At Crypto Insights Group (CIG), our mission is to provide allocators with both the tools and the intelligence they need to engage confidently with digital asset funds. Beyond the fintech platform that connects institutions directly to managers, we also run proprietary monthly research.
Our Fund Manager Survey is one of the most important components of this effort. For nearly 24 months, more than 150 fundamental liquid fund managers have participated, sharing their views on market structure, risks, and opportunities. This makes our survey one of the few windows into what the actual buyside consensus looks like.
Everyone in the market speculates, but our goal is to cut through the noise and show how sophisticated managers are really thinking.
Digital Asset Treasuries (DATs) have become one of the defining themes of 2025, with manager and allocator interest that has accelerated rapidly. Rather than labeling DATs positively or negatively, we highlight how fund managers are evaluating the opportunity, where they identify risks, and how they expect the trend to evolve. One theme keeps coming up: responsible management. Without transparency, solid governance, and dependable reporting, DATs won’t be able to carve out a lasting role in institutional portfolios.
In the sections that follow, we highlight 10 survey questions from May through August 2025 that capture how managers viewed DATs, how consensus evolved over time, and what this signals about the trend. For each, we outline why the question matters, what the data tells us, and the potential implications.
We're always open to chat 👉 book time here
A Surge in Crowdedness (May-August)
%20(1).png)
Why this question matters: Crowdedness tells us whether a trade is consensus or contrarian. For allocators, this matters because crowding can increase volatility, compress returns, and limit the durability of a trade.
Takeaway: In May, only 3% of managers cited DATs as the most crowded trade. By August, that number had surged to 66%. This is the highest reading we’ve ever recorded in nearly two years of running this survey.
Implication: DATs have become mainstream in record time. Allocators should note that this shift signals heightened risk of one-way positioning. DATs may remain an important theme, but the crowded nature means allocators must be thoughtful about sizing and timing if their managers are involved.
June Survey Report
Why this question matters: Understanding how many managers are actually allocating tells us whether DATs are still niche or if they’ve become a core part of fund strategies.
Takeaway: In June, only 11% of managers reported heavy exposure. Most were either not interested (28%) or cautiously watching. A combined 47% were “interested but not yet investing” or investing with low exposure.
Implication: This shows that in early summer, DATs were still more of a talking point than a widely implemented strategy. Allocators should understand that adoption lagged sentiment, which may limit near-term systemic risk but also means that growth in exposure could still be ahead.
Why this question matters: Gauging whether managers see DATs as constructive or disruptive helps allocators assess whether treasury adoption is viewed as stabilizing or destabilizing for digital assets.
Takeaway: In June, sentiment leaned positive. Nearly half (47%) saw DATs creating a moderate positive impact, and 28% called them a major bullish catalyst. Only 12% viewed them as negative or distracting.
Implication: Even with light actual allocations, managers were already anticipating meaningful market impact. For allocators, this signals that the narrative power of DATs may matter as much as their balance sheets. Positioning and sentiment could both magnify effects when actual flows accelerate.
July Survey Report
Why this question matters: Ethereum positioning is often influenced by a range of factors including tokenization, DeFi, ETFs. Seeing DATs emerge as the top driver provides clarity on what’s shaping manager allocations.
Takeaway: In July, DATs topped the list of ETH exposure drivers at 56%, ahead of stablecoin interest (54%) and ETF inflows (42%). Managers clearly see treasuries as influencing Ethereum flows, not just Bitcoin.
Implication: Allocators should view DATs as a cross-asset phenomenon. Treasury dynamics may ripple across multiple parts of the ecosystem, reinforcing ETH alongside BTC. This broadens the importance of DATs beyond a single-asset narrative.
Why this question matters: Longevity expectations tell allocators whether managers view DATs as a passing trade or a structural feature of the market.
Takeaway: Responses showed a wide split. Some said the trade was already over (2%), others thought it would last 3-6 months (36%) or 6-12 months (30%). Only 11% believed DATs would last more than a year. The midpoint expectation was about 6.2 months.
Implication: Managers see DATs as meaningful but time-bounded. For allocators, this means assessing whether their funds are treating DATs as tactical or strategic. The ability to manage exit timing will matter as much as entry.
August Survey Report
Why this question matters: Transparency is critical for allocators making diligence decisions. Without it, even large, growing strategies can face credibility gaps.
Takeaway: In August, 62% of managers rated DAT transparency as low or very low. Only 4% viewed it as high, and none as very high.
Implication: This is a structural weakness. DATs may attract assets, but the lack of transparency raises governance concerns. Allocators should be cautious and push for reporting standards before treating DATs as reliable exposure vehicles.
Why this question matters: Allocators need to understand where new flows are likely to appear, since DAT allocations could reshape liquidity in adjacent markets.
Takeaway: One-third of managers expect DATs to allocate to DeFi within three months, and another 29% within 3-6 months. Only 11% said “never.”
Implication: This suggests a near-term catalyst for DeFi liquidity, with AAVE and similar platforms most likely to benefit. Allocators should be aware that DATs may drive flows outside of Bitcoin, potentially shifting the risk profile of DeFi strategies.
Why this question matters: Identifying where flows are expected helps allocators anticipate winners and losers if DATs begin allocating at scale.
Takeaway: AAVE was the overwhelming favorite, with 67% expecting it to capture the most incremental TVL. Other protocols like ENA (16%) and LDO (14%) lagged far behind.
Implication: If managers are right, allocators should expect concentration in a small set of protocols. This could create asymmetric outcomes where liquidity deepens in leaders while others remain sidelined.
Why this question matters: Premiums reflect market confidence and sustainability of the structure. Persistent discounts or excessive premiums can both signal instability.
Takeaway: Responses were widely distributed, but the blended expectation was a 15.3% premium. The largest group expected premiums to stabilize in the 0-10% or 10-30% range.
Implication: While managers see some premium as sustainable, the divergence of views suggests uncertainty around valuation. Allocators should be cautious about treating current premiums as stable. They may vary sharply as DATs evolve.
Why this question matters: Comparing DATs to ETFs directly addresses whether treasuries are seen as competing with or complementing institutional products.
Takeaway: Just over half of managers (52%) said DATs would not become more attractive than ETFs. But 34% said yes within 12 months, and 14% said yes over a longer horizon.
Implication: The split highlights the open debate. ETFs offer transparency and regulation, while DATs promise differentiated accumulation. Allocators should track which way institutional preference shifts, since this will shape flows into both structures.
Why This Matters
DATs are no longer a side conversation. In just a few months, they’ve become crowded, influential, and a top driver of positioning across Bitcoin, Ethereum, and DeFi. Yet our survey shows the other side too: transparency is lacking, the trade may be short-lived, and the market is split on whether DATs can rival ETFs.
For allocators, the lesson is clear: do not ignore DATs, but approach them with an informed, balanced view. Our research shows where consensus is forming and where uncertainty remains.
Next Steps
CIG’s proprietary research complements our fintech platform. Together, they give institutional investors a unique informational advantage and the ability to connect directly with liquid managers while also seeing how the buyside itself is thinking.
If you want to explore the survey results in detail or connect with managers running liquid strategies, book time with CIG directly. We’ll walk you through the Portal, analytics and benchmarking, and detail how crypto allocators are using it to track themes like DATs.
👉 Connect with the CIG team
Disclaimer
This communication is addressed exclusively to professional and institutional investors residing in eligible jurisdictions and is not a contractually binding document or an information document required by any legislative provision, and is not sufficient to take an investment decision.
Nothing in this communication amounts to, or should be construed as, an offer, placement, invitation or general solicitation to invest in any fund or to buy or sell securities, digital assets, or to engage in any other related or unrelated transactions.
This communication was not prepared in compliance with applicable provisions of law designed to promote the independence of financial analysis and is not subject to a prohibition on trading following the distribution of financial research, and does not purport to contain all of the information that may be required to evaluate any potential transaction and should not be relied on in connection with any such potential transaction.
The communication is not a recommendation and should not be relied upon as accounting, legal, tax or investment advice. You should consult your tax, legal, accounting or other advisers separately.
None of Crypto Insights Group or any of their respective directors, officers, employees, partners, shareholders, advisers, agents or affiliates make any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this document, and nothing contained in it shall be relied upon as a promise or representation whether as to past or future results.
Crypto Insights Group’s findings reflect aggregated survey responses from fund managers and are intended solely for informational and educational purposes.
