Not Just FOMO: New Trends and Patterns Behind Solana's Treasury Management

Organizer: Scof, ChianCatcher

Editor: TB, ChainCatcher

As more and more publicly listed companies incorporate SOL into their balance sheets, this is no longer an isolated phenomenon but may signify the emergence of a new treasury model. Companies are no longer just observing the crypto market but are beginning to experiment with SOL as a sustainable asset allocation tool.

In this issue of Space, we invite Margie, Head of Asian Market at Solayer, Richard Liu, Co-founder of Huma Finance, Darcy, Head of Investor Relations at SonicSVM, and Ru7, CMO of SOON, to focus on this potentially emerging "SOL version of MicroStrategy" trend:

After Bitcoin, can SOL become the next pivot for corporate treasuries? Will continuous buying change the price logic of SOL? What impact will the entry of institutional players have on DeFi and staking yield models? If a publicly listed company can generate cash flow by staking SOL, will more companies follow suit and treat SOL as a "productive asset"?

Is this a real trend, or just another round of FOMO?

For details, please refer to X:

https://x.com/i/spaces/1jMJgkYVRDjJL

Question 1: With more and more publicly listed companies incorporating SOL into their treasuries, will this break the current market structure? How might this "treasuryization" trend change the industry's positioning and expectations for SOL?

Richard: I believe this reflects a growing recognition of Solana. A few years ago, when FTX collapsed, Solana faced immense pressure, but it survived and formed a strong ecological cohesion. Today, Solana is developing rapidly across multiple sectors, and the migration of projects like Ribbon proves this.

Essentially, this is a positive feedback from the market regarding Solana's resilience and potential.

In contrast, BTC has companies like MicroStrategy holding it long-term, influencing its price trajectory. I believe Solana will not replicate this path; it is more likely to carve out a broader path through its own application expansion capabilities.

Especially with the staking mechanism, the returns and application logic it brings make it reasonable and attractive for companies to incorporate SOL into their treasuries. This trend will not happen overnight but will evolve gradually as infrastructure matures, similar to Ethereum in its early days. BTC is undoubtedly digital gold with a solid status; however, it is no longer certain who will prevail in the smart contract platform space. Three years ago, most people thought EVM was the only choice, but now many see Solana as a strong competitor.

Combining technical capabilities with staking yields, I believe allocating funds to Solana will become an increasingly popular choice for more companies.

Darcy: Treasuryization is just one aspect of Solana; it doesn't necessarily have to follow the "digital gold" path of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is more often viewed as a store of value, while Solana is a public chain network with deep application value.

Currently, there is indeed a new trend in the market: whether institutions hold positions is becoming a standard for measuring the maturity of a public chain. This is similar to how we used ETF inflows to gauge the investment trends and price movements of BTC or ETH in the past. In the future, investors may also consider "whether institutions hold SOL" as a key indicator of its development prospects. From a corporate perspective, the treasuryization trend of Solana may gradually reshape the existing market structure.

I can feel that the Solana team is very proactive and systematic in this regard. Moreover, on-chain data shows that previously about 80% of on-chain activity came from retail users or airdrop participants, but this proportion has now dropped to 50-60%. This indicates that more and more large participants are entering the market.

I believe this is not only a trend for Solana but also for the entire crypto market— the crypto world will increasingly become "an institutional playground."

Margie: I would like to add an observation from the supply and demand perspective. The total supply of Solana is limited, and currently, about 65% of the tokens have been staked, which means the actual circulating supply in the market is relatively low. If more publicly listed companies buy Solana and hold it long-term, it will further reduce the circulating supply in the market. In this context, once market demand rises, it may trigger a supply-demand tension in the short term, driving prices up.

However, I believe the market's real focus is not just on who is buying but on why these companies are buying. If they are incorporating Solana into their treasury for long-term strategic reasons, it indicates they have clear confidence in Solana's future.

This is something worth continuous attention. We might as well observe for a while longer to see if these actions are sustainable and whether they will form a structural trend.

Ru7: I have worked in traditional finance, so I pay particular attention to the significance of the treasuryization concept for Solana.

I believe that "treasuryization" itself is a significant boost for Solana. If the market gradually shifts from being retail-dominated to institutions holding long-term, it will make Solana more stable, and its volatility will significantly decrease. This is because companies, as investors, often have longer operating cycles and do not trade as frequently as retail investors, possibly adjusting their positions quarterly or even less frequently.

Additionally, institutional participation will improve Solana's liquidity. Many Web2 users will indirectly participate in Solana investments through platforms like Robinhood, wealth management institutions, or large asset management firms like Wellington and BlackRock. This will gradually increase Solana's weight in "alternative asset" portfolios, thereby gaining a status similar to BTC.

As Solana is incorporated into more asset portfolios, it may gradually grow into a strategic asset for enterprises. In the long run, it may even be comparable to gold and Bitcoin in certain functions.

Institutional holdings for Solana are not just about capital inflow; they are also an ecological endorsement. It can enhance the confidence of developers and long-term investors and is expected to attract more traditional financial capital into the Solana ecosystem.

Question 2: What unique advantages and potential risks does Solana have as a corporate treasury asset compared to Bitcoin? Why are companies willing to choose it?

Richard: I would like to throw out a possibly radical viewpoint: I have never believed that Bitcoin would be the most core and vital asset in the crypto space, from the past to the present. Although Bitcoin is referred to as "digital gold," in reality, the functions and influence of gold cannot compare to those of internet infrastructure.

Bitcoin, as an asset, does not possess infrastructure attributes. In contrast, public chain platforms like EVM or Solana have the ability to build vast ecosystems and support a wealth of real-world applications. I firmly believe that, in the long run, chains capable of carrying and nurturing application ecosystems will have far greater vitality than Bitcoin.

This is Solana's first advantage: it has enormous long-term market space, potentially far exceeding Bitcoin.

The second advantage is that Solana is an asset that can generate returns. Bitcoin itself does not have direct yield-generating capabilities, whereas Solana can produce stable on-chain returns through staking, DeFi, payments, and other applications.

Currently, while Solana's DeFi is still in the development stage, it is progressing rapidly. If we find that Solana is more suitable than EVM when building certain functionalities, Solana's yield-generating capabilities will further enhance. This creates a fundamental distinction between it and Bitcoin: Bitcoin relies on "faith," while Solana's sustainability can be based on actual value creation within its ecosystem.

Of course, Solana also faces significant risks: its market cap is far smaller than Bitcoin's, and its ecosystem maturity is not sufficient. Therefore, companies that choose to incorporate Solana into their treasuries are mostly those willing to take on certain risks and hope to differentiate their strategies through this choice.

Especially at the current stage where SOL ETFs have not yet been approved, early entrants can leverage this to create their brand differentiation. This is not only an advantage for the companies themselves but may also guide other companies to follow suit later.

However, to form a scaled trend, time evolution is still needed, as well as continuous efforts from the Solana platform itself in brand building and promoting projects.

Ru7: I think Bitcoin is more like gold, as a store of value; while Solana is closer to Tesla or Nvidia, a growth-oriented tech company with strong technology and a diverse ecosystem. Solana not only has DeFi, NFTs, Web3 applications, forming a complete business loop, but also has a clear business model and growth potential.

From a traditional investment perspective, investing in Solana is like investing early in Tesla, focusing on its long-term market space and strategic value. Of course, it also carries high volatility risks, which pose challenges for traditional treasury management. At the same time, Solana is highly dependent on the developer ecosystem, and the activity level of the ecosystem directly affects its price performance.

Nevertheless, I remain optimistic about Solana's long-term potential; it has the conditions to become an important asset in the crypto market.

Darcy: The positioning of Solana and Bitcoin is fundamentally different. Bitcoin is more like a store of value asset, while Solana has the characteristics of being stakeable and yield-generating, with current annual yields between 6% and 8%, which adds a layer of holding value compared to Bitcoin, which relies solely on price appreciation. At the same time, Solana is closer to an internet company, with a diverse ecosystem, such as DeFi, NFTs, Web3 applications, and possesses platform-level commercial attributes. If we use traditional comparisons, Bitcoin is like gold, while Solana is more like Tesla or the Android operating system.

As more companies and even financial institutions participate in staking, Solana's staking yields may evolve into a "benchmark on-chain interest rate." This will not only attract institutional holdings but also give rise to various structured products in the ecosystem, such as leveraged combinations based on staking, fixed-income products, or on-chain "convertible bonds." Thus, Solana's asset logic becomes more robust, shifting from speculative assets to fundamental financial tools.

Additionally, Solana carries a more pragmatic narrative: making Web3 affordable and accessible for everyone. This goal is closer to the actual needs of developers and entrepreneurs than Bitcoin's "trustless currency," and is more likely to drive large-scale adoption. I believe it is this combination of technical usability and yield structure that gives Solana a unique advantage in corporate treasury scenarios.

Question 3: Upexi announced last month that it would invest 95% of its financing into Solana treasury construction. Is Upexi an isolated case or the beginning of a trend? Will more companies follow its strategy to incorporate SOL into their financial systems and create a sustained influx of institutional capital? Do you think there will be a "SOL godfather" type of publicly listed company like MicroStrategy that plays a long-term pricing central role? Is such a role possible in the SOL market?

Darcy: We are more focused on the medium to long-term trends of Solana. Although the path may not be entirely clear, the direction is evident. While speculative behavior exists in the short term, I do not think it is a bad thing. On the contrary, it can accumulate attention and trust capital, pushing Solana towards institutional development and attracting more applications and financial institutions to enter.

Upexi's investment in Solana has drawn market attention and even prompted other companies to follow suit, which is similar to MicroStrategy's path of purchasing Bitcoin. Although this phenomenon comes with speculative risks, the "institutional entry" signal it releases is still significant. It represents an alignment of short-term behavior with long-term goals, ultimately expected to converge into a systemic institutional trend.

Ru7: I believe it is very likely that we will see "Solana godfather" type companies or representatives emerge in the future, just like MicroStrategy did for Bitcoin. Their buying behavior will become an anchor point for market confidence, reinforcing the long-term value perception of Solana.

In the current context of macro uncertainty, the market needs such tangible signals more than ever. This role may not just be a single person or company but could be a collective formed by asset management firms, hedge funds, and others. Once these institutions start continuously buying Solana, they will assume the role of "pricing central," influencing market sentiment and strategies, much like the development path of the Bitcoin market.

As mainstream capital acceptance increases, Solana is expected to become the third widely recognized asset after BTC and ETH. As long as one institution or investor steps forward first, this process may be realized within this cycle, pushing the crypto industry into a higher level of institutionalization.

Margie: Before Upexi, projects like SolStrategy had already established a relatively deep presence in Solana. However, compared to them, I think Upexi's difference lies in its approach, which can almost be described as "All in Solana." This is very aggressive and counts as one of the more pioneering cases currently. On the day Upexi announced its purchase of Solana, its stock price skyrocketed from $2 to $22, although it later retraced, the market's attention to this move was very high.

As for whether Upexi will lead more companies to follow suit, I think the key lies in whether it can continue to invest deeply in the Solana ecosystem. If Upexi does not just stop at the numbers on its financial statements but truly engages in ecological construction and realizes practical applications, then its actions will not just be a one-time investment but could become a template for a corporate treasury strategy.

Regarding whether a "Solana godfather" type publicly listed company like MicroStrategy will emerge, I find this topic particularly interesting. We can look back at MicroStrategy's path. Starting in 2020, they converted most of their cash reserves into Bitcoin, accumulating over 25 Bitcoin investments in three years. This shows that their actions are not one-off but follow a clear long-term asset allocation logic. At the same time, they have developed financial derivatives and technological layouts around Bitcoin, becoming part of the Bitcoin narrative.

However, in the Solana market, we have not yet seen any company that can form such a strong and sustained influence in terms of capital and narrative like MicroStrategy. Although Upexi's actions are aggressive, I believe it is still in a relatively early stage and cannot yet assume the role of "pricing central."

However, I believe such a role is possible in the Solana market. The key is whether such companies or individuals can establish a clear long-term strategy, rather than just a one-time treasury allocation. If such a company truly emerges in the future, it could have a profound impact on Solana's pricing logic, market sentiment, and even mainstream media narratives.

Richard: Personally, I believe that in the long run, Bitcoin does need a "godfather" type figure because the narrative of Bitcoin itself is built on faith. If Solana also needs to rely on such a "godfather" figure for support, I would see that as a failure.

Why do I say this? Because Solana itself is a practical infrastructure, and its value should come from its ecosystem. If it needs a "godfather" to endorse it, that indicates Solana's ecosystem and value creation capabilities are insufficient. For me, Solana's "church" should be its ecosystem itself, including the Solana Foundation and the developer community.

Just like in the Web2 era, tech companies built strong platforms and application ecosystems without relying solely on financial capital. Financial capital can participate and support, but innovation and leadership must come from the platform itself. Whether it's Android or Tesla, that's how it works. Solana should be the same. Its "church" should come from within the ecosystem, not be defined and supported by an external company or investor.

Question 4: If more institutions incorporate SOL into their treasuries and participate in staking, will the yield models of DeFi be reshaped? Will the entry of institutions bring stability or dilute the existing users' yield space?

Richard: I feel this very deeply. Before we brought in institutional investors, our asset management processes were relatively simple, but once we placed assets into an SPV, facing investors from Wall Street, all processes had to be extremely standardized, with clear definitions for financial structures, fund allocations, and risk indicators. This high-intensity scrutiny, while causing short-term pain, has significantly improved our operational standards and transparency.

I believe the Solana ecosystem will undergo a similar process. The entry of institutions will significantly raise the threshold for the entire ecosystem, marginalizing projects that lack real returns and support, while high-quality projects with genuine business models will receive more attention. This filtering process is healthy; although it will bring a period of adjustment, it will benefit the ecosystem in the long run.

I do not believe institutions will immediately change the market structure of Solana, but they will gradually push Solana from a meme coin narrative towards a role more aligned with payments and financial infrastructure. This is an irreversible trend; it just needs time to settle and realize.

Darcy: I also believe this is a foreseeable trend. Solana will certainly hope to present a more institutionalized and high-end image in the future, and from the perspective of DeFi participants, institutional entry will bring changes to the yield models.

First, as institutions incorporate funds into their treasuries, the overall security and stability of the ecosystem will improve, but the APY will correspondingly decrease, reducing yield volatility. At the same time, to seek higher yields and liquidity, institutions and users may participate more in LST (liquid staking) protocols like JitoSOL, mSOL, bSOL, further integrating DeFi and staking systems.

On the other hand, the entry of institutions will indeed dilute some of the existing users' yields. Institutional capital has longer cycles and lower trading frequencies; as the network's robustness improves, retail investors' short-term yield space will be compressed. However, the ecosystem will gradually differentiate, allowing retail investors to choose high-risk, high-reward meme coins or complex products, while users preferring stable yields can participate in staking.

As the ecosystem's stability improves, Solana and the entire crypto market will also be viewed as a reliable asset allocation by more people, rather than just speculative tools. I believe this is an inevitable evolutionary direction.

Ru7: In fact, Solana's ecosystem itself has strong "blood production capabilities." Even if more institutions incorporate SOL into their treasuries in the future, leading to a decrease in individual yields due to rising staking rates, the diversification and product innovation capabilities of the Solana ecosystem will bring more structured yield products, continuously innovating the entire yield model rather than simply diluting the existing users' yield space.

Solana is a developer-driven ecosystem, with new protocols and financial products emerging continuously, which will make the yield model richer and provide users with more choices. The entry of long-term institutional capital will not only enhance the stability of the capital pool but also create economies of scale, attracting more users to participate, thus forming a positive cycle.

I believe this change is akin to credit bonds, ETFs, and other financial products in traditional finance; in the future, the Solana ecosystem will see more layered yield products. Users can freely choose based on their risk preferences, such as opting for high-yield products similar to credit bonds or stable low-risk products akin to U.S. Treasuries. As the ecosystem enriches, users will not be diluted but will instead gain more choices and better asset allocation experiences.

Solana does not need to rely on a "godfather" figure; its ecosystem and technological innovation are its greatest value. Just like Tesla, people are not just looking at Musk but at the company's determination to send people to Mars. Solana's future lies in the development potential and expectations of its ecosystem itself, rather than relying on a company or institution for endorsement.

Question 5: Currently, SOL lacks the Bitcoin-like scarcity and "faith layer" user structure, which poses a challenge for companies to promote long-term treasury strategies. How do you think we should stimulate holders' willingness to hold SOL long-term or even continue to increase their positions? What can be done to establish sufficient confidence and consensus?

Richard: My position is that the Solana ecosystem itself is the greatest support. Long-term holders are likely to come from within the Solana ecosystem, especially those leading projects like Jupiter and Helios. In the future, platforms like Huma, if they grow to a similar level, will also become Solana's most steadfast supporters. These projects not only possess strong vitality and resources but will also continue to support SOL due to their reliance on the Solana ecosystem.

I believe that the true drivers of Solana's long-term development will not be external financial groups but the projects within the ecosystem. They bring not just capital but comprehensive ecological interaction and construction, and their support and value release for Solana will far exceed mere financial investment.

Returning to the fundamental difference, Bitcoin primarily relies on faith because it is digital gold, while Solana is a network, an infrastructure. Its core value lies in the builders and developers within the ecosystem. In the future, when we see projects like Jupiter continuously supporting Solana, the strength of the ecosystem will naturally grow stronger.

Darcy: I completely agree with Richard's viewpoint. Solana does not need a religious leader-type figure. When a project lacks practical applications, it needs faith to sustain its value; once it has practical applications and enters the lives of many, there is no need to artificially create faith. Actual use cases and application logic are the best value support.

I have previously mentioned that Solana is more like the Android of Web3; it represents a pragmatic, inclusive, and actionable vision. Through code, it enables more people to afford and use Web3, whether in gaming, payments, DePIN, or payment experiences like Visa, all of which are real applications that users can directly experience.

Therefore, I believe Solana's path should be to promote the popularization of Web3, rather than to pursue a religious narrative or elitism around Web3. Its development momentum comes from applications, not faith.

Ru7: I understand that the starting points of traditional finance and crypto investments are inherently different. In the crypto space, many investments stem from cultural attributes and faith, while Solana resembles a tech company with practical application scenarios and profitability, even more like Apple than just Tesla. Because Solana has a rich application ecosystem, not limited to a single product, but including DeFi, payments, NFTs, DApps, etc., similar to how Apple has phones, computers, watches, and the App Store.

From an investment perspective, Solana possesses a strong developer ecosystem and continuous innovation capabilities, with solid fundamentals. For traditional financial institutions, this is precisely the type of asset they are willing to allocate; they focus on a five to ten-year yield cycle, and Solana's future growth potential clearly aligns with this logic.

I also look forward to seeing more institutions like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and BlackRock incorporate Solana into their core allocations, even becoming a major component of ETFs, driving more users and capital to pay attention to Solana. When this phenomenon occurs, Solana will become a brand frequently mentioned and used in daily life, forming a true faith layer. This faith will no longer be an empty cultural narrative but a consensus formed based on application popularization and usage frequency.

Especially in the payments sector, the Solana network is already capable of supporting users to purchase real goods with cryptocurrency, and in the future, it can also help more underdeveloped countries improve payment efficiency. I believe this tangible application will continuously enhance the market's confidence in Solana and the willingness to hold it long-term.

Margie: From a market perspective, to stimulate more people to hold or continue to increase their positions in Solana long-term, I believe we first need to establish a clear and long-term narrative, such as emphasizing that Solana is the fastest blockchain globally, with ultra-low latency and other technical advantages. Such narratives need to be reinforced repeatedly to create market memory, just like we continuously emphasize the million TPS capability when promoting Infinite SVM.

Secondly, the Solana ecosystem itself is already very strong; we need the leading projects and founders within the ecosystem to continue to speak out, actively building confidence. If the market can bind these leading projects with Solana's long-term value, then this sense of trust will be easier to form, and users will be more willing to hold Solana long-term.