Strategy stock price premium has decoupled from Bitcoin for the first time: Intensified competition in the DAT market may be a key factor | Bitcoin agency investment risk analysis

With the rapid expansion of the Bitcoin investment vehicles (DAT) market, Strategy (MSTR) has first experienced a phenomenon where its stock price premium is depegged from the price movement of Bitcoin. This change may signal challenges to its "financial alchemy" model of accelerating Bitcoin accumulation through equity financing, and could even trigger risks of regulatory reclassification. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the impact of the DAT market on Strategy's unique position and explores its long-term implications for institutional investors in encryption assets.

Why is the premium of Strategy depegged from Bitcoin?

Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), as the world's largest corporate Bitcoin holder, has historically had its stock price closely linked to Bitcoin's price. However, recent data shows that its stock price premium has for the first time become independent of Bitcoin's price movement, raising market concerns about the sustainability of its financial model. Analysts point out that this divergence may be related to emerging DAT (Digital Asset Treasury) competitors eroding its monopoly position as the "Wall Street Bitcoin Gateway."

How does market competition in DAT impact the core mechanism of Strategy?

Strategy's Bitcoin accumulation strategy relies on a key reflex mechanism: when the stock price is above the net asset value (mNAV), funds are raised through stock issuance to over-purchase Bitcoin. However, researcher Joseph Ayoub believes that the emergence of multiple DAT institutions is weakening this flywheel effect. "Other DAT products are diverting market funds, and the stock price premium may be difficult to reproduce," he wrote. If this judgment is accurate, Strategy's ability to purchase Bitcoin through equity financing may be permanently impaired.

What is DAT? How does it differ from Bitcoin ETF?

DAT refers to publicly listed companies that raise funds through equity issuance and allocate crypto assets. Since 2020, the asset scale (NAV) managed by the DAT model has surged from 10 billion USD to over 100 billion USD, while the Bitcoin ETF scale during the same period is approximately 150 billion USD. Unlike ETFs, DATs typically do not support share redemption mechanisms (similar to closed-end funds), and their valuation is entirely driven by market sentiment—this model is reminiscent of the case of Grayscale's GBTC plummeting from a high premium to a 50% discount.

What potential risks does the strategy face?

If the stock price continues to be below the net asset value, it may trigger shareholder lawsuits demanding redemption at NAV, and could even lead regulatory agencies to invoke historical cases (such as the 1940s Tonopah Mining case or the 2021 GBTC event) to reclassify it as an investment company. This move would force the Strategy to comply with stricter disclosure and operational rules, fundamentally changing its business structure. Moreover, its stock price volatility has been viewed by some investors as being closer to leveraged ETFs rather than traditional software companies.

Is there a bubble risk in the prosperity of the DAT market?

Nic Carter of Castle Island Ventures compares the current DAT frenzy to the investment trust mania of the 1920s, suggesting that there may be an irrational exuberance in the market. Ayoub warns, "Once the DAT supply is sufficient to absorb immature demand, the market will enter a liquidation phase." Although Strategy currently holds 630,000 Bitcoins and has manageable debt, its premium depeg has indicated the collapse of the original positive feedback mechanism.

Conclusion

The case of Strategy reveals the dynamic game in the integration process of encryption assets with traditional finance: when the scarcity of innovative financial instruments (such as DAT) disappears, the first-mover advantage may quickly transform into homogenized competitive pressure. For encryption investors, it is essential to be cautious of company models that rely on a single mechanism and to continuously monitor how regulatory policies redefine the structure of digital asset treasury.