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

Public companies are flocking to include SOL in their balance sheets. Is this a new trend in treasury management or a new round of fear of missing out (FOMO)?

Organization: Scof, ChianCatcher

As more and more listed companies incorporate SOL into their balance sheets, this is no longer an isolated phenomenon, but may mark the emergence of a new type of treasury model. Enterprises are no longer just watching the crypto market, but are beginning to try to use SOL as a sustainable asset allocation tool.

In this issue of Space, we invite Margie, the head of the Solayer Asia market, Richard Liu, co-founder of Huma Finance, Darcy, the head of investor relations at SonicSVM, and Ru7, CMO of SOON, to focus on this emerging trend of "SOL version of MicroStrategy":

After Bitcoin, can SOL become the next pivot for enterprise-level financial reserves? 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 in the future and treat SOL as a "productive asset"?

Is this a real trend, or just another round of fear of missing out (FOMO)?

For details, please refer to X:

Question 1: As more and more listed companies incorporate SOL into their treasury, will this break the current market structure? How might this trend of "treasuryization" change the industry's positioning and expectations for SOL?

Richard: I think this reflects everyone's recognition of Solana. A few years ago, when FTX encountered issues, Solana faced immense pressure, but it pulled through and formed a strong ecological cohesion. Nowadays, Solana is developing very quickly across multiple tracks, and the migration of projects like Ribbon also proves this.

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

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

In particular, the staking mechanism, with its benefits and application logic, makes it a reasonable and attractive trend for companies to include SOL in their treasury. This trend won't happen overnight, but will evolve as the infrastructure matures, as it did with Ethereum. BTC is digital gold, and its position is undoubted; But when it comes to smart contract platforms, it's no longer so certain who will win. Three years ago, most people thought EVM was the only option, but now many people see Solana as a serious contender.

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

Darcy: Treasuryization is just one aspect of Solana; it does not necessarily have to follow the "digital gold" path like 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 blockchain. This is similar to how we used ETF fund inflows to judge the investment trends and price movements of BTC or ETH in the past. In the future, investors may also consider "whether there are institutional holdings of SOL" as a key indicator for assessing its development prospects. From a corporate perspective, the trend of financialization in 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 also shows that in the past, about 80% of on-chain activities came from retail users or airdrop participants, and this proportion has now decreased to 50-60%. This indicates that more and more large participants are entering the market.

I believe that this is not only the trend of Solana but also the trend of the entire cryptocurrency market — the crypto world will increasingly become the "playground for institutions."

Margie: Let me add a point of observation from the perspective of supply and demand. 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 and 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, thus driving prices up.

However, I believe that what the market is really concerned about is not just who is buying, but why these companies are buying. If they are incorporating Solana into their treasury for long-term strategic reasons, it indicates that they have a clear confidence in the future of Solana.

This is definitely worth keeping an eye on. We might as well observe for a longer period to see if these operations are sustainable and whether they will form a structural trend.

Ru7: I have worked in the traditional finance industry, so I pay special attention to the significance of the concept of treasury management for Solana.

I believe that "treasuryization" itself is a huge boost for Solana. If the market gradually shifts from retail dominance to institutional long-term holding, it will make Solana more stable, and volatility will significantly decrease. This is because enterprises, as investors, often operate on a longer cycle and do not trade as frequently as retail investors; they may adjust on a quarterly basis or even at lower frequencies.

In addition, institutional participation will also improve the liquidity of Solana. Many Web2 users will indirectly engage 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, thereby gaining a status similar to that of BTC.

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

Institutional holdings for Solana are not just about capital inflow, but also serve as a form of 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 an enterprise treasury asset compared to Bitcoin? Why are companies willing to choose it?

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

Bitcoin, as an asset, does not possess the attributes of infrastructure. In contrast, public chain platforms like EVM or Solana have the ability to build large ecosystems and can support a rich array of real-world applications. I firmly believe that, in the long run, chains that can carry and foster application ecosystems have far greater vitality than Bitcoin.

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

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

Currently, although Solana's DeFi is still in the development stage, progress is rapid. If we find that Solana is more suitable than EVM when building certain features, the earning potential of Solana will further increase. This creates an essential distinction between it and Bitcoin: Bitcoin relies on "faith," while Solana's sustainability can be based on the actual value creation within the ecosystem.

Of course, Solana also faces significant risks: its market size is much smaller than that of Bitcoin, and its ecosystem is not mature enough. Therefore, companies that choose to include Solana in their treasury are mostly those willing to take on certain risks and hope to form a differentiated strategy through this choice.

Especially at the current stage where the SOL ETF has not yet been approved, enterprises that enter first can leverage this to create their brand differentiation. This not only provides an advantage to the companies themselves but may also guide other enterprises to follow up later.

However, to form a scaled trend, it still requires the evolution of time and also the Solana platform itself to continuously strengthen efforts in brand building, key projects, and other aspects.

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

From a traditional investment perspective, investing in Solana is like early investment in Tesla, valuing its long-term market potential 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 its developer ecosystem, and the activity level of the ecosystem directly affects its price performance.

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

Darcy: Solana and Bitcoin have fundamentally different positions. Bitcoin is more like a store of value asset, while Solana has staking and yield-generating characteristics, with an annual yield currently between 6% and 8%, which gives it an added 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 that includes DeFi, NFTs, Web3 applications, and has platform-level commercial attributes. If we use a traditional analogy, Bitcoin is like gold, while Solana is more like Tesla or the Android operating system.

As more and more enterprises and even financial institutions participate in staking, the staking yield of Solana could evolve into an "on-chain benchmark interest rate." This not only attracts institutional holdings but also gives rise to various structured products in the ecosystem, such as leverage portfolios based on staking, fixed income products, or on-chain "convertible bonds." Thus, the asset logic of Solana becomes more robust, shifting from speculative assets to fundamental financial instruments.

In addition, Solana also takes on 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 it is easier to drive large-scale adoption. I believe it is this combination of technical availability and benefit structure that gives Solana a unique advantage in enterprise treasury scenarios.

Question 3: Upexi announced last month that it would invest 95% of its financing into the construction of the Solana treasury. Is Upexi an exception or the beginning? Will more companies follow its strategy in the future by incorporating SOL into their financial systems and creating a continuous wave of institutional entries? Do you think there will be publicly traded companies in the future that play a long-term pricing central role like MicroStrategy, acting as a "SOL Godfather"? 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 short-term speculative behavior exists, I don't think it's a bad thing. On the contrary, it can accumulate attention and trust capital, driving Solana towards institutional development and attracting more applications and financial institutions to enter.

Like Upexi investing in Solana, it has attracted market attention and even encouraged other companies to follow suit, which is similar to the path taken by MicroStrategy when it purchased Bitcoin. Although this phenomenon comes with speculative risks, the "institutional entry" signal it releases is still significant. It represents the 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 "Solana godfather-type" companies or representatives will emerge in the future, just like MicroStrategy with 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 even more. This role may not be just one person or company, but rather a collective of institutional groups formed by asset management companies, hedge funds, and others. Once these institutions begin to consistently buy Solana, they will take on the role of "pricing center," influencing market sentiment and strategies, much like the development path of the Bitcoin market.

With the increasing acceptance of mainstream capital, 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 drive the crypto industry into a higher level of institutionalization.

Margie: Before Upexi, projects like SolStrategy had already made significant inroads in Solana. However, compared to them, I think the difference with Upexi lies in its approach, which can almost be described as "All in Solana." This is very aggressive and can be considered a rather pioneering case at present. On the day Upexi announced its purchase of Solana, the stock price skyrocketed from $2 to $22. Although there was a subsequent correction, the market's attention to this move was extremely high.

As for whether Upexi will drive more companies to follow suit, I think the key lies in whether it can continuously and deeply invest in the Solana ecosystem. If Upexi does not just stay at the numbers in the financial statements but truly engages in ecosystem construction, achieving practical application and transformation, then its actions would not just be a one-time investment but could potentially become a template for corporate treasury strategies.

Regarding whether there will be "Solana Godfather-type" listed companies like MicroStrategy, I find this topic particularly interesting. We can review MicroStrategy's path. Since 2020, they have converted most of their cash reserves into Bitcoin and have made over 25 Bitcoin investments in three years. This shows that their actions are not one-off but rather have a clear long-term asset allocation logic. At the same time, they have also developed financial derivatives and technological layouts around Bitcoin, becoming part of the Bitcoin narrative.

In the Solana market, there has yet to be a company that can exert such a strong and lasting influence in terms of capital and narrative like MicroStrategy. Although Upexi's actions are quite aggressive, I believe it is still in a relatively early stage and cannot yet take on the role of a "pricing center."

However, I believe that such a role is likely to emerge in the Solana market. The key lies in whether such companies or individuals can establish a clear long-term strategy, rather than just a one-time treasury allocation. If such a company really emerges in the future, it may have a profound impact on the pricing logic of Solana, market sentiment, and even the narratives of mainstream media.

Richard: Personally, I believe that in the long run, Bitcoin does need the presence of a figure akin to a "Godfather" because the narrative of Bitcoin itself is built on faith. However, if Solana also relies on such a "Godfather-type" figure for support, I would see that as a failure.

Why do I say that? Because Solana itself is a practical infrastructure, and its value should come from its ecosystem. If it needs some sort of "godfather" to endorse it, that indicates that Solana's own ecosystem and value creation capability are 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 built powerful platforms and application ecosystems on their own, 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, this is the case. Solana should be the same. Its "church" should come from within the ecosystem, rather than relying on an external company or investor to define and support it.

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

Richard: I personally feel very deeply about this. Before our project introduced institutional investors, the asset management process was relatively simple, but once the assets were placed into an SPV, facing investors with a Wall Street background, all processes had to be extremely standardized, with clear definitions for the financial structure, fund allocation, and risk indicators. Although this high-intensity scrutiny brings short-term pain, it significantly improves our operational standards and transparency.

I believe that the Solana ecosystem will also go through a similar process. The entry of institutions will significantly raise the threshold for the entire ecosystem, and projects that do not have real benefits and lack support will be marginalized, 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 be beneficial for the ecosystem in the long run.

I don't think institutions will immediately change the Solana market landscape, but they will gradually push Solana from a meme coin narrative towards a role more focused on payments and financial infrastructure. This is an irreversible trend, it just takes time to settle and realize.

Darcy: I also think this is a foreseeable trend. Solana will definitely hope to present a more institutional and high-end image in the future, and from the perspective of DeFi participants, the entry of institutions will bring changes to the revenue model.

Firstly, as institutions funnel funds into the treasury, the overall security and stability of the ecosystem will increase, but the APY will correspondingly decrease, and the volatility of returns will reduce. At the same time, in order to seek higher returns and liquidity, institutions and users may participate more in LST (liquid staking) protocols, such as JitoSOL, mSOL, bSOL, etc., further promoting the integration of DeFi and staking systems.

On the other hand, the entry of institutions will indeed dilute some of the existing users' profits. Institutional funds have a longer cycle and lower trading frequency, improving the robustness of the network, which will compress the short-term profit space for retail investors. However, the future ecosystem will gradually diversify; retail investors can choose high-risk, high-reward Meme Coins or complex products, while users who prefer stable returns can participate in Staking.

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

Ru7: In fact, the Solana ecosystem itself has a strong "self-sustaining ability." Even if more and more institutions incorporate SOL into their treasury in the future, leading to a rise in staking rates and a decline in individual yields, the diversification of the Solana ecosystem and its product innovation capabilities will bring more structured yield products, continuously innovating the overall yield model without simply diluting the existing users' yield potential.

Solana is a developer-driven ecosystem where new protocols and financial products are emerging continuously, enriching the yield models and providing users with more choices. The entry of long-term institutional capital can not only enhance the stability of the fund pool but also bring about scale effects, attracting more users to participate, thus forming a positive cycle.

I think this change is similar to credit bonds, ETFs and other financial products in traditional finance. In the future, there will be more layered yield products in the Solana ecosystem. Users can freely choose according to their risk preferences, such as opting for high-yield products similar to credit bonds or stable low-risk products like U.S. Treasuries. As the ecosystem becomes richer, users will not be diluted; instead, they will gain more choices and a better asset allocation experience.

Solana does not need to rely on a "godfather" figure to support it; its own ecosystem and technological innovation are its greatest values. Just like Tesla, people are not solely focused on Musk, but on the company's determination to send humans to Mars. The future of Solana lies in the potential and expectations of its own ecosystem development, rather than depending on a specific enterprise or institution for endorsement.

Question 5: Currently, SOL lacks the Bitcoin-like scarcity and "faith layer" user structure, which poses a challenge for enterprises to promote long-term treasury strategies. How do you think we should encourage holders to maintain long-term positions and even continuously increase their holdings of SOL? What can be done to build sufficient confidence and consensus?

Richard: My position is that the Solana ecosystem itself is the biggest 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 the most steadfast supporters of Solana. These projects not only have strong vitality and resources but will also continuously accumulate SOL due to their reliance on the Solana ecosystem.

I believe that what will truly drive the long-term development of Solana in the future will not be external financial groups, but rather projects within the ecosystem itself. What they bring is not just capital, but comprehensive ecological interaction and construction, which will greatly enhance and release the value of Solana far beyond mere financial investment.

Back to the fundamental difference, Bitcoin relies mainly 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, as we see projects like Jupiter continuously enhancing Solana, the strength of the ecosystem will naturally grow stronger.

Darcy: I completely agree with Richard's point of view. Solana does not need a religious leader figure. When a project lacks practical application, it needs to rely on faith to sustain its value; however, once it possesses practical applications and enters the lives of countless households, there is no need to deliberately create faith. Actual use cases and application logic are the best support for value.

I mentioned before that Solana is more like the Android of Web3, representing a pragmatic, inclusive, and practical vision. Through code, it allows more people to afford and use Web3, whether it's gaming, payments, DePIN, or payment experiences like Visa, all of which are real applications that users can directly experience.

Therefore, I believe that Solana's path should be to promote the adoption of Web3, rather than focusing on the religious narrative or elitism of Web3. Its driving force comes from applications, not beliefs.

Ru7: I understand that the starting points of traditional finance and cryptocurrency investments are inherently different. In the crypto space, many investments still stem from cultural attributes and beliefs, while Solana resembles a tech company with practical application scenarios and profitability, even more like Apple than just Tesla. This is because Solana has a rich application ecosystem that goes beyond a single product, including diverse scenarios like DeFi, payments, NFTs, and DApps, similar to how Apple has smartphones, computers, watches, and the App Store.

From an investment perspective, Solana has a strong developer ecosystem and continuous innovation capability, with excellent fundamentals. For traditional financial institutions, this is precisely the type of asset they are willing to allocate. They focus on a return cycle of five to ten years, 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 in the future, 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, much like Apple, thereby forming a true layer of belief. This belief will no longer be an empty cultural narrative, but rather a consensus formed based on the popularity of applications and frequency of use.

Especially in the payment sector, the Solana network has been able to support users in purchasing real-world goods with cryptocurrency, and in the future, it can help more underdeveloped countries improve payment efficiency. I believe that this tangible application will continuously enhance the market's confidence in SOL and the willingness to hold it long-term.

Margie: From a market perspective, to encourage more people to hold or continue to increase their positions in Solana long-term, I believe it is essential to establish a clear and long-term narrative, such as emphasizing that Solana is the fastest blockchain in the world, with ultra-low latency and other technical advantages. This narrative needs to be reinforced repeatedly to create market memory, just like when we promote Infinite SVM, we continuously emphasize its million TPS capability.

Secondly, the Solana ecosystem itself is already very strong, and we need the leading projects and founders within the ecosystem to continue to speak out, take the initiative, and build confidence. If the market can tie these leading projects to the long-term value of Solana, then this sense of trust will be easier to form, and users will also be more willing to hold Solana for the long term.