TLDR
- David Bailey criticizes the rise of failed altcoins and their rebranding as Digital Asset Treasuries.
- Bailey argues that the traditional crypto treasury model is collapsing, giving way to a new Bitcoin bank concept.
- Critics dismiss the Bitcoin treasury model, questioning its viability and the effectiveness of BTC holdings for monetization.
- Richard Byworth supports Bailey’s stance while warning Bitcoin treasury companies to be cautious about whose money they accept.
- Bitcoin treasury companies face significant scrutiny as critics continue to challenge their long-term sustainability.
David Bailey, CEO of Nakamoto Holdings, has sharply criticized the growing trend of Digital Asset Treasuries (DATs) and “failed” altcoins. His remarks come at a critical moment as the cryptocurrency treasury sector faces increased scrutiny. Bailey claims the industry is being tested due to a toxic mix of ineffective financing and a rise in bankrupt crypto firms.
Bailey’s comments on September 14, 2025, called out the altcoin sector for rebranding failed projects as Digital Asset Treasuries. He believes these efforts are misleading and complicate the concept of crypto treasury companies.
“This narrative has created confusion in the market,” Bailey stated.
He argued that the old model of crypto treasuries is failing, giving way to a new system: the bitcoin bank. According to Bailey, traditional finance operates with fiat treasuries managed by banks. He draws a parallel, suggesting that the bitcoin treasury model will similarly involve institutions managing BTC balance sheets.
The entire treasury sector is being tested, and rightfully so. Toxic financing, failed altcoins rebranded as DATs, too many failed companies with no plan or vision. It’s totally muddled the narrative. The treasury company moniker itself is confusing.
The bitcoin treasury company…
— David Bailey🇵🇷 $1.0mm/btc is the floor (@DavidFBailey) September 13, 2025
Bailey Calls Bitcoin Treasuries the Future of Finance
Bailey suggested that Bitcoin treasury companies (BTC-TCs) should be seen as Bitcoin financial institutions, much like traditional banks.
“If done right, these institutions can build and monetize their balance sheets over time,” he stated.
He further emphasized that BTC-TCs can grow their assets through careful management, unlike failed altcoins.
Critics have been vocal, arguing that BTC holdings cannot be monetized effectively. One such critic, John Makan, commented on social media, claiming, “BTC is not money, and holding it does not make one a bank.” He dismissed the idea of Bitcoin treasuries as misleading and based on falsehoods.
Bailey’s comments sparked a wider debate in the cryptocurrency community. Richard Byworth, a partner at Syz Capital, defended Bailey’s view. Byworth agreed that the new model could succeed but cautioned that BTC-TCs need to manage whose money they handle carefully.
Altcoins Intensify Backlash Against Bitcoin Treasury Model
Despite Bailey’s defense, many remain skeptical about the viability of Bitcoin treasury companies. Several critics have called Bitcoin treasuries a bad investment. Some even argue that betting against these companies is the “simplest trade of my life.”
The rise of altcoins, which some consider a distraction from true value-based crypto projects, has intensified the backlash against the BTC treasury model. As more companies embrace the concept, there are increasing concerns over the sustainability of Bitcoin treasuries.
