The co-founder of Syncracy Capital, Ryan Watkins, has suggested that Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) companies could evolve into the “Berkshire Hathaway of blockchains.” Unlike traditional crypto investment vehicles focused on short-term speculation, Watkins argues that these organizations have the potential to become long-term engines of growth within blockchain ecosystems.
Currently, DAT companies collectively hold over $105 billion in digital assets, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and Hyperliquid. While much of the market still views them primarily through the lens of net asset value premiums or financing rounds, Watkins emphasizes that their future lies in ecosystem management, governance, and infrastructure building.
He compares DAT firms to public, commercial counterparts of crypto funds, but with broader mandates. These companies not only accumulate digital assets but also deploy capital, launch new businesses, and directly participate in governance decisions. For example, in Solana’s ecosystem, major stakers such as RPC providers and liquidity firms can accelerate transaction confirmation and reduce spreads, directly shaping network efficiency. Similarly, in Hyperliquid, larger frontends with higher stakes in HYPE tokens can lower user fees through more optimized liquidity.
A recent case highlights this shift: Brera Holdings PLC, an Irish multinational, became a Solana DAT company under the brand Solmate. This move reflects a growing interest among established institutions to integrate directly into blockchain governance and infrastructure rather than simply holding speculative positions.
Unlike asset managers that extract fees, DAT profits accumulate as crypto-denominated per-share value. Watkins argues that this structure makes them more sustainable over time, borrowing elements from closed-end funds, REITs, and even Berkshire Hathaway’s compounding model. However, he warns that not all DAT players will survive. Companies relying purely on financial engineering without operational depth will likely disappear once the market stabilizes, giving way to consolidation and more robust models.
One distinguishing factor for modern DAT structures is the use of programmable assets such as ETH, SOL, or HYPE to generate on-chain revenue through staking, lending, liquidity provision, validator acquisition, or governance participation. This transforms them into active ecosystem participants rather than passive asset holders.
Interestingly, Watkins notes that the blockchain industry is witnessing the birth of a new corporate archetype—firms that combine capital allocation, governance power, and operational involvement. These entities may not only support blockchain networks but also dictate their long-term growth trajectories.
Beyond speculation, technologies such as blockchain-based verification systems like LutinX can complement the rise of DAT companies. LutinX enables organizations to protect intellectual property, verify professional skills, and deploy educational blockchain solutions. By integrating such innovations, DAT firms can extend their influence into real-world utility and compliance-driven sectors, strengthening their role as critical bridges between decentralized finance and traditional markets.
Conclusion: DAT companies are still in their early stages, but their $105 billion treasury power, governance influence, and compounding strategies position them as potential giants of the blockchain era. If Watkins is correct, the future may see DAT firms evolving into diversified powerhouses, steering ecosystems much like Berkshire Hathaway shaped industries in the traditional economy. The key will be survival, consolidation, and the ability to move beyond speculation toward sustainable blockchain infrastructure and innovation.
