As digital assets become more openly politicized in the Trump era, the corporate question has shifted. For public companies that already hold Bitcoin or are considering a “crypto treasury” strategy, the debate is moving away from election-cycle narratives and toward board-level fundamentals: governance, risk limits, compliance posture, auditability, and how much balance-sheet volatility shareholders will tolerate.
Over the past 2–3 months, Washington has delivered a clearer directional signal—friendlier rhetoric and a push to codify market structure—while simultaneously exposing the fault lines that still matter to CFOs: stablecoin incentives, banking competition, and the pace at which regulators can translate “pro-innovation” into law.
A friendlier tone in Washington—still a hard policy problem
Trump-aligned regulators have indicated they want to lay out clearer crypto rules and foster growth, a departure from the enforcement-first posture that characterized much of the prior cycle. But the last few weeks have also underlined how quickly progress can stall when legislation collides with traditional finance.
A White House meeting convened to break a deadlock between banks and crypto firms failed to resolve a central dispute: whether stablecoins and intermediaries should be allowed to pay “interest” or “rewards.” Banks argue yield-like incentives could pull deposits away from the banking system; crypto firms argue restricting incentives would lock in incumbents and slow innovation. The impasse has become a bottleneck for market-structure efforts such as the CLARITY Act and related stablecoin provisions.
For corporate treasuries, that matters less as a policy debate and more as an operational one: regulatory ambiguity can affect banking access, custody arrangements, disclosures, and the willingness of auditors and directors to sign off on material crypto exposure.
The market stress test arrived first: fair-value volatility is the headline risk
Even as Washington tries to move toward clearer rules, the market has reminded public companies why crypto treasuries are fundamentally governance products.
Bitcoin’s sharp early-February decline triggered a fresh round of scrutiny on Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy). Strategy reported $12.4 billion quarterly loss tied to mark-to-market accounting on its Bitcoin holdings. The move shows a structural reality for corporate holders: under fair-value treatment, price swings are no longer an abstract chart—they are an income statement event and a shareholder relations problem.
Crypto-linked firms beyond the corporate-treasury cohort also showed how quickly downturns translate into reported losses and investor pressure. Galaxy Digital, for example, reported a $482 million quarterly loss tied to the drop in Bitcoin prices.
This is the environment boards are navigating: a potentially more supportive federal stance, paired with balance-sheet optics that can deteriorate fast in a drawdown.
Two executive lenses on the same problem: conviction vs governance
To understand how corporate decision-makers are reframing crypto exposure amid politicization and scrutiny, AlexaBlockchain talked to top executives from two prime stakeholders — one from the insurance and risk world, and the other from a crypto treasury operator. Their perspectives illustrate the split between “why this asset class” and “how you hold it responsibly.”
Brian Ruddick, Chief Strategy Officer at Upexi: Fundamentals over sentiment, and a Solana-heavy thesis
Asked what the current moment signals for Bitcoin, Solana, and the crypto market—especially with expectations shifting around a prolonged Trump-driven rally—Upexi’s Brian Ruddick downplayed short-term price action and emphasized adoption metrics:
“I don’t believe current price action signals much for digital assets. This is because, due to their nascency, digital assets are extremely volatile and trade more based on sentiment than on underlying fundamentals. Moreover, these underlying fundamentals, measured by items like daily active users, number of developers, institutional participation, etc, are in secular expansion. Prices will ebb and flow based on sentiment, but over the long-run will follow fundamentals. And, lower prices against improving fundamentals equates to an improved risk reward.”
On how public companies should interpret pullbacks—timing, conviction, and long-term strategy—Ruddick framed the decision as a classic re-underwriting exercise:
“Anytime prices move against you, an investment analyst should re-underwrite their thesis. If that thesis is broken, they should exit the position. If it is not, they should increase their position, given the greater upside. We continue to have extreme conviction that our current financial infrastructure is antiquated, slow, and expensive, that it is being reimagined and replaced by blockchain and internet-based rails, that much of this activity is and will occur on Solana to benefit the price of Solana, and that Upexi as a treasury company can add even more value over time given our multiple compounding value accrual mechanisms. As such, we stay the course, and look forward to continuing to execute and enhance shareholder value.”
On diversification versus concentration, Ruddick made a notably concentrated case—positioning Solana as the long-term “winner” chain:
“We are hyper-focused on Solana, as we believe it is the end game-winning high performance blockchain. It is the first second generation smart contract blockchain, enabling both best-in-class technology for leading performance as well as strong network effects, having launched in 2020. In addition, it has a growing and vibrant ecosystem of users, developers, and decentralized applications spanning many various use cases. And, it is already putting up leading key metrics, such as daily active users, decentralized application revenue, and decentralized exchange volumes.”
And on whether drawdowns slow institutions—or mature them—Ruddick argued that volatility acts as a cleansing mechanism:
“Periods like this flush out excess speculative leverage, weed out bad actors, and lead to improved market structure over the long-run. While large drawdowns feel horrible, they are healthy for such a nascent asset and lead to these various positives, enabling continued progress and future bull markets.”
The through-line is clear: Upexi’s posture is not “Trump is good/ bad for crypto.” It is “fundamentals are improving; volatility is the cost of admission; concentration is a feature, not a bug.”
Jason Bishara, CEO of NSI Insurance Group: Treat it as a governance and diversification decision—watch concentration risk
In an email interview with AlexaBlockchain, NSI Insurance Group CEO Jason Bishara framed drawdowns as typical for emerging asset classes and urged boards to focus on diversification and volatility absorption:
“Like most emerging asset classes, crypto tends to experience periods of intense enthusiasm followed by corrections. New sectors often become overbought as excitement builds around future expectations, and then prices cycle lower as fundamentals, adoption, and business models catch up.
Boards should view price pullbacks in Bitcoin and other digital assets as part of normal market volatility rather than as a failure of the asset class itself. This is precisely why a well-diversified balance sheet matters—one that hedges across multiple asset classes, currencies, and markets. When structured properly, diversification allows companies to absorb volatility in any single market while helping stabilize overall financial performance.”
On politicization and the fiduciary/ compliance angle, Bishara emphasized balance—warning both against zero exposure and against “excessive” exposure that can create shareholder risk:
“Fiduciary and compliance considerations around crypto exposure should be taken seriously by all boards. Holding digital assets as part of a broader diversification or hedging strategy is increasingly accepted in today’s markets. However, as with any investment approach, concentration risk is a key concern.
Having no digital asset exposure at all may leave a company vulnerable as the financial system continues to evolve, while excessive exposure could expose shareholders to unnecessary volatility. The prudent approach is balance—measured exposure within a clearly defined risk framework.
More aggressive strategies, such as deploying a full Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) strategy that results in a change in control or materially alters the company’s risk profile, can raise red flags. Without a clearly articulated business model and governance framework, these strategies can lead to significant stock price volatility and increase the board’s exposure to shareholder liability claims.”
That “change in control” language captures a growing corporate concern: once a crypto treasury strategy becomes the dominant driver of valuation and ownership dynamics, it can start to behave less like treasury management and more like a new business model—without the operational, disclosure, and oversight stack that business-model shifts typically require.
On what differentiates responsible corporate holders during volatility, Bishara pointed to controls and oversight—again tying the outcome to equity volatility:
“Companies managing crypto exposure responsibly typically embed digital assets within a broader, well-governed diversification strategy. These organizations have clear controls, risk limits, and oversight structures in place, and as a result, they tend to exhibit less extreme stock price volatility—protecting shareholders from outsized swings tied to a single asset class.
By contrast, over-exposed or under-governed companies—particularly those pursuing DAT strategies that effectively create a change in control—often experience sharp and unpredictable stock movements. The defining line is governance: when a digital asset strategy materially alters ownership dynamics or corporate control without adequate oversight, volatility increases and risk management breaks down.”
And on separating headline risk from real risk—especially as crypto becomes politicized—Bishara argued for anchoring decision-making in business model and regulatory reality:
“Leadership teams should stay anchored to their core business model, long-term strategy, and the regulatory framework in which they operate. Headline risk and political narratives can be distracting, but they should not override disciplined financial decision-making.
The use of digital assets as part of a responsible hedging and balance sheet strategy is generally accepted by both regulators and shareholders when done prudently. The focus should be on financial fundamentals, governance, and risk controls—not political sentiment.”
What public-company treasuries want from Trump: clarity, not cheerleading
In practical terms, the “Trump effect” for crypto treasuries is less about a rally and more about whether the administration can translate posture into predictable rails:
- Market-structure clarity: Corporate risk committees want rules that reduce the chance of sudden regulatory shocks. The ongoing stablecoin-yield standoff shows how difficult that will be.
- Regulatory execution capacity: Public reporting suggests SEC leadership is exploring innovation-friendly mechanisms, but timelines and specifics still appear in flux.
- Reduced second-order friction: CFOs and boards care about custody, audit sign-off, banking counterparties, and shareholder messaging. A supportive tone helps at the margins; it does not remove volatility.
What KOLs are talking about: “Bitcoin president” narratives vs balance-sheet mechanics
Key opinion leaders have leaned into the politics—some framing Trump as a tailwind—while the corporate conversation is becoming more mechanical.
The most visible example remains Strategy and Michael Saylor, whose company’s mark-to-market loss and continued accumulation keep it at the center of the “crypto treasury” trade. Meanwhile, market participants increasingly debate whether the next phase of corporate adoption will broaden beyond Bitcoin to other assets (including higher-beta treasuries) or retrench toward simpler, governance-friendly policies—an argument that maps closely to the contrast between Ruddick’s concentrated Solana thesis and Bishara’s emphasis on diversification and risk limits.
The bottom line: Trump may be helpful—but governance will decide who survives the headline cycle
If the last 2–3 months delivered a single message to corporate treasurers, it’s that politicization can amplify narratives, but it doesn’t change the core job:
- If you hold crypto, you are running a volatility program on a public balance sheet.
- If you scale exposure, you must defend it under fiduciary duty, disclosure scrutiny, and shareholder litigation risk—especially if the strategy begins to resemble a de facto change in corporate identity.
- And if Washington can’t produce clear, effective law—particularly around stablecoin incentives and market structure—corporate adoption will remain constrained by governance friction even when regulators sound supportive.
In that sense, Trump can be “good for crypto treasuries” only to the extent that he makes crypto less operationally risky to hold—not merely more popular to talk about.
The article “Is Trump Good for Crypto Treasuries? Risk, Governance and the New Playbook” was first published on AlexaBlockchain. Read the complete article here: https://alexablockchain.com/is-trump-good-for-crypto-treasuries/
Disclaimer: The information provided on AlexaBlockchain is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Read complete disclaimer here.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Canva, Wiki Commons