A growing number of investors are rethinking the value proposition of digital asset treasury companies — firms that hold and manage cryptocurrency on behalf of other businesses. The model, which once promised easy exposure without the operational headaches, is showing cracks. Market participants say the shift could accelerate as more players choose to hold crypto directly rather than pay a middleman.
Why the treasury model is under pressure
Digital asset treasury companies emerged a few years ago to help corporations manage bitcoin and other tokens on their balance sheets. They offered custody, trading, and often a yield-generating wrapper. But the pitch has worn thin. High fees, limited liquidity during volatile periods, and a string of operational stumbles have eroded trust. Industry observers note that the value-add is harder to justify when a company can simply open an account at a regulated exchange or use a self-custody wallet.
The timing isn't great. With crypto markets moving sideways this quarter, the cost of outsourcing treasury management stands out more. Investors are asking whether the premium for these services is worth it.
Investors start to bypass intermediaries
The response so far is a quiet but noticeable pivot. Rather than allocating capital to a treasury company that then buys crypto, some institutional allocators are going straight to the spot market. A recent survey of family offices and small funds — conducted by an independent research firm — found that roughly 40% of respondents plan to increase direct crypto holdings over the next six months while cutting back on managed treasury mandates.
Direct buying isn't without risk. Self-custody requires technical know-how, and exchange-based custody has its own set of headaches. But for many, the simplicity and lower cost outweigh the convenience of a treasury firm.
What weaker demand means for the sector
If the trend holds, digital asset treasury companies will need to adapt. Some are already expanding into lending and staking services to justify their fees. Others are trimming their own costs. But the core problem remains: the product is a layer that many clients no longer think they need.
A handful of smaller treasury providers have already merged or shut down this year. The shakeout is likely to continue. For the broader crypto ecosystem, the shift could mean more direct retail and institutional participation — but also more pressure on exchanges and custodians to step up their game.
What happens next depends on whether the remaining treasury firms can reinvent themselves before the market moves on. No one is calling a death knell yet, but the direction is clear.
