Could crypto treasury companies become Wall Street's 'Emperor's New Clothes'? The first listed company to go bankrupt due to Crypto may soon be born.

This article discusses the Wall Street DAT model, analyzing it as regulatory arbitrage rather than financial innovation, and points out its 'reflexivity' trap and historical regression risks to the cryptocurrency valuation system. This article is derived from an article by Haotian on Chain Onlookers, organized, translated, and written by PANews. (Background: Stablecoin issuer StablecoinX 'establishes Ethena reserve,' raises 360 million USD with a daily investment of 5 million USD, ENA jumps 13%) (Background supplement: Comprehensive interpretation of Ethena: a new generation of cryptocurrency dollar reserves) When everyone is celebrating Wall Street's 'financial alchemy' DAT model, has anyone considered: Are DATs reversing history? Here are some viewpoints to share: First, let's briefly explain what DAT, PS, PE, PN... are. DAT: (Digital Asset Treasury), simply put, is issuing stocks to investors to raise funds, and then using the raised money to purchase crypto assets (BTC, ETH, etc.), forming a reserve fund. Ideally, it achieves a positive flywheel of issuing stocks → buying coins → issuing more stocks, buying more coins; other concepts will not be elaborated, from traditional finance's PE (price-to-earnings ratio, how much to pay for every 1 yuan of profit, value investing), PS (price-to-sales ratio, how much to pay for every 1 yuan of revenue, the so-called 'market dream ratio'), to my made-up PN (Price to Narrative, how much to pay for a story, purely speculative). Detailed viewpoints are as follows, similarities or absurdities are for reference only: 1) DATs are not 'financial innovation'; they are more like a 'regulatory arbitrage' channel set up by Wall Street to evade cryptocurrency regulation. However, since the Project Crypto and GENIUS, CLARITY stablecoin bills led by Paul Atkins were implemented, this wave of DATs seems to be a trend initiated by Wall Street's various US shell companies imitating the success story of MicroStrategy. I believe it is actually the last celebration before the unofficial compliance channels narrow, so the FOMO trend of DATs will inevitably be demystified under the dual control of its own bubble bursting and government regulatory pressure; 2) The 'financial alchemy' of DATs seems magical, but it is actually a typical 'reflexivity' trap. Many people are clear about the logic: MicroStrategy's 'issue stocks → buy coins → coin price rises → stock price rises → issue more stocks' flywheel looks great, and it is indeed great, but under the amplification effect of many imitators, the disadvantages of this 'reflexive system' will also be accelerated: it can indeed amplify profits during a positive cycle, but once it reverses, it leads to a spiral collapse. Especially when the mNAV (market net asset value) premium disappears or even turns into a discount, the entire model becomes instantly ineffective—stocks cannot be issued, coins cannot be bought, and there might even be a forced sale of coins; 3) DATs embody Wall Street's ability to complicate simple problems and ultimately implement 'dimensionality reduction' financial harvesting. Setting aside the regulatory arbitrage factors, the historical factors of MSTR are not mentioned, but against the backdrop of BTC, ETH ETFs and various crypto-friendly governments and policies, if you want to buy Bitcoin, just buy it directly, packaging it into an institutional-level digital asset allocation strategy, and then concocting a new concept of DATs. It is essentially using the 'complexity' of market perception gaps, educational time costs, and compliance path complexity to sell structured products to the market. Although this time DATs are not as aggressive as historical products like CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) or CDS (credit default swaps), they lead to the same end; 4) DATs are essentially a historical regression of the valuation system, forcibly pulling cryptocurrencies back from the mature PS/PE track to the barbaric age of PN. The crypto market has experienced several cycles of development, from pure concept speculation in 2017, to the DeFi era focusing on TVL and protocol revenue (PS thinking), to some projects starting to distribute dividends and buybacks (PE thinking), and the frequently mentioned PMF, the whole process is actually on the path to maturity. However, with the arrival of the DATs craze, it suddenly brought everyone back to the Price to Narrative, buying into stories and concepts; isn't this reversing history? In the short term, the local natives may not care, as they can indeed FOMO into real hot money, but in the long term, it adds a lot of uncertainty; above. That said, this wild approach of DATs might actually succeed, but we cannot expect external buyers to drive a super bull market. In my view, the real Pandora's box lies in the new gameplay of 'on-chain leverage' that DATs might trigger. In plain terms, it is about connecting Wall Street's leverage game with DeFi's composability, where external parties are responsible for incremental capital and endorsement, while the internal focus is on speculation and leverage amplification, especially for those crypto natives who are eagerly hoping for Wall Street to work miracles, must not overlook the innovative magic within pure Crypto. Related reports: Pendle bets on Terminal Finance: a new chess game to leverage institutional funds. Pendle is difficult to understand, but not understanding it is your loss. Funding rates can also be speculated! Pendle launches Boros to 'tokenize' perpetual contract fees; what are its features? 'Could crypto treasury companies become Wall Street's 'Emperor's New Clothes'? The first listed company to go bankrupt due to Crypto may soon be born.' This article was first published on BlockTempo (the most influential blockchain news media).