Author: Fairy, ChainCatcher
The market will always create "stories" in unexpected ways.
From MicroStrategy to the ETH version, SOL version, and XRP version of "MicroStrategy", micro-listed companies that were previously overlooked in the US stock market have become carriers and amplifiers of new narratives.
Is this subtle crossover of crypto assets and traditional stock markets a further evolution of crypto financialization, or a narrative bubble built on high leverage?
MicroStrategy Clones: Who Are the Coin Hoarding Stocks?
Crypto treasury strategies have become a prominent trend in the capital market. According to Bitcointreasuries data, 211 global entities now hold over 3.37 million Bitcoins, with listed companies holding about 800,000, and this number continues to grow. Recently, Trump's media technology group has also entered the market, raising approximately $2.5 billion through private placement to establish a Bitcoin treasury.
To further investigate, we compiled a list of "MicroStrategy" clone companies:
Many companies in the image were struggling financially before entering the crypto asset space. For example, Upexi saw declining financial revenue and expanding net losses in the second half of 2024. However, since announcing its reserve strategy, its stock price has risen by over 300%. Similar cases are common, with some companies achieving multiple or even dozens of times growth through this strategy.
Meanwhile, multi-coin versions of "MicroStrategy" continue to emerge. Clean energy solution provider Worksport has invested cash reserves in BTC and XRP; e-commerce company GD Culture Group received a $300 million financing commitment, planning to purchase Bitcoin and TRUMP as long-term reserve assets. These developments indicate that more traditional enterprises are attempting strategic transformation and market repricing through crypto assets.
Expanding Gameplay: Borrowing Coins to Trade Stocks, Borrowing Stocks to Nurture Coins
The "MicroStrategy" path essentially has an extremely low barrier: continuously issuing stocks and bonds to raise funds, then allocating the funds to crypto assets, and using financial reports as valuation anchors to support stock performance. The differences lie in fundraising capabilities, choice of coin allocation, and whether to choose staking for returns.
Two days ago, SharpLink Gaming announced a $425 million private placement and incorporated ETH into its treasury, becoming a typical case of this model: raising funds below net asset value, purchasing and staking ETH; refinancing when the stock price is higher than the per-share ETH net value, and repeating this cycle.
Notably, the investors this time are almost exclusively old-school institutions like ConsenSys, ParaFi, and Pantera, who were early heavy investors in Ethereum. SharpLink, with a previous market value of only about $10 million, only needs to issue 69.1 million new shares at a low price to transfer 90% control to the "Ethereum camp".
In a sense, these operations are similar to the previous crypto spot ETF application wave: companies and token projects collaborate to create expectations and valuation bubbles through capital market methods. "Buy coins - dress up - trade stocks" has become a new path for token projects to enter the US stock market. Crypto KOL AB Kuai.Dong revealed that besides the announced ETH and SOL MicroStrategy plans, there are rumors of 6-7 projects currently seeking shells and in negotiation stages. Additionally, VCs and market makers are quietly transforming, looking for US stock shells to acquire, raise funds, and buy coins.
Mainstreaming or Capital Illusion?
Stock price curves inject on-chain volatility, with the flywheel spinning but its direction unclear. Can these operations truly operate long-term and create structural value, or are they just a sophisticated capital illusion?
Crypto KOL @lowstrife warned that these "crypto reserves" are actually a destructive leverage structure, essentially providing cash flow for token accumulation by continuously diluting ordinary shareholders' equity. This path works particularly smoothly for MicroStrategy, with the premise that its stock price is higher than its Bitcoin holdings (mNAV > 1). Once it falls below this balance point, the entire flywheel might stall or even reverse.
However, is replicating this model truly feasible? Bloomberg financial columnist Matt Levine pointed out that MicroStrategy has first-mover advantage, strong investor relations, effective market narrative, and systematic channels from ETF and index inclusion. Ironically, this logic is now being copied by a group of "micro MicroStrategy companies", with the market seemingly expecting a premium for each newcomer. Matt wrote: "It's like the crypto world is constantly playing the US stock market, and the US stock market keeps falling for it."
From a community perspective, the sustainability of this structure is also questionable. Community member @0xdafu believes that the continued operation of this structure depends on the relative stability of the underlying assets. Bitcoin can carry "infinite imagination", but stock market valuations cannot infinitely overdraw "market dream rate". Community user @connect1998 even compared this cycle to Evergrande-style capital games: asset mortgage brings financing, financing further leverages asset allocation, ultimately accumulating massive debt and bubbles. Once the market no longer buys in, the consequences might not just be valuation halving, but systemic withdrawal.
Stories can be replicated, but value cannot be faked.
When the logic of capital engulfs crypto ideals, when the banner of mainstreaming mutates into a leverage-driven financial model, is this evolution or another form of "selling out"?
