CZ on Crypto Treasury (DAT) Companies: The Model is Feasible, but the Management Team and Execution Capability are Key

On December 4, during the “KOL and Media Interaction” session, CZ responded to the question, “Recently, crypto treasury (DAT) companies have been under a lot of pressure, and many people are questioning the future of crypto treasury companies. Do you think this model is sustainable?” by saying:

“First of all, I think the basic logic of the DAT model is viable. Its function is to allow those traditional companies—companies that do not have the ability to directly purchase Bitcoin or crypto assets—to also gain exposure to crypto assets. Because MicroStrategy has been very successful, everyone wants to emulate it. But the current situation is that different treasuries have different management fee structures, and the lower the management fees for DAT, the better. Overall, there are indeed risks with DAT, and the magnitude of the risk largely depends on the management team, organizational structure, and management philosophy. But fundamentally, it is entirely feasible for publicly listed companies to purchase high-quality crypto assets. Holding these assets, they will appreciate in value; simply holding Bitcoin has been one of the best strategies over the past 10–15 years, even outperforming 99% of startups and other investment strategies. Therefore, this model is viable and can create value. Of course, it still depends on the management team and their philosophy. Sometimes, when a concept becomes overheated, everyone wants to do DAT, resulting in too many treasury companies; some of these will fail, and some may exit early, but those robust treasury companies will continue to grow. In summary: the DAT model is viable, but the key lies in the management team, structure, and management philosophy, as well as the ability to choose and execute in an overheated environment.”