Ash retweetledi
As a long-term shareholder who has held DeFi Technologies since almost its beginning, I think the core issue increasingly facing the company is no longer whether crypto survives, whether Bitcoin succeeds or whether digital assets eventually become institutionalized.
The issue now is whether DeFi Technologies, as a public company, can consistently convert opportunity into durable shareholder value over time.
That distinction matters.
For years, the company benefited from operating within one of the most narrative-driven sectors in the market… digital assets, institutional adoption, ETP growth, DeFi infrastructure, staking, treasury exposure, AI adjacency, and broader crypto financialization.
In easier liquidity environments, markets reward optionality, future positioning, strategic vision, and participation in emerging sectors. But as macro conditions tighten and inflation concerns persist, markets become far less forgiving of delayed execution, missed timelines, repeated “next quarter” expectations, and prolonged dependence on narrative momentum.
After nearly five years (wow) as a shareholder, the conversation naturally changes from “this is still early” to “is this becoming a structural management pattern?”
Unfortunately that is a much harder question.
Public markets will tolerate delays and evolving strategy for a while, especially in emerging sectors. But eventually investors begin evaluating management quality and execution reliability more than the original vision itself.
And honestly, I think that is where DeFi Technologies now sits.
The concern is not necessarily operational collapse or bankruptcy. The more realistic bear case is actually much more subtle and much more common in public markets.
The company survives. Crypto continues maturing. Institutional adoption increases. Revenues may even grow.
And yet the equity itself remains structurally impaired because market confidence in execution weakens over time while the broader digital asset landscape becomes increasingly competitive, institutionalized, and crowded.
That is an important distinction.
In the early stages of emerging industries, markets reward vision, positioning, optionality, and being early.
But eventually industries mature. And once they mature, markets stop rewarding “we were here first, “look at all our products,” or “look at everything we’re involved in.”
Instead, markets begin rewarding operational consistency, execution reliability, scalable economics, profitability, differentiation, and sustained shareholder value creation.
That transition may now be occurring across the broader digital asset sector.
After all these years as a shareholder, the hardest realization is probably being directionally right about the future of crypto does not automatically mean every early participant becomes a long-term winner.
At some point, the market begins separating narrative from execution, participation from dominance, and presence from durable competitive advantage.
And if management credibility weakens at the same time competition intensifies, the market can begin treating the company less like an emerging category leader and more like one participant among many in an increasingly crowded field.
That is where risk can become structural rather than cyclical and any decline in institutional ownership reinforces this concern.
The company reportedly went from approximately 120 institutional investors holding roughly 50 million shares to approximately 112 institutional investors holding roughly 33 million shares.
To me, the important signal is not merely that several institutions exited. It is that roughly 17 million shares appear to have rotated out of institutional ownership.
That suggests at least some combination of reduced conviction, risk reduction, speculative exposure trimming, liquidity concerns, or weakening confidence in execution consistency.
And in tighter macro conditions, institutions typically reduce exposure first to smaller-cap speculative growth stories where future monetization remains uncertain.
This creates a dangerous feedback loop - declining institutional ownership, weaker liquidity, greater volatility, multiple compression, and growing shareholder fatigue.
There are also broader structural market concerns that increasingly affect many smaller-cap and high-volatility equities, particularly those tied to thematic or speculative sectors such as crypto.
The growth of synthetic exposure through derivatives, swaps, options structures, market-maker positioning, and various forms of leveraged or synthetic trading activity can create trading environments where price behavior increasingly disconnects from underlying business fundamentals.
Around major options expirations especially, stocks can become heavily influenced by dealer hedging flows, gamma positioning, short-term volatility suppression or amplification, synthetic liquidity, and mechanical trading behavior rather than long-term shareholder conviction (in addition to a variety of stupid trader tricks).
For companies with elevated volatility and strong retail participation, these effects can become even more pronounced.
As a result, shareholders can experience situations where positive operational developments fail to materially impact price, momentum reverses abruptly around expirations, rallies are repeatedly suppressed, or the stock appears trapped within persistent trading structures disconnected from long-term business progress.
Whether fully justified or not, many long-term shareholders increasingly feel that modern market structure itself has become part of the risk profile and when those structural pressures are layered on top of dilution concerns, execution fatigue, declining institutional participation, and intensifying competition, the result can become deeply frustrating for long-duration shareholders attempting to evaluate the company fundamentally.
The Galaxy financing also perfectly represents both the bull case and the bear case simultaneously.
On one hand, having a major institutional participant like Galaxy involved should have been interpreted as meaningful validation. This is a sophisticated player who understands crypto infrastructure, ETP economics, capital markets, and institutional digital asset adoption.
But large institutional financings also dramatically raise expectations.
Once a company raises significant capital, markets expect accelerated execution, operational leverage, and visible conversion of capital into shareholder value.
The financing reduced survival risk, but it also raised the standard management would be and probably has been judged against.
At the same time, the capital structure expanded materially through tens of millions of additional shares and warrant overhang, creating dilution concerns and future selling pressure risk.
Retail shareholders often experience these dynamics very differently than institutions because institutional participants frequently receive structures and protections unavailable to ordinary shareholders.
Another issue is narrative sprawl. At different times, DeFi Technologies has been framed as an ETP business, a crypto treasury vehicle, a trading infrastructure company, a staking company, a DeFi ecosystem participant, an AI-adjacent story, a Quantum adjacent company and an institutional digital asset platform simultaneously.
In bull markets, that creates excitement and optionality. In more difficult markets, investors begin asking, “What exactly are we actually underwriting here?” Markets under stress tend to reward simplicity, predictability, and operational clarity.
Now, the Nasdaq deficiency issue also mattered psychologically more than many people probably admit.
Once a company begins entering conversations around prolonged share-price weakness or listing compliance concerns, the market narrative can shift from “emerging institutional infrastructure company” to “speculative small-cap struggling to maintain credibility.”
That transition can be extremely damaging.
What makes this difficult emotionally as a long-term shareholder is that it is entirely possible to still believe the industry is real, crypto adoption will continue, digital assets are becoming institutionalized, and parts of the company genuinely have value, while simultaneously questioning whether this particular public equity structure will ever fully monetize that opportunity for common shareholders the way originally expected.
That is the tension.
Investors can be directionally right about the future and still own the wrong public vehicle for capturing it and after years, shareholders stop asking: “Could this work?” and begin asking“Why hasn’t it already worked?”
To me, that is the real issue now. The bear case is no longer really about crypto failing.
The bear case is about confidence erosion, repeated expectation resets, dilution, intensifying competition, difficult market structure dynamics, and the possibility that the market no longer grants management the premium multiple it once did because trust has weakened over time while the industry itself becomes more crowded and mature.
And unfortunately, once a public company enters that category, rebuilding credibility usually requires multiple quarters - sometimes years - of consistent operational execution, underpromising, overdelivering, and proving durable differentiation before sentiment truly changes.
And that is the reality of repeatedly saying “next quarter.” Eventually shareholders begin questioning whether management incentives, compensation structures, dilution decisions, and capital allocation priorities remain properly aligned with long-term shareholder outcomes.
Whether fair or not, once that perception begins forming inside a shareholder base, rebuilding trust becomes extraordinarily difficult.
I’m accountable… I drank the cool aid… And maybe that is ultimately the hardest realization for this long-term shareholder.
Not whether crypto succeeds. Not whether digital assets become institutionalized. Not whether the industry itself survives.
But whether the structure surrounding the company was ever truly optimized for long-duration common shareholders in the first place.
It reminds me a bit of a set of old experiences and one particular table at Spago.
Everyone saw the restaurant. Everyone saw the celebrities. Everyone saw the excitement, exclusivity, momentum, and the perception of importance.
And when you were hot, you were hot and placed at that special table…
But as others came into view, whether as hot or hotter, and as stars faded and others became brighter than bright, eventually there’s a realization that not everyone inside the system is participating under the same conditions.
Some people are part of the experience. Others are part of the business model.
So with 1st to market and after enough years of dilution, repeated “next quarter” expectations, shifting narratives, compensation votes, institutional structures, and persistent underperformance, long-term shareholders naturally begin asking a difficult question... who really has consistently benefited from this system over time?
Because once shareholders begin feeling like they are financing the atmosphere more than participating in the outcome, trust begins eroding in ways that become very difficult to repair.
And unfortunately, markets can tolerate operational struggles far longer than they can tolerate weakening alignment between management and shareholders.
That is usually where sentiment finally breaks.
Lastly, I do think Russell’s return matters. There is institutional memory there, sector familiarity, and perhaps a renewed attempt to restore operational focus and market confidence. And honestly, I hope he works because he gets it.
But after years of repeated resets, I also hope the market does not begin perceiving him as a kind of Sisyphus figure, continuously pushing the same boulder uphill through recurring cycles of expectation, dilution, narrative rebuilding, and credibility repair, only to watch momentum repeatedly roll backward before durable shareholder outcomes are achieved.
Because at some point, markets stop asking whether management is trying or that the BoD is conscious or heavily medicated. They begin asking whether the structure itself is capable of consistently delivering.
Perhaps the OMFIF participation will help… the question is who it will help. Like I used to say to my friend Everett, “we’ll see”.... @CSchlauf @jhnwtt @Russ_N_Starr @Forson @olivierfrancois @APompliano @etiennecol @wombat_oz_14 @scottmelker @novogratz
English
