and governance. Firms that successfully integrate these elements will not only improve profitability and competitiveness but also contribute to the broader professionalization of the digital asset management industry.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Digital asset treasury companies are entering a decisive phase of industry restructuring, with 2026 likely to determine long-term winners and losers. Market volatility, intensifying competition, and disparities in yield and liquidity management capabilities will collectively shape survival outcomes. Companies that rely solely on passive asset holding are increasingly likely to exit the market, while survivors will differentiate themselves through diversified portfolios, active yield generation, and standardized compliance frameworks. As consolidation accelerates, the industry will become more concentrated and professionalized, with high-standard operators and major-asset-focused treasuries emerging as dominant players. This evolution signals the gradual maturation and institutionalization of digital asset treasury management as a credible segment of global financial markets.

 

Read More：

DAT (Digital Asset Treasury): The Strategic Evolution of Crypto-Native Corporations

What is Digital Asset Treasury(DAT)? 5 Must-Know Insights

〈Outlook for crypto asset treasury companies in 2026〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Prenetics Global, a nutrition supplements company backed by football star David Beckham, has announced it is scrapping its Bitcoin (BTC) reserve and accumulation strategy, shifting its focus back to its core consumer health business, IM8.
The decision comes less than three months after the company completed a $48 million funding round.
#Bitcoin #BTC #Funding

Grayscale has filed an S-1 registration statement with the U.S. SEC to convert its Bittensor Trust into an ETF.
If approved, it would become the first #TAO ETP in the United States. The trust aims to track the value of TAO and plans to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
#Grayscale #ETF #Bittensor