Not just FOMO: The new trends and new patterns behind Solana's treasury

Compiled by: Scof, ChianCatcher

Edited by: TB, ChainCatcher

As more and more listed companies include SOL in their balance sheets, this is no longer an individual phenomenon, but may mark the emergence of a new type of treasury model. Instead of just waiting and watching the crypto market, companies are starting to try SOL as a sustainable asset allocation tool.

In this issue of Space, we invited Margie, head of Asian markets at Solayer, Richard Liu, co-founder of Huma Finance, Darcy, head of investor relations at SonicSVM, and SOON CMO Ru7 to focus on this potentially taking shape of the "SOL version of micro-strategy" trend:

After Bitcoin, can SOL become the next fulcrum of enterprise-level treasury? Will continuous buying change the price logic of SOL? What impact will the entry of institutional players bring to the DeFi and pledge income model? If a listed company can use pledge SOL to generate cash flow, will more companies follow suit in the future and regard SOL as a "productive asset"?

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

For details, see X:

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

---

Question 1: Will more and more listed companies break the current market structure as they include SOL in the treasury? How can this "treasuryization" trend change the industry's positioning and expectations for SOL?

Richard: I think it reflects everyone’s recognition of Solana. Solana was under tremendous pressure when the FTX accident a few years ago, but it survived and formed a strong ecological cohesion. Solana is developing very rapidly on multiple tracks today, and the migration of projects such as Ribbon proves this.

Essentially, this is a positive feedback from the market on Solana’s ecological resilience and potential.

In contrast, BTC has long-term holdings of companies like MicroStrategy, which affects its price trend. And I don't think Solana will replicate this path, it is more likely to take a wider path through its own application expansion capabilities.

In particular, the staking mechanism brings benefits and application logic, making it a reasonable and attractive trend for enterprises to include SOL in the treasury. This trend will not happen overnight, but will gradually evolve as infrastructure matures, just like Ethereum back then. BTC is digital gold and has a stable position; but in terms of smart contract platforms, it is no longer so certain who will win. Three years ago, most people thought EVM was the only option, and now, many people have seen Solana as a strong contender.

Combining technical capabilities and pledge returns, I believe that allocating funds to Solana will become the choice of more and more companies.

Darcy: Treasuryization is just one aspect of Solana, and it does not necessarily have to follow the "digital gold" path of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is more regarded as a value storage tool, and Solana is a public chain network with deep application value.

At present, a new trend of thought has indeed emerged in the market: whether institutions hold positions is becoming a standard for measuring whether a public chain is mature. This is just like we used ETF capital inflows to judge the investment trends and price trends of BTC or ETH in the past. In the future, investors may also use "whether there is an institutional holding SOL" as a key indicator to judge its development prospects. From a corporate perspective, Solana's treasury trend may gradually reshape the existing market structure.

I can feel that the Solana team’s efforts in this area are very proactive and systematic. Moreover, it can be seen from the on-chain data that in the past, about 80% of on-chain activities came from retail users or airdrop participants, but now this proportion has dropped to 50–60%. This shows that more and more large participants are entering the market.

I believe this is not only a trend for Solana, but also a trend for the entire crypto market - the crypto world will increasingly become a "game field for institutions."

Margie: Let me add a little more from the perspective of supply and demand. The total amount of Solana is limited, and currently about 65% of tokens have been pledged, which means that the actual amount of circulating in the market is relatively low. If more and more listed companies buy Solana and hold it for a long time, it will be equivalent to further reducing the circulating market. Against this background, once market demand rises, it may trigger supply and demand tensions in the short term, thereby driving price increases.

However, I think the market is really concerned about not only who is buying, but also why these companies buy. If they incorporate Solana into the treasury for long-term strategic considerations, it means they have clear confidence in Solana's future.

This is worthy of continuous attention. We might as well observe for a while to see if these operations are sustainable and whether they will form a structural trend.

Ru7: I have worked in the traditional financial industry, so I am particularly concerned about the significance of the concept of treasury to Solana.

I think "treasuryization" itself is a huge blessing to Solana. If the market gradually shifts from retail-led to institutional long-term holdings, Solana will become more stable and volatility will be significantly reduced. Because as investors, companies often have longer operations and do not trade as frequently as retail investors. They may adjust according to quarterly or even lower frequency.

In addition, institutional participation will also improve Solana's liquidity. Many Web2 users will indirectly participate in Solana investment through Robinhood, wealth management institutions, and even large asset management companies such as Wellington and BlackRock. This will gradually increase Solana's weight in the "alternative asset" portfolio, thus gaining a similar position to BTC.

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

For Solana, institutional holdings are not only a capital inflow, but also an ecological endorsement. It can enhance the confidence of developers and long-term investors, and it is also expected to attract more traditional financial capital to enter the Solana ecosystem.

Question 2: Compared with Bitcoin, what are Solana’s unique advantages and potential risks as a corporate treasury asset? Why are companies willing to choose it?

Richard: I'll throw a point that may be slightly radical: From the past to the present, I have never thought that Bitcoin will be the most core and vital asset in the crypto field. Although Bitcoin is called "digital gold", in real life, the function and influence of gold are far from comparable to that of Internet infrastructure.

As an asset, Bitcoin does not have infrastructure attributes. Public chain platforms like EVM or Solana have the ability to build a huge ecosystem and they can support rich practical applications. I firmly believe that in the long run, such chains that can carry and spawn application ecosystems have a much greater vitality than Bitcoin.

This is Solana's first advantage: it has huge long-term market space, which may even far exceed Bitcoin.

The second advantage is that Solana is an asset that can generate income. Bitcoin itself does not have direct profitability, and Solana can generate stable on-chain profits through applications such as staking, DeFi, and payment.

Although Solana's DeFi is still in its development stage, it is progressing rapidly. If we find that Solana is more suitable than EVM when building certain features, Solana's profitability will be further enhanced. This makes it an essential difference from Bitcoin: Bitcoin relies on “faith”, and Solana’s sustainability can be based on actual value creation within the ecosystem.

Of course, Solana also faces obvious risks: its size is much smaller than Bitcoin and its ecological maturity is not enough. Therefore, most companies that currently choose to include Solana in the treasury are willing to take certain risks and hope to form a differentiated strategy through this choice.

Especially at the current stage where SOL ETF has not yet been passed, the first companies can use this to create their own brand differentiation. This is not only an advantage for the company itself, but may also guide other companies to follow up in the future.

However, if the scale trend is to be formed, it still takes time to evolve, and the Solana platform itself needs to continue to make efforts in brand building, main projects, etc.

Ru7: I think Bitcoin is more like gold, as a store of value; while Solana is closer to Tesla or Nvidia, and is a growth technology company with strong technology and diversified ecology. Solana not only has applications such as DeFi, NFT, Web3, etc., forming a complete business closed loop, but also has a clear business model and growth potential.

From the perspective of traditional investment, investing in Solana is like investing in Tesla in the early stages, focusing on its long-term market space and strategic value. Of course, it also poses a high volatility risk, which challenges traditional treasury management. At the same time, Solana relies heavily on the developer ecosystem, and its ecological activity directly affects its price performance.

Despite this, I am still optimistic about Solana's long-term potential, which is in line with the conditions to become an important asset in the crypto market.

Darcy: Solana and Bitcoin are positioned in nature differently. Bitcoin is more like a stored-value asset, while Solana has the characteristics of pledged and profitable. Its current annualized returns are between 6% and 8%, which makes it one layer of holding value than Bitcoin that relies solely on rising prices. At the same time, Solana is closer to an Internet company, with a diverse ecosystem, such as DeFi, NFT, Web3 applications, etc., and has platform-level business attributes. If you use traditional analogy, Bitcoin is like gold, while Solana is more like Tesla or Android operating systems.

As more and more companies and even financial institutions participate in pledge, Solana's pledge income may evolve into "on-chain benchmark interest rate." This can not only attract institutional holdings, but also generate various structured products for the ecosystem, such as leverage combinations based on pledges, fixed income products or "convertible bonds" on the chain. Solana's asset logic has thus become more stable, shifting from speculative assets to basic financial instruments.

In addition, Solana also undertakes a more pragmatic narrative: making it affordable and affordable for everyone. This goal is closer to the actual needs of developers and entrepreneurs than Bitcoin’s “trustless currency”, and is easier to drive large-scale adoption. I think it is this combination of technology availability and revenue structure that gives Solana a unique advantage in the corporate treasury scenario.

Question 3: Upexi announced last month that it would invest 95% of its financing in the construction of Solana’s treasury. Is Upexi an avatar or a beginning? Will more companies follow their strategies in the future, incorporate SOL into the financial system, and form a continuous wave of institutional entry? Do you think there will be a "SOL Godfather" listed company like MicroStrategy to play a pricing center for a long time in the future? Is this role possible in the SOL market?

Darcy: We are more concerned about Solana's medium- and long-term trends. Although the path may not be completely clear, the direction is clear. Although short-term speculation exists, I don’t think it is a bad thing. On the contrary, it can accumulate attention and trust capital, promote Solana to develop into institutionalization, and attract more applications and financial institutions to enter.

For example, Upexi will invest financing in Solana, attracting market attention and even leading other companies to follow suit, which is similar to the path of MicroStrategy purchasing Bitcoin back then. Although this phenomenon is accompanied by speculative risks, the "institutional entry" signal released is still important. It represents the alignment of short-term behavior with long-term goals and is expected to converge into systematic institutional trends.

Ru7: I think it is very likely that "Solana Godfather" companies or representatives will appear in the future, just like MicroStrategy to Bitcoin. Their buying behavior will become the anchor of market confidence and strengthen Solana's long-term value perception.

In the current macro uncertainty, the market needs such concrete signals more. This role may not be just a person or company, but an institutional group formed by asset management companies, hedge funds, etc. Once these institutions start to continue buying Solana, they will assume the role of a "pricing hub" that affects market sentiment and strategies, just like the development path of the Bitcoin market.

With the increase in acceptance of mainstream funds, Solana is expected to become the third widely recognized asset after BTC and ETH. As long as an institution or investor takes the lead, this process may be realized within this cycle and push the crypto industry into a higher level of institutionalization.

Margie: Before Upexi, projects like SolStrategy had actually had a deeper layout in Solana. But compared with them, I think the difference between Upexi is that its approach can almost be said to be "All in Solana", which is very radical and is also considered a relatively pioneering case at present. On the day Upexi announced the purchase of Solana, its stock price soared from $2 to $22. Although there was a correction later, the market paid a lot of attention to this move.

As for whether Upexi will drive more companies to follow suit, I think the key is whether it can continue to invest in the Solana ecosystem. If Upexi is not only a number on financial statements, but is truly involved in ecological construction and implementing and transforming practical applications, then its behavior is not only a one-time investment, but may become a template for a corporate treasury strategy.

I think this topic is particularly interesting as to whether there will be a "Solana Godfather" listed company like MicroStrategy. We can review the MicroStrategy path. Starting from 2020, they have exchanged most of their cash reserves for Bitcoin, and have made more than 25 Bitcoin investments over three years. This shows that they are not one-time behaviors, but have clear long-term asset allocation logic. At the same time, they have also developed financial derivatives and technical layouts around Bitcoin, which has become part of the Bitcoin narrative.

In the Solana market, there is no company that can form such a strong sustained influence in capital and narrative like MicroStrategy. Although Upexi's actions are radical, I think it is still in a relatively early stage and cannot assume the role of "pricing center".

However, I think this kind of role is possible in the Solana market. The key is whether such a company or individual can establish a clear long-term strategy, rather than just a one-time treasury allocation. If such a company does appear in the future, it may have a profound impact on Solana's pricing logic, market sentiment, and even the narrative of mainstream media.

Richard: I personally think that in the long run, Bitcoin does need that kind of existence similar to "godfather" characters, because the narrative of Bitcoin itself is based on faith. If Solana also needs to rely on this "godfather" character to support her, I would feel that this is a failure.

Why do you say so? Because Solana itself is a practical infrastructure, its value should come from its ecosystem. If it requires a "godfather" to endorse it, it means that Solana's own ecological and value creation ability is insufficient. To me, Solana’s church should be its ecosystem itself, including the Solana Foundation and the developer community.

Just like in the Web2 era, technology companies themselves have built a strong platform and application ecosystem, and do not rely on the single support of financial capital. Financial capital can participate and support, but innovation and dominance must come from the platform itself. This is true for both Android and Tesla. So should Solana. Its "church" should come from within the ecology, rather than defined and supported by an external company or investor.

Question 4: If more and more institutions include SOL in the treasury and participate in pledge, will the revenue model of DeFi be reshaped? Will the joining of institutions bring stability, or will it dilute the original user 's revenue space?

Richard: I personally feel it very deep. Before our project introduces institutional investors, the asset management process is relatively simple, but when the assets are placed in the SPV, all processes must be extremely standardized for investors with Wall Street background, and the financial structure, capital allocation, and risk indicators must be clearly set. Although this high-intensity review brings short-term pain, it greatly improves our operating standards and transparency.

I believe the Solana ecosystem will go through a similar process. Institutional entry will significantly raise the threshold for the entire ecosystem. Projects that have no real returns and lack support will be marginalized, while projects with high-quality and real business models will receive more attention. This screening process is benign. Although it will bring about a period of adjustment, it is a long-term benefit to the ecology.

I don't think institutions will immediately change the market structure of Solana, but they will gradually push Solana from Meme coin narrative to a more biased role in payment and financial infrastructure. This is an irreversible trend, but it only takes time to precipitate and realize.

Darcy: I think this is a foreseeable trend, too. Solana will definitely hope to present a more institutional and higher-end image in the future. From the perspective of DeFi participants, the participation of institutions will bring about changes in the revenue model.

First, as institutions include funds into the treasury, the security and stability of the entire ecosystem will be improved, but APY will also be reduced accordingly, and the volatility of returns will be reduced. At the same time, in order to find higher returns and liquidity, institutions and users may participate more in LST (liquidity staking) agreements, such as JitoSOL, mSOL, bSOL, etc., to promote the further integration of DeFi and staking systems.

On the other hand, the addition of institutions will indeed dilute the benefits of some original users. The institutional funding cycle is long and the transaction frequency is low. The network's soundness is improved, and the short-term return space of retail investors will be compressed. But the ecosystem will gradually differentiate in the future. Retail investors can choose high-risk, high-return Meme Coin or complex products, while users who prefer stable returns can participate in staking.

As ecological stability increases, Solana and the entire crypto market will also be regarded by more people as a reliable asset allocation rather than just a speculative tool. I think this is an inevitable direction of evolution.

Ru7: In fact, Solana's own ecosystem has strong "hematopoiesis ability". Even if more and more institutions will include SOL in the treasury in the future, and the rise in pledge rate will lead to a decline in individual yields, the diversification of the Solana ecosystem and product innovation capabilities will bring more structured yield products, allowing the entire income model to be continuously innovated without simply diluting the original user's income space.

Solana is a developer-driven ecosystem, with new protocols and new financial products emerging one after another, which will make the income model richer and users will have more choices. The long-term fund entry of institutions can not only improve the stability of the fund pool, but also bring about economies of scale, attract more users to participate, thus forming a positive cycle.

I think this change is like the credit bonds, ETFs and other financial products in traditional finance. In the future, more levels of income products will appear in the Solana ecosystem. Users can choose freely based on their risk preferences, such as choosing high-yield products similar to credit bonds, or low-risk products as stable as US bonds. With the enrichment of the ecosystem, users will not be diluted, but will gain more choices and better asset allocation experience.

Solana does not need to rely on a "godfather"-like character to support it. Its own ecological and technological innovation are its greatest value. Just like Tesla, people don’t just look at Musk, but the company’s determination to send people to Mars. Solana's future also lies in its own ecological development potential and expectations, rather than relying on a certain enterprise or institution to endorse it.

Question 5: Currently, SOL lacks Bitcoin-style scarcity and "faith layer" user structure, which is a challenge for companies to promote long-term treasury strategies. How do you think position holders should be motivated to hold positions for a long time or even continue to increase their positions in SOL? How can we build sufficient confidence and consensus?

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

I think what will really drive Solana's long-term development in the future will not be external financial groups, but projects within the ecosystem. They bring not only funds, but all-round ecological interaction and construction, and the blessing and value release of Solana will be far beyond simple financial investment.

Going back to the most fundamental difference, Bitcoin relies primarily on faith because it is digital gold, while Solana is a network that is the infrastructure. Its core value lies in the builders and developers within the ecosystem. In the future, when we see projects like Jupiter continue to support Solana, the strength of the ecosystem will naturally become stronger and stronger.

Darcy: I agree with Richard very much. Solana doesn't need a religious leader character. When a project lacks practical application, it is necessary to maintain its value with faith; and once it has practical application and enters the lives of thousands of households, there is no need to deliberately create faith. Actual usage scenarios and application logic are the best value support.

I have mentioned before that Solana is more like Web3's Android, which represents a pragmatic, inclusive and practical vision. Through code, more people can afford and use Web3. Whether it is games, payment, DePIN, or payment experience like Visa, it is a real application that allows users to directly feel.

So, I think Solana's path should be to promote the popularization of Web3, rather than to emphasize the religious narrative or elitism of Web3. Its development momentum comes from application, not faith.

Ru7: I understand that the starting point of traditional finance and investment in the currency circle is different. In the currency circle, many investments still come from cultural attributes and beliefs, while Solana is more like a technology company with practical application scenarios and profitability, and even more like Apple, not just Tesla. Because Solana has a rich application ecosystem, not just a single product, but includes diverse scenarios such as DeFi, payment, NFT, DApp, etc., just like Apple has mobile phones, computers, watches, and App Store.

From an investment perspective, Solana has a strong developer ecosystem and continuous innovation capabilities, and has excellent fundamentals. For traditional financial institutions, this is exactly the type of asset they are willing to allocate, they focus on the five to ten-year earnings cycle, and Solana's future growth potential is clearly in line with this logic.

I also look forward to seeing more institutions like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and BlackRock in the core configuration, and even become the main component of ETFs, pushing more users and capital to pay attention to Solana. When this phenomenon occurs, Solana will become a brand that is frequently mentioned and used in daily life like Apple, thus forming a true layer of faith. This belief is no longer an empty cultural narrative, but a consensus based on the popularity and frequency of application.

Especially in the payment field, Solana network has been able to support users to purchase real-life goods with cryptocurrencies, and in the future it can also help more countries with backward infrastructure improve payment efficiency. I believe that this tangible application will continue to enhance the market's confidence and long-term willingness to hold Solana.

Margie: From a market perspective, if you want to inspire more people to hold or continue to increase their holdings in Solana for a long time, I think the first thing you need to do is to establish a clear and long-term narrative, such as emphasizing that Solana is the fastest blockchain in the world and has technological advantages such as ultra-low latency. Such narratives need to be repeatedly strengthened to form market memory, just like when we promote Infinite SVM, we will constantly emphasize its million-level TPS capabilities.

Secondly, the Solana ecosystem itself is already very strong. We need the leading projects and founders in the ecosystem to continue to speak out, take the lead in person, and actively build confidence. If the market can bind these top projects with the long-term value of Solana, this sense of trust will be easier to form and users will be more willing to hold Solana for a long time.