FG Nexus Inc, a publicly traded Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) firm focused on Ethereum holdings and real-world asset (RWA) tokenization, announced the sale of approximately 10,922 ETH from its treasury.
This transaction, valued at around $31–33 million based on ETH prices near $2,850–$3,000 at the time, represented roughly 21% of its pre-sale ETH holdings approximately 50,927 ETH. The proceeds, combined with $10 million in borrowed funds, were used to repurchase 3.4 million shares—about 8% of its outstanding float—at an average price of $3.94 per share.
This move aims to address the firm’s market-to-net asset value (mNAV) trading below 1.0, where its stock price $2.41 as of November 20 close undervalues its underlying assets. As of November 19, 2025 pre-close of the announcement day.
DATs are publicly traded companies mostly NASDAQ/OTC whose primary business is to hold large amounts of a single cryptocurrency almost always Bitcoin or Ethereum as their core treasury asset, similar to how MicroStrategy holds BTC.
They raise capital by issuing equity or convertible debt, buy the crypto, and then hold or lightly stake it. Shareholders get leveraged exposure to the crypto price without directly owning the coin.
FG Nexus’s stock has plummeted ~37% in the past month and >85% over six months, down from a $40 peak in August 2025. This sale is part of an ongoing buyback program launched in October, targeting undervaluation to boost per-share NAV.
CEO Kyle Cerminara stated the firm will “continue buying back shares while our stock trades below NAV,” creating an “asymptotic effect” on valuation as shares decline and NAV per share rises. The company also stakes portions of its ETH for yield and issues SEC-registered shares on Ethereum via Securitize for on-chain trading.
The sale contributed to ETH dipping below $2,850 support on November 20, down 6% intraday amid broader crypto market weakness. On-chain data shows spot exchange ETH balances at historic lows 6.5 million ETH, but sales from DATs like FG Nexus highlight liquidity risks for treasury firms.
FG Nexus is the second major ETH treasury to sell assets for buybacks this month, following similar moves by peers like SharpLink Gaming. Earlier in 2025, firms accumulated aggressively via $5B shelf offerings, but plunging stocks have reversed some strategies.
Venture capital views this as unlikely to become widespread, but it raises questions about long-term holding commitments. Recent discussions emphasize the ~21% dump as a bearish signal for ETH, with users noting “DATs are selling” and speculating on buyers like ETFs or whales. “FG Nexus dumped 21% of their $ETH. DATs are selling. Guess who’s buying? ”
This development underscores volatility in the DAT sector, where ETH’s price crash below $3,000 has amplified pressures. While buybacks aim to unlock value for shareholders, they signal potential consolidation or shifts away from pure accumulation plays.
Most DATs trade at a discount to their Net Asset Value (NAV) — sometimes 30-70% below the actual value of their crypto holdings. Example: Company holds 50,000 ETH worth $150 million. Market cap = only $80 million ? trades at 0.53× NAV. This persistent discount is the central “game” that DAT management tries to solve.
Direct Crypto Sale ? Share Buyback; FG Nexus style; Sell a portion of ETH/BTC treasury on the open market ? use USD proceeds to repurchase and retire own shares. Instantly narrows or eliminates NAV discount; very visible accretion to remaining shareholders.
Direct selling pressure on the crypto price; reduces treasury size; signals “we don’t believe ETH will moon soon”. Issue low-interest convertible notes or fixed-income bonds (often 0–1% coupon) ? use proceeds to (a) buy more BTC/ETH and (b) repurchase shares.
Adds leverage; if crypto rises, huge upside. Buybacks still close discount | Massive dilution risk if conversion price is hit; interest burden if crypto crashes.
ATM Equity Offerings + Immediate Crypto Purchase + Buyback Later; Sell new shares via At-The-Market (ATM) facility when trading above NAV ? buy crypto ? when discount re-appears, use cash or sell tiny crypto slices for buybacks. Opportunistic; only raises capital when premium exists.
Very hard to execute because premium windows are rare and brief. Stake ETH or wrapped BTC on platforms ? use 3–6% annual yield in ETH to either (a) sell yield for USD buybacks or (b) compound ETH and claim “we never sell principal.” Looks more “HODL-friendly”; no principal sale.
Yield is small a few million $ per year for mid-sized DATs; slow impact. Sell 5–25% of holdings in tranches most common 2025 version. Pre-announce or quietly sell 5–25% of treasury over weeks/months via OTC or exchanges ? run aggressive buyback while discount <0.7×.
Balances “keep most of the upside” with aggressive discount closure | Still creates selling pressure; community often angry. FG offering to buy back 10–30% of shares at a fixed price slightly above market but still below NAV. Very powerful one-time accretion; cleans up float.
After selling 20% ETH & buying back 20% of shares. Same ETH per share, but far fewer shares ? remaining holders own same crypto exposure for much higher stock price. Bitcoin DATs (MSTR, Metaplanet, Semler Scientific) ? still mostly accumulate or use debt; very few outright sales.
Ethereum DATs (FG Nexus, SharpLink, Nine Realms) ? much more aggressive selling + buybacks because ETH underperformed BTC in 2025 and their discounts reached 60-80%. BTC maxis cheer MicroStrategy debt model; ETH community often calls selling DATs “traitors” or “fake accumulation.”
When a DAT trades at a deep discount, management faces intense pressure to either (1) sell some crypto and buy back shares or (2) issue cheap debt and double down. The first strategy closes the discount fastest but damages the “crypto treasury” narrative; the second keeps the narrative but adds leverage risk. Most 2025 Ethereum DATs have chosen door #1.
Kalshi Faces $650M Market Liquidation Risk Pending Massachusetts Court Ruling
Kalshi, a federally regulated prediction market platform designated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), allows users to trade “event contracts” on outcomes like sports results.
These are binary options—essentially yes/no bets structured as financial derivatives—offered nationwide without state-specific gambling licenses.
However, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell views them as unlicensed sports wagering, violating state laws that require operators to obtain a gaming license from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
This has led to ongoing litigation, with a critical hearing scheduled for December 9, 2025, in Suffolk County Superior Court. Kalshi argues federal law the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state gambling regulations, positioning its platform as a financial exchange rather than a sportsbook.
Massachusetts counters that Kalshi’s contracts mimic sports betting comparing them to FanDuel and expose users to addiction risks without state-mandated protections like age verification, funding caps, or taxes.
The $650 Million Liquidation Risk
In a November 19, 2025, court filing, Kalshi warned that if the court grants the state’s preliminary injunction request, it would be forced to immediately halt trading on Massachusetts-based contracts.
This could trigger the liquidation of approximately $650 million in open derivative positions—not just from Massachusetts users, but nationwide, as markets are interconnected.
Kalshi’s VP of Markets, Xavier Sottile, described this as creating a “false signal” to the market, disrupting users’ positions and potentially causing widespread havoc for traders across the U.S.A forced pause would: Prevent new trades on sports events involving Massachusetts residents.
Require unwinding existing contracts at current values, leading to immediate gains/losses for holders. Impact integrated platforms like Robinhood, which intermediates Kalshi trades and has separately sued to block enforcement.
Kalshi estimates this as a “disastrous” outcome, emphasizing that prediction markets are a “critical innovation” for hedging risks, not gambling. The state, however, prioritizes public health, citing harms like compulsive gambling and financial losses.
This isn’t isolated—Kalshi faces similar challenges in over a dozen states:Wins: Preliminary injunctions in Nevada and New Jersey federal courts, blocking state enforcement. Denied in Maryland; Nevada judge is reconsidering its injunction; cease-and-desist letters from Arizona, Illinois, and Montana.
Kalshi is appealing a CFTC denial of sports contracts to the Third Circuit. A parallel Robinhood federal suit in Massachusetts was dismissed on November 13, 2025, sending the case to state court— non-appealable, heightening risks.
Experts predict escalation to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially as competitors like DraftKings, FanDuel, Polymarket, and ProphetX eye similar products. The President Donald Trump administration may favor deregulation, given ties to prediction markets.
AG suit claims unlicensed wagering; $650M risk if halted. Injunction granted, but reversal likely. Judge leaning against Kalshi post-reconsideration.
The December 9, 2025 upcoming ruling could set a precedent: approval of the injunction forces Kalshi’s hand on liquidations, while denial reinforces federal oversight. Kalshi vows to “defend [its] innovations in court,” but a loss might prompt appeals or operational pauses.
For Kalshi users, monitor open positions closely whereby abrupt changes could affect portfolios. This case highlights the tension between innovation in financial tools and state control over gambling, with billions in market value at stake industry-wide.
