Bloomberg: Top 3 Asian Exchanges Are Boycotting "Crypto Treasury" Firm
Original Title: Asia's Biggest Stock Exchanges Push Back Against Companies Hoarding Crypto
Original Authors: Alice French, Richard Henderson, Kiuyan Wong, Yasutaka Tamura
Original Translation: Joe Zhou, Foresight News
· The Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) has questioned at least five companies planning to transition into Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) companies, stating that current regulations prohibit companies from hoarding excessive amounts of liquidity.
· Resistance to DAT has also been observed in India and Australia. Local exchange platform operators hold similar concerns, and these attitudes may hinder the plans of many cryptocurrency treasury companies.
· Japan is a unique case in the Asia-Pacific region. Local listing rules for digital asset treasury companies are relatively lenient, providing them with greater flexibility. Nevertheless, signs of friction are beginning to emerge — for example, the proposal by MSCI to exclude large cryptocurrency treasury companies from its global indices.
The three major securities exchanges in the Asia-Pacific region are pushing back against companies masquerading as publicly listed companies whose primary business is hoarding cryptocurrency.
According to sources familiar with the matter, the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) have questioned at least five companies in recent months that are planning to pivot their core business towards a digital asset treasury strategy, citing rules that prohibit holding large amounts of liquid assets. As of now, these companies have not yet received approval. In India and Australia, so-called Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) companies have also encountered similar resistance.
This resistance targets both cryptocurrency itself and publicly listed company vehicles with hoarding cryptocurrency as their core focus, posing a risk to the digital asset market that has seen mostly upward trends throughout 2025.
Bitcoin hit a historic high of $126,251 on October 6, with a year-to-date increase of 18%. This upward trend has largely been driven by the emergence of numerous companies specializing in hoarding Bitcoin. The model pioneered by Bitcoin behemoth MicroStrategy, led by Michael Saylor and valued at $70 billion, has spawned hundreds of imitators globally. Many of these companies have market valuations exceeding the total value of their held cryptocurrency assets, underscoring strong investor demand.
Recently, the acquisition pace of the Digital Asset Treasury company (DAT) has slowed down, and its stock price has also experienced a decline, in sync with the sharp sell-off in the overall crypto market. According to a recent report by Singapore's 10X Research, retail investors have lost approximately $17 billion in DAT trading.

In the Asia-Pacific market, the concerns of exchange operators may completely hinder the plans of cryptocurrency hoarders.
「Listing rules directly determine the speed and standardization of operation of the cryptocurrency treasury model,」 said Rick Maeda, a cryptocurrency analyst at Tokyo-based Presto Research. He added that if rules are 「predictable and lenient,」 they can attract funds and boost investor confidence; whereas a stricter environment would slow down the execution speed of digital asset treasury companies.
Cash Companies in Listed Entities
According to the rules of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, if a listed company's assets are mainly composed of cash or short-term investments, the company will be considered a 「Cash Company」, and its stock may be suspended from trading. The purpose of this measure is to prevent shell companies from equating their listing status with money laundering.
Simon Hawkins, a partner at the law firm Latham & Watkins, stated that for companies intending to hoard cryptocurrency, approval depends on whether they can 「prove that acquiring cryptocurrency is a core part of their business operations」.
Insiders say that for formerly British colonial-listed companies, it is currently prohibited to transform into pure cryptocurrency hoarding companies.
A Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX) spokesman declined to comment on specific companies of concern but stated that its framework 「ensures that all companies applying for listing and already listed companies have viable and sustainable businesses and operations with substantive content.」
In a similar case, the Bombay Stock Exchange recently rejected the preferential share listing application from Jetking Infotrain. The company had stated that it would invest part of the fundraising into cryptocurrency. A filing document showed that the company is appealing this decision. BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange) and Jetking did not respond to requests for comments.
In Australia, the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX Ltd.) prohibits listed companies from allocating 50% or more of their balance sheet funds to cash or cash-like assets. Steve Orenstein, CEO of software company Locate Technologies Ltd., stated that this clause makes adopting a cryptocurrency treasury model 「almost impossible.」 According to a spokesperson, this enterprise, which transitioned from a software company to a Bitcoin buyer, is currently relocating its listing from Australia to New Zealand, where the New Zealand Exchange (NZX Ltd.) is willing to accept digital asset treasury companies (DAT).
A spokesperson for the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) stated that if a listed company turns to investing in Bitcoin or Ethereum, it is "advised to consider structuring their investment product as an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF)." Otherwise, they are "likely not to be seen as suitable for listing on the official list."
They mentioned that while the ASX does not prohibit adopting a cryptocurrency treasury strategy, they also cautioned that any conflicts with listing rules must be handled carefully.
Japan's "Hodlers"
Japan stands out as a notable case in the Asia Pacific region. In the country, it is common for listed companies to hold significant cash reserves, and the listing rules for Digital Asset Treasury companies (DAT) are relatively lenient, providing them with greater flexibility.
Hiromi Yamaji, CEO of Japan Exchange Group, stated during a press conference on September 26: "Once a company is listed, if it has made proper disclosures — such as disclosing that it is purchasing Bitcoin — to immediately recognize these actions as unacceptable would be quite difficult."
According to BitcoinTreasuries.net data, Japan is home to 14 listed Bitcoin buyers, the highest in Asia. This includes the hospitality company Metaplanet Inc., which was an early adopter of the digital asset treasury model and currently holds around $3.3 billion in Bitcoin. Since starting its transformation in early 2024, the company's stock price surged at one point to its highest level in mid-June at 1,930 yen but has since fallen by over 70%.

Japan has also seen some more unusual Bitcoin buying plans: Tokyo-based nail salon operator Convano Inc., listed on the stock market, announced in August its plan to raise approximately 434 billion yen ($3 billion) to buy 21,000 Bitcoins. At the time, the company's market value was only a small fraction of this fundraising amount.
Even for Japan's cryptocurrency "Hodlers," signs of friction have emerged. MSCI, one of the world's largest index providers, recently proposed excluding large Digital Asset Treasury companies (DAT) from its global indexes following an investigation into Metaplanet's $1.4 billion international equity issuance in September. Metaplanet joined the MSCI Japan Small Cap Index in February this year and stated it would use most of the funds raised to buy Bitcoin, subsequently purchasing an additional 10,687 tokens. Metaplanet did not respond to requests for comment.
MSCI stated in an announcement that the Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) "may exhibit characteristics similar to investment funds," and therefore does not qualify for inclusion in its index. MSCI suggested implementing an exclusion for companies where crypto assets make up 50% or more of their total assets.
Japanese stock analyst Travis Lundy wrote in a report on Smartkarma that if excluded from the index, the Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) would no longer benefit from passive fund inflows from funds tracking that index. He added, "This could potentially undermine the argument for its price-to-book premium."
You may also like

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.