Starting in 2024, Digital Asset Treasury companies (DATs) have been gaining popularity in the crypto market, with more and more companies joining the "crypto treasury" game.

On August 26, the market saw another wave of excitement. According to The Information, the cryptocurrency fund Pantera is planning to raise up to $1.25 billion to transform a publicly traded company into a Solana investment company. At the same time, Galaxy Digital, Multicoin Capital, and Jump Crypto are also in talks for a $1 billion SOL acquisition deal.

It is worth noting that Pantera is not only deeply involved at the capital level but is also placing its partner Marco Santori on the board, directly participating in corporate governance. This move signifies that crypto funds are transitioning from behind the scenes to the forefront, actively shaping the strategic direction of DAT companies.

This "treasury race" surrounding Solana may prove to be the largest concentration allocation to that particular digital asset to date.

For Pantera partner Cosmo Jiang, the rise of "crypto treasury companies" is not just hype but the birth of a new financial organizational structure. Prior to joining Pantera, he worked in traditional finance on Wall Street, from Evercore's M&A transactions to Apollo's private equity, and then to Hitchwood's long-short equity hedge fund. He was responsible for fundamental research in the retail and internet industries, covering companies like Walmart, Costco, Facebook, Google, Spotify, and others.

"You have to admit that even the craziest-looking companies are creating real business value. And that is something worth serious consideration."

Pantera partner Cosmo Jiang, now a prominent figure in the crypto treasury investment field

In this two-hour-long interview, Cosmo systematically outlined the underlying logic of the DAT model, investment selection criteria, exit strategies, and industry landscape evolution. He believes that the current moment is still the "window of opportunity" for DATs, but the time left for new players is running out.

"You are witnessing the birth of a new industry right before your eyes. And an industry does not 'birth' twice."

This interview was conducted by BlockBeats in mid-June. The following is the dialogue:

TL;DR

· Why would someone choose to hold a "Digital Asset Treasury Company" rather than buying spot directly? The sole reason is: you believe that the value of this "half Bitcoin" will be worth more in the future than a full Bitcoin. As long as the market tends to overvalue certain assets from time to time and there is enough volatility, you can trigger the ATM (At-The-Market) issuance mechanism and operate the Convertible Debt engine.

· The essence of the DAT track is fundamentally a "quasi-commodity business" that will eventually form an oligopoly. This industry competes based on cost efficiency—who can produce at a lower cost.

· Compared to assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, assets like Ethereum and Solana are actually more suitable for running the DAT model. The reason is simple because BTC itself does not generate income, DAT companies have to use structure to leverage their exposure; but assets like ETH and SOL, which are smart contract assets, can participate in staking, join DeFi, and have native "profitability."

· This field will definitely undergo consolidation in the next three to five years. Especially among major assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, the truly successful DAT companies may only be two to three per chain.

· We are currently in a window of opportunity, but the difficulty of new entrants will gradually increase. There will be another three to six months of "new listing period" to come, but if we extend the timeline to one or two years, or two to three years, the number of new entrant companies will decrease.

From Wall Street to Cryptocurrency, why do Fundamental Believers look to Treasury Companies?

BlockBeats: You didn't initially come from a crypto-native background. Can you first talk about how you entered this industry?

Cosmo Jiang: My career began in traditional finance. I graduated from Harvard with a degree in Mathematics and then followed a very typical New York finance path. I started working in Evercore's M&A team, then spent a few years in private equity at Apollo, and later joined Hitchwood Capital, a long-short equity hedge fund managing billions of dollars. The companies I researched at the time included Walmart, Costco, Facebook, Google, and others.

Cryptocurrency was not initially my focus. It wasn't until 2020 to 2021 that I noticed all these companies starting to talk about crypto, from Facebook to Spotify, Universal Music, Nike, LVMH; all were getting into it. As an analyst, if you want to be the lead analyst for these companies, you have to quickly learn about the crypto space.

At first, I was just trying to keep up with research needs, but I found that this space is actually building real business models.

I realized that in the future there will be a set of companies that will never go public, where their incentives are entirely based on tokens: the team, employees, holders, and users are all integrated into one. This innovation got me very excited.

I originally intended to start my own fund, continuing the traditional stock style. But in New York, there are many funds like that, and there are very few people who truly understand financial modeling and can grasp crypto.

So I founded Nova River, and soon after, several large funds, including Pantera, found me.

I eventually joined Pantera because they have a solid accumulation on the venture capital side, and strong platform capabilities. I merged my own capital into it, starting to oversee investments related to Liquid Markets.

Now, I am a General Partner at Pantera, overseeing the company's overall investment strategy, while continuing to lead our investments in the public markets, especially in hybrid opportunities between the secondary market and private placements – such as the digital asset treasury companies we are discussing today.

BlockBeats: So why did you specifically set up a new fund instead of covering these investment opportunities with an existing liquid fund?

Cosmo Jiang: When we first started laying out this strategy, it was truly a non-consensus bet. We received many pitches for similar projects at the time, but we did not fully understand its significance until we encountered Defi Dev Corp (DFDV) – a team trying to replicate a Solana version of MicroStrategy in the U.S.

Their setup was very clear: the team is in the U.S., able to directly access the U.S. capital markets; the treasury's main holding is Solana, and we ourselves are very bullish on Solana's prospects. This combination was very attractive at the time.

So we chose to invest in DFDV. It was a very forward-looking project, with almost no other institutions involved. We were among the first and one of the few willing to take a significant stake as investors. Although it seemed very niche at the time, we were willing to bear the uncertainty and be the first-mover. Some other capital providers joined us in the investment, but we were the lead investor, the main investor.

At the time, we even thought that this should be the only one, the only digital asset treasury company in the U.S.

BlockBeats: So you quickly encountered a second one later?

Cosmo Jiang: Yes, far more than just one. We later received approximately 90 pitches and invested in multiple projects. So going back to your earlier question: I had no idea at the time that this track would develop so quickly and on such a large scale.

Initially, we used a Venture Fund and a Liquid Token Fund to invest in these projects, providing a certain anchoring effect. But as the track fully exploded, the concentration limits of the original funds became apparent—we had already invested a considerable amount of funds, but many outstanding entrepreneurs still deserved support.

Therefore, establishing a dedicated vehicle became necessary. This way, we could obtain more "dry powder" and would no longer be limited by allocation ratios. Our original funds will continue to participate in some projects, but their quotas are almost at the limit.

So, we launched this dedicated fund to address what we believe is indeed an emerging new category of companies. As an investor, it is very rare to encounter such opportunities in one's professional career, and we feel fortunate to be involved.

DAT's "Specialized Fund," Treating Publicly Listed Companies as Early-Stage Investments

Background: In July 2025, the veteran crypto investment firm Pantera established the DAT Fund (Digital Asset Treasuries Fund), focusing on investing in publicly listed companies that hold cryptocurrency as a strategic reserve. The core logic of the fund is: through stock premium financing, increase holdings of cryptocurrency to increase the per-share coin count. Pantera views this model as a new narrative for "public market access to crypto exposure," aiming to bridge traditional finance and cryptocurrency.

Since its establishment, the DAT Fund has rapidly deployed funds, investing in multiple projects including Solana treasury company DFDV and Ethereum treasury company Bitmine, and frequently acting as an Anchor investor in transactions. As market enthusiasm soars, Pantera has also launched the fundraising for the second DAT Fund to further scale up in this emerging track.

Related Reading: "Crypto VC Telling a $2 Trillion Story to Wall Street"

BlockBeats: In your DAT Fund memorandum, you referred to this as a "timely investment opportunity." So, I'm curious, will this impact the DAT Fund's own fund life cycle and exit plan?

Cosmo Jiang: Yes, I think this type of investment is a form that falls between "venture capital" and "liquid assets."

All of our funds actually have a long-term investment objective—we are long-term believers in this industry, we participate from a long-term investor's perspective, not as short-term traders. For example, our venture capital fund has a 10-year lifecycle with an 8-year lock-up period, specifically designed for the growth cycle of early-stage projects, with a very long holding period.

On the other end, we also have a more "liquid" product—our "Liquid Token Hedge Fund"—which has quarterly liquidity. Of course, we also hope that investors take a multi-year perspective and walk with us so they can truly enjoy the returns brought by our research and investment process. But we also provide a certain level of liquidity.

And this DAT (Digital Asset Treasury) Fund sits right between the two. Because we are helping these companies kickstart from scratch, we will set certain lock-up periods and liquidity restrictions. However, at the same time, we believe that the success of these projects can actually be seen in a relatively short time. So the holding period of this fund will be shorter than that of a traditional venture capital fund.

Furthermore, since we are investing in "publicly traded company stocks," we also hope that investors will hold onto what we believe are "long-term winners." Therefore, in terms of exit strategy, we will also use an "in-kind distribution" method, meaning we will directly distribute these stocks to investors, allowing them to choose whether to continue holding them rather than having to sell. Through this approach, we can both execute a long-term investment strategy and provide investors with greater flexibility.

BlockBeats: The emergence of the DAT (Digital Asset Treasury) trend has actually surpassed everyone's expectations, and some people are starting to feel that this may already be a "toppish signal." Do you think it is still a timely investment opportunity?

Cosmo Jiang: What I want to say is that the core of my daily work is actually closely tracking the public markets. As someone who has been investing for 15 years, I am no longer fixated on any specific belief. I now firmly believe that when reality changes, our perception should also change accordingly, and our actions should be adjusted accordingly.

Going back to your earlier question, I do believe that because these investment targets are liquid, we evaluate them every day.

Although my initial investment intention was to hold these assets long term. But the reality is that sometimes the management team's execution is not as expected, and sometimes industry consolidation happens faster than you imagine. When this happens, we will respond promptly and make decisions that are most beneficial to LPs. After all, our core goal is to provide LPs with the best risk-adjusted return.

So regarding the market cycle, I do believe that there will be opportunities in the next 3 to 6 months for new projects worth participating in. But if this assessment changes, we will face it truthfully and adjust our strategy promptly.

Of course, I also believe that ultimately every mainstream token will produce two to three winners, and we will hold these winners long term. But the general principle is: as facts change, we will also adjust to deal with market changes.

BlockBeats: How much has the cost-to-value ratio of investing in these companies increased overall compared to before?

Cosmo Jiang: Overall, the valuation multiples of these DAT (Debt Asset Tokenization) projects generally range from 1.5x to 8x. So the current premium is still quite high. It is worth noting that many projects have very low early circulation, so the valuation may be relatively high at the beginning of trading, but there is usually a certain amount of pullback when the shares unlock and truly circulate.

So, some projects currently have a high premium, but they have these liquidity restrictions. Therefore, in the future, we may see valuation pullbacks in such projects. However, even after full circulation, many projects still range from 1.5x to 8x, which is still a fairly healthy premium range overall, right?

BlockBeats: What is the average amount Pantera generally invests in these projects?

Cosmo Jiang: The range can actually vary quite a bit, but our check sizes typically fall between 5 to 29 million US dollars, which is considered our typical investment range. Of course, we have indeed invested in some larger projects that are several times the scale of this range. However, we have never made an investment smaller than this. So, if we are to participate in a project, it must at least meet this standard.

BlockBeats: So investing in these DAT projects may not necessarily be cheaper than investing in early-stage crypto projects? Such as seed rounds or Series A.

Cosmo Jiang: I think these two are just different types of investments, and their risk-return structures are also very different. For example, when you invest in an early-stage startup, essentially you are buying a small part of its equity at a valuation you estimate.

However, in these (DAT) companies, what you are buying is more like 'Bitcoin in a box.' In other words, if you spend 1 dollar, you get a share of Bitcoin worth 1 dollar—so the total amount of this investment is not that important because you are almost getting back the corresponding assets at a 1-to-1 ratio, in a form of 'asset share mapping.'

BlockBeats: So in the past month (June), how many DAT projects has Pantera looked at in total? And how many did you invest in?

Cosmo Jiang: We have looked at nearly 100 projects in the past three months, it's been very intense since this trend started.

BlockBeats: Could you briefly explain how the investment process for these DAT companies works?

Cosmo Jiang: Well, I think this process is actually quite diverse. We try to get involved as early as possible at a reasonable time.

Sometimes we proactively reach out to foundations or large holders to understand their plans and why this approach might help them. Many times, because we have a strong reputation in this field, some foundations will actively seek our advice, or some key initiators not relying on foundations will also come to us. Generally, this process may involve them reaching out to us directly or they may first engage an investment bank to structure the deal, and then the investment bank comes to us.

Both scenarios are possible. We will try to intervene as early as possible and provide assistance to the best of our ability because we know we are the team that has seen the most deals of this kind in the market. We take this responsibility very seriously and hope that through our involvement, we can help them understand and build what we believe to be the best product.

BlockBeats: So would you say that in these projects, crypto VCs are not the main source of funding, but rather family offices or traditional funds?

Cosmo Jiang: The participant structure is now very diverse. Initially, it was indeed mainly people from the crypto community because the projects were still relatively new. But now many projects are very large in scale, and crypto-native funds do not have as much capital reserves. So we are seeing more and more traditional funds, and even some very well-known large blue-chip funds joining in. Although we cannot reveal names, they are indeed making these transactions, and many hedge funds are also entering.

BlockBeats: For projects like BitMine or SharpLink Gaming, what is the approximate barrier to entry? If a Crypto VC fund is only a few million dollars in size, can they still participate?

Cosmo Jiang: It depends on the project structure, but we are very concerned about the quality of the investor structure. If a project is looking to raise $500 million, we pay a lot of attention to whether these funds come from long-term investors rather than a group of "quick money" speculators. Now we are taking a more "hands-on" approach, directly helping the project team screen out what we consider short-term speculative money, and only retaining investors that we believe are "truly long-term capital." This is what we are doing.

BlockBeats: Do you think small Crypto VCs still have the opportunity to participate in this space?

Cosmo Jiang: We do have some advantages, such as experience, reputation, and information gathering capabilities, among others. But there will always be deals available, and there are still opportunities. Some projects are indeed widely seeking funding, usually of lower quality — we generally do not participate. And for truly high-quality projects, such as BitMine, they actually raised $20 million before going public, completed by a small group of trusted funds. The higher the quality of the project, the more closed it is.

DAT, The Experiment Field of US Stock Finance

BlockBeats: You mentioned just now that the "Digital Asset Treasury Company" (DAT) model was not initially accepted by everyone. How did you judge that it would work?

Cosmo Jiang: I think the key is that we must first acknowledge the business model of the "Digital Asset Treasury Company" itself. To be honest, I also spent some time overcoming initial biases. It was only after the success of MetaPlanet that I began to seriously study these types of companies. At that time, we also saw Sole Strategies in Canada starting to make similar attempts, so we spent a lot of time understanding their underlying logic.

For me, it was quite a challenge. Because I come from a traditional value investing background. Just think about it, a company like MicroStrategy trading at twice its Net Asset Value (2x NAV) for the long term, this is simply unacceptable in my past investment logic, completely contrary to everything I've done before, right?

BlockBeats: But did you later change your view on it?

Cosmo Jiang: Yes, because as an investor, you must continuously challenge your own preconceptions, especially when there is evidence to the contrary in reality.

And the reality is that MicroStrategy has almost consistently traded at a premium over the past five years. Even after the ETF came out, its advantage was not "terminated"—at that time, the mainstream view in the market was that once an ETF was launched, MicroStrategy's valuation premium would collapse.

Moreover, some of its top shareholders include some long-term value investors whom I greatly respect, such as Capital Group (America's largest mutual fund company) and Norges (Norway's sovereign wealth fund). These are all very fundamental, long-term funds, not short-term speculators.

So I really forced myself to think about this from a different perspective, and in the end, I realized—wow, this is really a "sustainable" financial engine?

BlockBeats: Why?

Cosmo Jiang: From a first-principles perspective, there are actually two key points:

First, do you believe that the market sometimes becomes overly exuberant and pushes the valuation of certain assets above their intrinsic value? My answer is: Yes, it does happen, indeed.

Second, do you believe that the market sometimes experiences volatility? It is precisely because of volatility that you have the opportunity to engage in convertible arbitrage. My answer is: Yes, obviously, the market does exhibit volatility at times.

So, as long as the market tends to overvalue certain assets at times and there is sufficient volatility, you can then trigger the ATM (At-The-Market) mechanism and operate the Convertible Debt engine.

From this perspective, a premium can actually be sustained in the long term.

BlockBeats: So, in your opinion, what does the fundamental principle of these "Digital Asset Treasury Companies" refer to?

Cosmo Jiang: I think ultimately the question to ask is: Why would someone choose to hold a "Digital Asset Treasury Company" rather than buying spot directly?

Take MicroStrategy, for example; its stock price is often twice the Net Asset Value (NAV). That sounds crazy, right? Why would you spend the same amount of money to buy "half a Bitcoin" instead of just buying a whole Bitcoin directly? The only reason is that you believe the value of this "half Bitcoin" will be more valuable than a whole Bitcoin in the future.

So, how do they achieve this? The key is to increase the "token per share" of the company's corresponding crypto assets. MicroStrategy will finance by issuing stock at a premium, issuing convertible bonds, etc., and then use this money to accumulate Bitcoin. And these instruments, fundamentally, are selling volatility or selling call options on their own stock.

As a result, the company gains income that can be used to accumulate Bitcoin, and this is done in an accretive manner.

Here's a simple example:

· Suppose a company can increase the amount of Bitcoin per share by 50% each year, continuously for two years.

· So if someone initially holds exposure to "half a Bitcoin" and after two consecutive years of 50% growth, they would then have around 1.1 Bitcoin. In this way, after a few years, their holdings will be more than if they had bought a single Bitcoin directly.

From this perspective, buying into such companies is a reasonable choice. As long as you believe these companies have the ability to continuously increase their "token per share" through various means, investing in them is justified.

In 2024, MicroStrategy's per-share Bitcoin holdings grew by nearly 75%. So far this year, it has also grown by over 25%. So in just a year and a half, their per-share Bitcoin has more than doubled. Therefore, if you bought in 2023 or 2024, your current gains far exceed those who invested in Bitcoin directly at that time.

So, this model has already been validated in practice.

Three Major Drivers of BMNR Stock Price Increase | Image Source: Pantera Website

BlockBeats: So how did these companies actually achieve this? What tools did they use to continuously increase their per-share Bitcoin exposure?

Cosmo Jiang: I think you can look at it from two levels.

First, it's about raising awareness and user adoption.

Many people think everyone has already heard the story of the crypto industry, but that's not the case. I've talked to friends at Tiger, Coatue, Viking, Lone Pine—now they are all fund partners, but crypto is not their daily focus. For them, this is still a new field.

So, companies like MicroStrategy, or these Digital Asset Treasury companies (DATs), first of all, actually need to tell the story of crypto assets to the traditional financial world, breaking into the mainstream market that still doesn't truly understand crypto.

And this market is huge. Currently, there are probably tens of millions of active users in crypto, while traditional financial users may be 100 times that number. This gap in awareness is the opportunity for DATs.

Therefore, "raising awareness" is a very critical strategy. And whether someone can truly tell this story—both explaining the underlying token narrative and the company's own story—that is one of the key factors for success. This is the first point: increasing awareness.

BlockBeats: What about the second aspect?

Cosmo Jiang: The second point is the overall marketing capability within the retail investor group. I believe that in the early stages, it is crucial not only to attract retail investors in the crypto community but also to target "Main Street retail investors" early on. This is essential for the long-term success of these companies.

In order to unlock financial leverage tools such as convertible bonds and preferred stock, the company's market capitalization needs to increase first, typically reaching the range of 10 to 20 billion US dollars.

However, there won't be many institutions investing in the early stages. The real key is to be able to tell the story to a broader audience of regular investors, making them willing to join. So, "building trust and belief" is a key part of this, including driving awareness on the institutional side as well.

The ultimate goal of all this is to achieve a "valuation premium" in the market — allowing you to monetize your stock and realize growth in a more valuable way. Once you hit the 10 to 20 billion dollar market cap range, you can start issuing convertible bonds and preferred stock, truly opening the door to institutional capital.

Therefore, all these steps are prerequisites that you must "believe will come true" for the whole model to work. Ultimately, it's all about "marketing."

BlockBeats: After a company gains market trust, how can it further increase its asset exposure?

Cosmo Jiang: This leads to the second stage — utilizing various financial tools to further increase the exposure of each share of Bitcoin or other tokens. Specifically, it means converting the market awareness you've built in the early stages into financing capabilities, such as through ATM, issuing convertible bonds, etc., to continue raising funds and then using that money to buy more cryptocurrency assets.

BlockBeats: Does this also mean that different types of underlying assets have varying degrees of support for this model?

Cosmo Jiang: Yes, we have recently observed an interesting phenomenon: compared to Bitcoin, assets like Ethereum and Solana are actually more suitable for running the DAT model. The reason is simple because BTC itself does not generate returns, DAT companies have to rely on structure to amplify exposure. But assets like ETH and SOL, smart contract assets, can participate in staking, enter DeFi, and have native "profitability."

In other words, even without engaging in financial engineering, they can still increase the token per share through on-chain revenue, interest rate products, and other means.

BlockBeats: This is why the market is willing to give a valuation premium to these DAT companies, right?

Cosmo Jiang: That's one way to understand it. When you think about why an asset can receive a valuation premium, the core is whether it is a structure that can continuously generate revenue. DAT companies are this kind of structure, as they appear more like financial service companies or banks.

The essence of a bank is a pool of capital that generates income through lending, among other methods. DAT companies are the same. They are a pool of capital used to generate revenue. Therefore, as long as this revenue is sustainable and stable, they should rightfully enjoy a valuation above book value, just like a bank.

Why Ethereum?

BlockBeats: Returning to Bitmine, the company which was originally a Bitcoin mining enterprise has now transformed into an Ethereum treasury company. This seems like a very clever market entry strategy. As you previously mentioned the importance of "marketing," was this one of the main reasons you and Tommy chose Bitmine to become an ETH treasury company?

Cosmo Jiang: I think there are many factors to consider when we pursue these types of transactions. First, you are usually collaborating with an existing management team, so choosing the right partner is crucial. Continuity of the team in a public company is very important.

Therefore, we believe that finding a team whose ideas are already highly aligned is very important. Especially, the other party must already understand the importance of building a digital asset treasury-type company, which is something we highly value. Bitmine meets these criteria perfectly.

I believe their willingness to transition from Bitcoin to Ethereum, this kind of open-mindedness, is also very crucial. While not every company would do this, their flexibility is very valuable to us.

So, these are all important factors that we consider. And by bringing in Tom Lee and his reputation, we have significantly accelerated this process. His influence has played a driving role in the company's development.

Tom Lee Interviewed on CNBC

BlockBeats: Defi Dev Corp is the first non-Bitcoin crypto treasury company in the United States. Why did the Solana treasury company appear first, but now the Ethereum treasury company seems to have the upper hand?

Cosmo Jiang: I think, in retrospect, this kind of thing only makes "logical sense" when looking back. Because the reality is, the world is full of randomness, and many times it's just some random events that end up becoming catalysts for the market.

The reason we initially supported Defi Dev Corp is partly because it was the first well-prepared and clearly structured funding proposal we saw at the time. Of course, we are staunch supporters and investors in Solana, which undoubtedly helped, and we invested early on. We have always been very bullish on Solana, but that does not mean we have any bias against Ethereum.

In fact, Ethereum itself has been one of our long-standing key investment targets. It's just that the DFDV team was the first to appear at the time, and they also clearly stated their intention to focus on Solana because at that time Solana undoubtedly had stronger momentum and higher popularity in the market. That's why we initially supported DFDV.

As you just mentioned—back in April and May of this year, the Ethereum ecosystem was actually a bit quiet and lackluster. So few people had confidence to launch Ethereum-related projects at that time.

It wasn't until later—I really admire Joe Lubin and the ConsenSys team, as they took the initiative to say, "Why can't it be us?" I very much agreed: why couldn't it be them? So we collaborated together to help them finalize who would act as the underwriter and who would be the advisors.

We were actually quite involved throughout the whole process. Because at the time, we also felt that since there was already a Solana treasury company, it was time to have an Ethereum treasury company as well. It wasn't a matter of favoring one over the other. It's just that the market's response clearly leaned towards Ethereum. Because in the eyes of mainstream users and traditional financial institutions, Ethereum's popularity is indeed much higher than Solana.

In addition, the news of Circle's listing, I believe, greatly accelerated the entire pace. Because in most people's minds, the association between Ethereum and stablecoins is much stronger than with Solana. And Circle's success in the public market is also seen as a clear signal, which is the real reason why the Ethereum treasury frenzy started faster and more intensely than Solana.

And then the subsequent explosion followed suit.

BlockBeats: But you mentioned in a previous interview that institutions and LPs are actually more interested in Solana than in Ethereum.

Cosmo Jiang: I think that's the case. The market itself is very dynamic, and the recent "stablecoin moment" has indeed rapidly shifted the discussion around the "top ten assets." So, indeed, one or two years ago, most of the questions we received from institutional investors were basically about Solana.

But if we look at the situation today, the reality is—even in the stock market, the majority of participants are actually individuals, not institutions. And the main body of wealth is actually held by individuals.

Among the general public, Ethereum's popularity is undoubtedly much higher than Solana's. So I think that's why we are seeing Ethereum treasury companies achieving greater success in the public markets now.

If we take a step back and look at the big picture, it's actually a very important moment for the US stock market in terms of "crypto asset exposure." So as long as a company is associated with "crypto assets," its recent performance has been very good. And these "digital asset treasury companies" are just one part of it.

Look at companies like Coinbase and Robinhood—this year, their stock prices have surged mainly because of their exposure to crypto assets. If you look at Circle's IPO, or Etoro's IPO, or even the success of many other IPOs this year, fundamentally, it's also because they have exposure to crypto-related assets.

I think a real major catalyst was Coinbase being included in the S&P 500 index.

I think many people haven't really realized how important this event is—it has been greatly underestimated. Because the S&P 500 is the benchmark index for all global fund managers, and before Coinbase's inclusion, there were no crypto-related components in this index at all. But after its inclusion, everyone worldwide working in finance had to, for the first time in their careers, consider crypto in their benchmarks.

This means that almost everyone, all professional investors, must start considering—whether they are overweight, underweight, or equal-weighted in crypto assets. And this issue is something that only truly became "legitimized" in April of this year when Coinbase joined the S&P 500.

This is the key driver that has suddenly made everyone pay attention to this space.

Short Window of Opportunity

BlockBeats: We noticed that your first investment was in BitMine. Previously, Pantera had invested in another Ethereum vault company, SharpLink, which seems to be a direct competitor to these two. Why did you still choose to invest in BitMine? What was the reasoning behind it?

Cosmo Jiang: We do acknowledge that these two companies are competitors. However, ultimately, this is one of the reasons why we are optimistic about this space. My assessment is that in the next three to five years, this field will definitely undergo consolidation. Especially among major assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, the companies that will truly emerge as leaders may only be two or three.

BlockBeats: Why is that?

Cosmo Jiang: Because fundamentally, this space belongs to a "commodity business." Its biggest "moat" is capital, yet capital is not truly a moat. The typical trend in such industries is: within the commodity sector, they usually do not form monopolies but rather an oligopoly because these industries compete based on cost efficiency—those who can produce at a lower cost.

Therefore, I believe there will be a consolidation in the future, and eventually, only two or three true winners will remain.

BlockBeats: So, in your view, it's not yet a winner-takes-all situation?

Cosmo Jiang: Far from it. We are currently at the starting point of this "big bang," the nascent stage of a new type of company.

Who will ultimately come out on top is still a complete unknown. Because right now, there are too many excellent and interesting teams and many talented individuals pursuing this direction, each with their own unique path. Therefore, at this initial stage, what we are doing is to early bet on those teams that we believe have high quality and high potential, as they may be one of the "two or three" in the future.

BlockBeats: What about the "survival rate"? For example, out of ten DAT companies, how many do you think will survive?

Cosmo Jiang: In my opinion, the projects that will ultimately survive are most likely those with a very large market capitalization. Let's go back to the core question— for a company to succeed in the realm of Digital Asset Treasury (DAT), the key is: scalability.

You need to achieve at least a circulating market capitalization of one billion, or even two billion USD, to truly have basic sustainability. Moreover, once you reach this scale, you need to continue to generate market attention and buzz. Only then can your "flywheel effect" keep spinning.

However, the reality is that the number of tokens that can support a billion-dollar-level publicly traded company is extremely limited. Just take a casual look at CoinMarketCap; there are only about 15 tokens with a circulating market capitalization exceeding 5 billion USD. If your token's market cap is below this standard, aiming to become a billion-dollar-level publicly traded company will be very challenging. While not impossible, it is indeed very difficult.

Especially for long-tail assets, some may not survive at all. We believe that the DAT projects that can truly survive will ultimately be concentrated in a few major assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, with maybe two or three projects per chain.

In my past professional experience, whether in the commodity industry or other less transparent industries, in the end, there will always be a pattern of "two to three major players + a tiny bit of the long tail."

I believe that the future of the DAT track will likely follow this logic. In the past three months, I have looked at 90 to 100 projects, but it is impossible for all 100 to survive. What we truly invest in is only a tiny fraction of them because we aim to set the bar high, only investing in projects that are most likely to become winners in the future. This is probably the overall trend of this track's future.

BlockBeats: You and Tom Lee have both previously mentioned that during market downturn cycles, there will be a trend of "consolidation," prompting more M&A activity among DAT companies. However, you both seem to have slightly different opinions on this matter. Do you not fully agree with this "M&A route" approach?

Cosmo Jiang: Let me clarify, in fact, we completely agree with Tom's statement. This is actually an idea that I and many teams at our digital asset treasury companies have repeatedly discussed, or rather, it is a question I have always been pondering. Coming from a traditional finance background, I am well aware of the financial tools that can be utilized. So, I tend to think that M&A makes a lot of sense in this field.

What I really want to say is, if a company's stock price is below its Net Asset Value (NAV), I believe such a company will make the right choice: either buy back stock or seek acquisition. Instead of just staying below NAV, drawing a management salary, and thinking about some kind of "empire expansion," right?

So as long as it falls below asset valuation, I expect these companies to be the "willing sellers." Of course, how things actually develop remains to be seen, but that's my judgment.

Therefore, I do believe that once we enter a downturn, as I mentioned earlier, this is a relatively "homogeneous" track, where only scale can win. So, those small companies that can't grow big or achieve economies of scale, once the market retracts, their stock prices are likely to underperform.

And at such times, those larger, more mature companies that can still maintain a premium trading will acquire other companies at a price of 1 times or less than 1 times Net Asset Value, which will be very value-enhancing. This is much more cost-effective than directly buying assets on the open market, right?

So, I think this is very reasonable, and I fully expect it to happen.

BlockBeats: So, what kind of DAT company can survive?

Cosmo Jiang: Yes, ultimately, all of this depends on "execution."

You see, the U.S. equity capital market itself is very deep and very broad, right? So as long as a company is of high quality enough, there is a large volume of transactions in the market that can be absorbed. Therefore, if many of the Data Treasury (DAT) companies can achieve very high trading volumes, I would not be surprised at all, just as you said, this is crucial to increasing valuation premiums and enhancing financing capabilities.

Of course, this also comes with volatility—but clearly, the key is still execution. That's why you will see that the trading volume difference between different DAT companies is huge. Ultimately, it all comes down to their execution capability—whether in terms of market promotion or capital operation.

BlockBeats: In the due diligence stage, from which key points will Pantera assess the investment potential of the team?

Cosmo Jiang: We mainly look at several core dimensions:

First, what kind of token is the underlying asset? Do we really have a deep understanding and confidence in it?

The reason why we bet on these projects is not to see them as a short-term trade, but to make a true long-term investment.

Therefore, only when a Decentralized Autonomous Treasury (DAT) project's underlying token is one we genuinely believe in will we act. We will dedicate a significant amount of effort to research these tokens, which is also the core of our work.

Secondly, is the project's opportunity or arbitrage space clear? Is there any particular tax arbitrage opportunity?

For example, MetaPlanet has a very clear tax arbitrage logic in the Japanese market. So, is there a similar "access arbitrage" opportunity in the United States, like the Hyperliquid project, where US investors cannot buy back, presenting an arbitrage possibility?

So we will ask ourselves: Does this project have some interesting mechanism that makes it unique, generating excess demand?

Thirdly, how is the project's competitive landscape in the market?

We have a very extensive comps table listing all currently issued Decentralized Autonomous Treasuries, including their tokens, issuance method, market cap, and more.

Therefore, we have a very clear understanding of the competitive situation in the entire market. So, where does this new team stand in this landscape? What is the differentiated information they intend to convey to the market?

Of course, the management team itself is also crucial.

Do they have enough credibility and articulation skills to convey this narrative and convince people?

Especially in financial structure design, it's not only about having the relevant capabilities but more importantly, do you really know how to effectively execute? Do you have a complete actionable execution plan?

When many teams come to us, they say, "We want to raise two hundred million dollars." I would then ask, "Great, what's next after that? What is your second step?" They often say, "We haven't figured that out yet."

This is completely unacceptable to us because to make these projects operational, the key is not the first fundraising; the first fundraising is usually easy. The key is whether you can complete the second, third rounds of fundraising.

Therefore, we hope the other party has already planned out the second, third, fourth steps.

Additionally, transaction structure design is very critical, including how they will list, liquidity arrangements, and pricing mechanisms.

BlockBeats: What you provide to teams is not just funding, but more like systematic guidance.

Cosmo Jiang: You could say that. We are very fortunate, and indeed many teams come to seek our advice. We are often the first ones they contact.

Therefore, I will try to share all the experience I have accumulated during this time with them as much as possible: because I have seen too many teams go through ups and downs, know which steps are correct, which advisors are reliable, and truly help them get started and stay on track.

BlockBeats: You mentioned earlier that this industry is still in its early stages and consolidation has not yet begun. So when do you think the consolidation phase will begin? Is there a rough timeline, such as within the next two to three years?

Cosmo Jiang: You know, if we go back to April of this year, when we did the DFDV (Defi Dev Corp) deal, I thought "one deal is enough." Later, we did a second deal, and I thought "two deals are enough." But now it seems that this has evolved into a larger trend.

This also precisely illustrates the depth of the U.S. capital market and the huge demand from the market for exposure to crypto assets—this is exactly what I want to emphasize today.

I consider myself a person who "lives in the secondary market," basically assessing the situation on a daily basis. I am well aware that the public market always has a "window of opportunity": sometimes the opportunity is open, sometimes it is closed, and you must be ready to adapt at any time. And currently, this window is very much "wide open," and I believe it can be sustained for at least a few more months.

But I think that launching a new digital asset treasury company will become increasingly difficult—especially when you are the 100th or 110th company. So from now on, this will only get harder. However, there are indeed some promising teams emerging right now, and we anticipate that there will be a "new listing period" of three to six months, during which some very good new projects will appear. What about afterwards? We will wait and see.

Maybe three months later, six months later, I will still say, "There is a window of opportunity of three to six months." Just like I said three months ago (laughs). So let's keep walking and observing. But if we extend the time frame to one or two years, two or three years, I think the number of new entrants will decrease.

Because this is a very rare window of opportunity, you are witnessing the birth of a new industry. And an industry will not be "born twice."

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia