20 companies focusing on BTC, 4 on SOL, 2 on ETH, 2 on XRP.

Source: Galaxy Research
Compiled by: BitpushNews
Cryptocurrency Treasury Trends
The trend of publicly listed companies establishing cryptocurrency treasuries is expanding from Bitcoin to more crypto tokens, with the scale of allocations also continuing to grow.
In just the past week, two publicly listed companies announced plans to purchase XRP as part of their treasury holdings, and another company indicated it is acquiring ETH as a reserve.
Bitcoin treasury companies have been in the headlines for most of this year, with Strategy (formerly Microstrategy) leading the way. VivoPower and Nasdaq-listed Webus have both announced intentions to launch $100 million and $300 million XRP treasuries respectively, while SharpLink announced the establishment of a $425 million ETH treasury.
Including these companies, Galaxy Research has compiled a list of 28 cryptocurrency treasury companies:
20 companies focusing on BTC, 4 on SOL, 2 on ETH, 2 on XRP.

Overview of Cryptocurrency Treasury Companies
Our View
Given the momentum of existing companies and the market's apparent strong interest in funding these companies at a considerable scale and across various assets, the trend of cryptocurrency treasuries is expected to continue developing.
However, as more cryptocurrency treasury companies come online, skepticism continues to rise.
The primary concern lies in the sources of funding for some purchases: debt.
Some companies rely on borrowed funds, primarily zero-interest and low-interest convertible notes, to acquire treasury assets.
At maturity, these notes can be converted into company equity at the discretion of the investors, provided the notes are 'in the money' (i.e., when the company's stock price exceeds the conversion price, making the conversion of equity economically advantageous). However, if the maturity date arrives and the notes are 'out of the money', additional funds will be needed to cover the liabilities — this is the source of concern regarding treasury company strategies.
Furthermore, although less frequently mentioned, there is also the risk that these companies may lack sufficient cash to pay their debt interest.
Regardless of the situation, treasury companies have four main options. They can:


Sell their cryptocurrency reserves to supplement cash, which may harm asset prices, and this move could impact other treasury companies holding the same assets.


Issue new debt to cover old liabilities, effectively refinancing the debt.


Issue new equity to cover liabilities, which is similar in nature to how they currently fund the purchase of treasury assets through equity financing.


Enter default if the value of their cryptocurrency reserves fails to fully cover their liabilities.
In the worst-case scenario, the path each company takes will depend on the specific circumstances and market conditions at the time; for example, treasury companies can only refinance when market conditions permit.
In contrast to treasury funding sources, equity sales involve treasury companies issuing stock to finance asset purchases. Equity sales used to supplement asset purchases are less concerning from a broader perspective, as under this method, the company has no obligation to default and incurs no liabilities for asset purchases.
In a recent report on the cryptocurrency leverage landscape, we examined the scale and maturity timeline of debt issued by several bitcoin treasury companies.
Based on our findings, we believe that there is currently not an imminent threat as widely perceived in the market, given that most of the debt matures between June 2027 and September 2028 (as shown in the figure below).

The figure above summarizes the debt issued by bitcoin treasury companies for the purchase of bitcoin, listing the earliest dates when these debts may be required to be paid (maturity/redemption/exercise date) along with the corresponding nominal amounts of debt.
Considering the industry's historical issues related to leverage, concerns over debt-driven strategies of treasury companies are not unreasonable; however, at present, we believe this approach does not pose significant risks.
However, as debts mature and more companies adopt this strategy, there may be a tendency to take on higher-risk approaches and issue debt with shorter maturities, which may not remain constant.
Even in the worst-case scenario, these companies will have a range of traditional financial options to extricate themselves, which may not necessarily end with the sale of treasury assets.
– Galaxy On-Chain Analyst @ZackPokorny_

#BTC #XRP #ETH