Public US companies do not simply hold money for corporate purposes, but companies that cite themselves to that Ton Holdings are completely viable (and at work).
Gold ETFs have been around for many years, but financial play in strategic styles (previously micro-strategic) is not feasible against gold.
As token-back stories gain traction, new classes of publicly available companies employ strategies that are not defined by their operating revenues than their balance sheet assets.
These companies have placed crypto at the heart of their identity, turning tokens like Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and now tons into the core of their valuation strategies.
The pivot of the strategy towards Bitcoin remains the clearest precedent. The company transformed from a business intelligence company into a de facto Bitcoin-retaining vehicle, unlocking its capital formation model built around speculative exposure rather than operating profit.
Sharplink Gaming, historically a betting infrastructure company, recently added Ethereum to its finances, marking the first ethnic-centric positioning by US listed companies. Bitmine has now started acquiring Ethereum, surpassing Sharplink’s holdings.
At the same time, ton-linked companies appear in foreign markets, replicating this structure, focusing on token accumulation rather than product development.
These companies share a structural strategy. They raise capital, convert it into digital assets and trade as a publicly accessible proxy for their holdings. Their appeal comes from their alignment with crypto cycles and retail speculation rather than the basis of their business.
Essentially, companies act as asset wrappers, allowing investors to be exposed to volatile digital currencies through traditional stock markets.
This is not a new action in financial engineering, but it is newly permitted under regulatory rulings. What distinguishes this model from traditional asset holders is the unique conformity of crypto within the current SEC framework.
Tradfi assets do not act as financial assets in the same way
Traditional financial assets do not help this structure. For example, Gold will trigger classification under the 1940 Investment Companies Act if it controls the balance sheet without aggressive business operations.
That designation is something most companies like to avoid and brings fund-level scrutiny. Furthermore, the existence of ETFs like GLD makes independent money-holding companies redundant. The lack of gold yield and narrative momentum further limits its usefulness as a branding mechanism.
Similarly, there is a shortage of real estate. REITs provide a standardized framework for public real estate investments, but are constrained by strict distribution requirements and revenue testing. They bring yields rather than speculation and therefore lack the same meme or branding potential.
In many cases, the stocks and goods held by conglomerates such as Berkshire Hathaway must be directly linked to their management strategy in a form of inventory by the company. Without violating legal or narrative consistency, they cannot be abstracted into the Treasury identity.
Digital assets break the mold of financial assets
The structural fit of Crypto arises from the confluence of factors: regulatory ambiguity, speculative benefits, staking yields, token-based incentives. Unlike traditional assets, Crypto allows businesses to both hold and participate.
Companies currently can hold crypto as “intangible assets” under GAAP, and claim to be part of the Ministry of Finance, strategic reserves, or business model, without being regulated like mutual funds.
For example, retaining ETH will also unlock staking rewards, ecosystem reliability, and potential airdrops while creating exposure. For tokens like Ton, companies work directly with community narrative, developer interests, and the growth of the Layer-1 ecosystem. These benefits are simultaneously technical and financial, with no legacy asset categories offering similar packages.
Its meaning is remarkable. Publicly listed companies holding ETH or TON entities reflect the functionality of the ETF, but do not have a corresponding regulatory burden. It also resembles early stage venture investments, but maintains daily liquidity and public disclosures.
For retailers, they behave like meme stocks, except for the concrete crypto sanctuaries behind the story. Entities like “Ethereum Holdings Company” may once sound ridiculous, but now they are very realistic strategic formations.
But these companies are currently sitting in the regulatory grey zone. Classification risk increases when the SEC or equivalent institution treats them as de facto investment funds. As regulatory boundaries sharpen, businesses can ultimately evolve into true sales entities or face pressure to spin off their holdings, as they hold digital assets as their main value proposition.
Still, under the Trump administration, this seems very unlikely, leading to an influx of new cryptocurrency companies.
For now, rare compatibility with Crypto’s public market strategy continues to drive trends. Unlike gold and real estate, tokens act as both the Treasury and the narrative, offering upwards, yields, and relevance in a single package. As long as regulatory ambiguity persists, the model remains viable, transforming the structural loophole, exposure, into a highly profitable business model.