The listing of EverNorth has made me feel that the discussion around digital asset treasury companies has deepened further. While Strategy and MetaPlanet pioneered a model of raising capital in the financial markets to acquire specific assets, EverNorth explicitly positions mere holding as first-generation, and is clearly outlining a strategy to operate treasury services for institutions, with future plans to leverage lending and DeFi on the XRPL to grow XRP per share. The nature of each asset differs: BTC functions as digital gold or a reserve asset, while XRP leans more toward a utility asset. Because investor objectives vary, even if EverNorth gains valuation, it is unlikely to directly draw capital away from Strategy or MetaPlanet. At the same time, this also contributes to broader awareness of the category itself. However, pure buy-and-hold strategies are already under pressure. The existence of spot ETFs and periods where mNAV has traded near or below par have weakened the explanatory power of relying solely on capital market premiums for asset accumulation. This stagnation is part of Bitcoin’s current challenge. Although Strategy has evolved slightly with preferred shares and cash reserves, and MetaPlanet with liquidity measures like sell-and-buyback programs and U.S. market expansion, their fundamental limitations are becoming apparent. I believe a treasury system that merely leans on Bitcoin cannot create new value. The cycle of issuing shares to buy BTC, where share prices rise only because BTC rises, may be effective at raising capital—but fundamentally, it is merely leverage on Bitcoin’s price. Without independent value creation, contribution to an ecosystem, or productive utilization, such entities will struggle to hold significance beyond being mere wrappers for BTC. Is EverNorth’s emphasis on active operation a conscious response to this? The distinction between merely holding assets and actively seeking to generate something through them will likely become the critical dividing line in evaluating future treasury companies. As long as Bitcoin’s scarcity and demand as a reserve asset endure, a complete obsolescence scenario is unlikely. But whether sustainable corporate value can truly emerge from merely extending this “riding on Bitcoin” model remains questionable to me.