A new discussion around digital asset treasury companies has taken shape after Matt Hougan, the Chief Investment Officer at Bitwise, shared a detailed breakdown of how these firms should be valued. His explanation arrives at a time when investors are trying to understand whether DATs deserve to trade above, at, or below the value of […]A new discussion around digital asset treasury companies has taken shape after Matt Hougan, the Chief Investment Officer at Bitwise, shared a detailed breakdown of how these firms should be valued. His explanation arrives at a time when investors are trying to understand whether DATs deserve to trade above, at, or below the value of […]

DAT Valuations Clarified as Matt Hougan Outlines Discount and Premium Factors

2025/11/24 16:00
3 min read
For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at crypto.news@mexc.com
  1. Digital asset treasury firms face natural discounts from illiquidity, costs, and risk.
  2. Premium valuations only come when crypto-per-share rises in measurable ways.
  3. Larger DATs may gain a long-term advantage due to better access to leverage and markets.

A new discussion around digital asset treasury companies has taken shape after Matt Hougan, the Chief Investment Officer at Bitwise, shared a detailed breakdown of how these firms should be valued.

His explanation arrives at a time when investors are trying to understand whether DATs deserve to trade above, at, or below the value of the crypto they hold.

Hougan pointed out that many assessments circulating in the market rely on incomplete or incorrect reasoning, creating confusion on how fair value should be calculated.

Hougan began with a simple scenario. If a Bitcoin-backed DAT announced it would shut down within hours and distribute its holdings, its market value would match the value of its Bitcoin.

That would reflect an mNAV of 1.0. Extending that timeline to one year introduces several variables that immediately shift pricing. According to Hougan, three factors always push valuations downward: illiquidity, expenses, and operational risk.

Why Discounts Form in DAT Valuations

Illiquidity acts as the first driver. Investors do not pay the full value today for Bitcoin; they will receive it after a year. Many would demand a haircut of 5 to 10%. The second force comes from expenses. Hougan used a simple illustration.

If a DAT holds Bitcoin worth 100 dollars per share but spends $10 per share annually on operating costs and executive pay, investors would naturally insist on a 10% discount. The third factor is general company risk, including management decisions, custody safety, or compliance failures.

These elements create a baseline framework showing why discounts are the default position. They exist because each cost erodes the final value that investors would ultimately receive.

When Premiums Appear and Why Size Matters

Hougan also mentioned situations wherein DATs can potentially earn a premium rate. In the United States, it would be achievable only by increasing crypto per share. There were four methods to fund such additional sources of income.

They were to borrow money to purchase crypto, lending out assets to earn interest, investing in derivatives to earn returns, and purchasing crypto via buybacks, M&A deals, and ‘locked tokens.

However, such favorable attributes are not a certainty but are pitted against the definite costs and pain of quickly liquidating other assets. Hence, Hougan forecasts that very few effectively operated DATs will cross above asset value, while the rest will remain below.

In particular, he emphasized that large companies have large advantages because they find it easier to gain access to credit, have high liquidity, and have greater opportunities to purchase discounted securities.

Also Read: Matt Hougan Calls Solana the New Wall Street Amid Tokenization Boom

Market Opportunity
Polytrade Logo
Polytrade Price(TRADE)
$0.04254
$0.04254$0.04254
+0.28%
USD
Polytrade (TRADE) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact crypto.news@mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny

Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny

The post Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The cryptocurrency world is buzzing with a recent controversy surrounding a bold OpenVPP partnership claim. This week, OpenVPP (OVPP) announced what it presented as a significant collaboration with the U.S. government in the innovative field of energy tokenization. However, this claim quickly drew the sharp eye of on-chain analyst ZachXBT, who highlighted a swift and official rebuttal that has sent ripples through the digital asset community. What Sparked the OpenVPP Partnership Claim Controversy? The core of the issue revolves around OpenVPP’s assertion of a U.S. government partnership. This kind of collaboration would typically be a monumental endorsement for any private cryptocurrency project, especially given the current regulatory climate. Such a partnership could signify a new era of mainstream adoption and legitimacy for energy tokenization initiatives. OpenVPP initially claimed cooperation with the U.S. government. This alleged partnership was said to be in the domain of energy tokenization. The announcement generated considerable interest and discussion online. ZachXBT, known for his diligent on-chain investigations, was quick to flag the development. He brought attention to the fact that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce had directly addressed the OpenVPP partnership claim. Her response, delivered within hours, was unequivocal and starkly contradicted OpenVPP’s narrative. How Did Regulatory Authorities Respond to the OpenVPP Partnership Claim? Commissioner Hester Peirce’s statement was a crucial turning point in this unfolding story. She clearly stated that the SEC, as an agency, does not engage in partnerships with private cryptocurrency projects. This response effectively dismantled the credibility of OpenVPP’s initial announcement regarding their supposed government collaboration. Peirce’s swift clarification underscores a fundamental principle of regulatory bodies: maintaining impartiality and avoiding endorsements of private entities. Her statement serves as a vital reminder to the crypto community about the official stance of government agencies concerning private ventures. Moreover, ZachXBT’s analysis…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 02:13
White House ballroom architect speaks out against Trump immigration policies

White House ballroom architect speaks out against Trump immigration policies

Shalom Baranes, a Libyan refugee and chief architect for President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project, described the president’s immigration policies as
Share
Rawstory2026/03/22 00:47
Longtime Republican laments the GOP collapse into the 'gutter'

Longtime Republican laments the GOP collapse into the 'gutter'

Republican strategist Steve Schmidt says he’s been a Republican for nearly 30 years, long enough to see it’s sad “devolution” over the last few.“Yesterday, was
Share
Alternet2026/03/21 23:54