Author: Haotian; Source: X, @tmel0211
While everyone is celebrating Wall Street’s “financial alchemy” DAT model, has anyone ever thought: Is DATs actually “reversing the sky” and reversing history? Here are a few perspectives: First, let's understand what DAT, PS, PE, and PN are... DAT (Digital Asset Treasury) is simply issuing shares to investors to raise capital, then using the proceeds to purchase crypto assets (BTC, ETH, etc.) to form a reserve fund pool. Ideally, this creates a positive cycle of issuing shares -> purchasing cryptocurrencies -> issuing more shares, purchasing more cryptocurrencies. I won't go into other concepts here, from traditional finance's PE (price-to-earnings ratio, how much you pay for every $1 of profit—the stuff of value investing) and PS (price-to-sales ratio, how much you pay for every $1 of revenue—the so-called "price-to-dream ratio") to my made-up PN (price to narrative ratio, how much you pay for a story—pure speculation).
Detailed views are as follows. Any similarities or shocking comments are for reference only:
1) DATs are not "financial innovation" but rather a "regulatory arbitrage" channel set up by Wall Street to circumvent cryptocurrency regulation.
However, since the Paul Atkins-led Project Crypto and the passage of stablecoin bills like GENIUS and CLARITY, this surge in DATs enthusiasm may superficially appear to be a mere rip-off by Wall Street shell companies emulating the success story of Micro Strategy. However, I believe this is actually a last-ditch effort before unofficial regulatory channels close. Therefore, the DAT Fomo boom is bound to gradually dispel its mystique under the dual pressures of its own bubble bursting and government regulatory pressure.
2) The DATs' "financial alchemy" may appear magical, but in reality it's a classic "reflexivity trap." Many people are well aware of the logic behind MicroStrategy's flywheel of "issuing shares → buying tokens → rising token prices → rising stock prices → issuing more shares" looks promising, and indeed it does. However, the amplifying effect of a large number of imitators exacerbates the shortcomings of this "reflexive system": while positive cycles can indeed amplify returns, a reversal can lead to a spiral of collapse. Especially when the mNAV (net asset value) premium disappears or even turns into a discount, the entire model instantly becomes ineffective—no more shares can be issued, no more tokens can be bought, and tokens may even be forced to be sold. 3) DATs embody the financial harvester gene of Wall Street, adept at complicating simple problems and ultimately implementing "dimensionality reduction attacks." Putting aside regulatory arbitrage, and not even mentioning the historical implications of MSTR, given the backdrop of ETFs like BTC and ETH, as well as various crypto-friendly governments and policies, the idea of buying Bitcoin is to simply buy it. This is packaged as an institutional-grade digital asset allocation strategy, and then the new concept of DATs is concocted. In essence, this is a disguised exploitation of market awareness gaps, the time cost of education, and the complexity of compliance processes to sell structured products to the market. While DATs aren't as radical as historical products like CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) and CDSs (credit default swaps), they achieve the same goal. 4) DATs are essentially a historical regression in the valuation system, forcibly dragging cryptocurrencies from the mature track of PS/PE back to the wild days of PN. The crypto market has undergone several cycles of development and evolution, from the pure hype of 2017 to the DeFi era's focus on TVL and protocol revenue (a "Personal Investing" mentality), to the start of dividend buybacks by some projects (a "Private Investing" mentality), and the frequently mentioned "Purchase-to-Market Flow" (PFM) approach. The entire process has been on a path to maturity. However, the advent of the DAT craze has brought everyone back to a "price to narrative" mentality, a narrative logic that values storytelling and concepts. Isn't this a step backwards? In the short term, native investors in the market can be unconcerned, as Fomo does bring in real money. However, in the long term, this also increases uncertainty.
That said, DATs' unconventional approach might actually succeed, but we can't expect OTC buying to drive a massive bull market. In my opinion, the real Pandora's box lies in the brand-new "on-chain leverage" gameplay that DATs could unleash.
To put it bluntly, it's about connecting Wall Street's leveraged games with DeFi's composability. OTC markets are responsible for incremental funding and endorsements, while on-chain markets focus on hype and leverage. Especially for crypto natives who are still desperately hoping for a miracle from Wall Street, don't overlook the innovative power of the pure crypto market.
Coinlive 
