The DAT Model Under Scrutiny
#SatsumaTechnology Satsuma’s collapse is the most visible failure yet of the DAT, a digital asset treasury structure that proliferated across UK small-caps in 2025.
These companies, modeled loosely on MicroStrategy’s approach, give equity investors indirect exposure to Bitcoin while bolting on a thin operating business to satisfy UK listing rules on alternative investment fund classification.
The structure works when Bitcoin price momentum and equity premiums reinforce each other; it unravels quickly when both reverse simultaneously, as the convertible note obligations create a sell-to-survive dynamic at exactly the wrong point in the cycle.
The broader regulatory environment for UK crypto companies adds another layer of structural pressure that pure-play listed treasuries are poorly positioned to absorb.
The wind-down proceeds through a “B Share Scheme,” a UK legal mechanism for distributing cash assets back to shareholders. Estimated termination costs run to £2.7M: legal fees, severance, delisting charges, and run-off insurance.
Combined with the £40M recovered from December’s BTC sale, the total capital returned is roughly £66–70M, against the £163.6M raised.
Critically, convertible noteholders rank above common equity in the payout waterfall, so ordinary shareholders may receive considerably less than even those aggregated figures suggest.
Satsuma was the second-largest UK-listed Bitcoin treasury company by holdings at the time of the vote. The Smarter Web Company, holding 2,878 BTC, currently sits at the top of that ranking and has not indicated any plans to wind down, though Satsuma’s outcome will sharpen investor focus on the NAV-to-market-cap gap across all remaining UK crypto treasury vehicles.
The contrast with Michael Saylor’s approach, maintaining Bitcoin conviction through drawdowns rather than liquidating under shareholder pressure, is a live debate in the corporate Bitcoin treasury space right now.