Gold officially restricted from the actions currently undertaken by BTC, XRP, TON, and ETH in relation to Wall Street.

No publicly traded company in the United States exists solely to hold gold as its primary business objective, yet a firm that positions itself around its TON assets is entirely feasible (and is currently in development).

Although gold ETFs have been available for many years, the treasury strategy employed by Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) is not applicable to gold.

As narratives centered on tokens gain momentum, a new category of publicly traded companies is embracing a strategy characterized less by operational revenue and more by the assets recorded on their balance sheets.

These organizations are placing cryptocurrency at the core of their identity, making tokens such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and now TON central to their valuation approach.

Strategy’s shift towards Bitcoin serves as the most evident example. The firm evolved from a business intelligence company into a de facto Bitcoin holding entity, establishing a capital formation model centered on speculative exposure rather than operational earnings.

Sharplink Gaming, traditionally a betting infrastructure provider, has recently incorporated Ethereum into its treasury, marking the first ETH-focused positioning by a US-listed company. BitMine has also begun acquiring Ethereum and has even surpassed Sharplink’s holdings.

At the same time, companies linked to TON have emerged in international markets, mirroring this model by focusing on token accumulation rather than product innovation.

These firms share a common structural strategy: raise capital, convert it into digital assets, and operate as publicly traded proxies for those holdings. Their attractiveness arises not from business fundamentals but from their alignment with crypto market cycles and retail speculation.

Essentially, these companies function as asset wrappers, allowing investors to gain exposure to volatile digital currencies through conventional equity markets.

This behavior is not unprecedented in financial engineering, but it is newly permissible due to regulatory arbitrage. What sets this model apart from traditional asset-holding firms is the unique integration of cryptocurrency within current SEC regulations.

Traditional financial assets do not serve as treasury assets in the same manner

Conventional financial assets do not adapt well to this structure. For instance, gold triggers classification under the Investment Company Act of 1940 if it dominates the balance sheet without active business operations.

This classification invites fund-level scrutiny, which most firms prefer to avoid. Furthermore, the existence of ETFs like GLD makes standalone gold-holding companies unnecessary. Gold’s lack of yield and narrative momentum further restricts its effectiveness as a branding tool.

Real estate similarly falls short. While REITs provide a standardized framework for public real estate investment, they are limited by strict distribution requirements and income tests. They yield income rather than speculation, thus lacking the same memetic or branding potential.

Equities and commodities, often held by conglomerates such as Berkshire Hathaway or in inventory forms by corporations, must be directly linked to operational strategies. They cannot be abstracted into a treasury identity without violating legal or narrative coherence.

Digital assets redefine treasury assets

The structural compatibility of crypto arises from a combination of factors: regulatory uncertainty, speculative potential, staking yields, and token-based incentives. Unlike traditional assets, cryptocurrency allows firms to both hold and engage.

A company can currently classify crypto as “intangible assets” under GAAP and assert that it is part of their treasury, strategic reserves, or business model, without being regulated like an investment trust.

For instance, holding ETH not only creates exposure but also unlocks staking rewards, ecosystem credibility, and potential airdrops. In the case of tokens like TON, firms achieve direct alignment with community narratives, developer interest, and Layer-1 ecosystem expansion. These benefits are both technical and financial, and no traditional asset category provides a comparable offering.

The ramifications are significant. Publicly traded companies acting as holding entities for ETH or TON resemble the function of ETFs, but without the associated regulatory burdens. They also bear similarities to early-stage venture investments, yet maintain daily liquidity and public disclosures.

For retail traders, they function like meme stocks, but with tangible crypto reserves supporting the narrative. While a concept like “The Ethereum Holding Company” may have once seemed implausible, it is now a legitimate strategic formation.

However, these companies currently exist in a regulatory gray area. The risk of classification would increase if the SEC or similar bodies were to categorize them as de facto investment funds. As the regulatory landscape becomes clearer, firms holding digital assets as their primary value proposition may eventually face pressure to evolve into genuine operating entities or divest their holdings.

Nonetheless, under the Trump administration, this seems highly unlikely, leading to an influx of new crypto treasury companies.

For the time being, the unique compatibility of crypto with public market strategies will continue to drive this trend. Unlike gold or real estate, tokens can serve as both treasury and narrative, providing upside, yield, and relevance in a single package. As long as regulatory uncertainty remains, the model will continue to be viable, representing a structural loophole that transforms exposure into a highly lucrative business model.

The post Gold legally barred from what BTC, XRP, TON, ETH are now doing to Wall Street appeared first on CryptoSlate.