Muhammad Kashif

September 30, 2025

Reliance Global Group Buys Bitcoin for Treasury Holdings

COIN4U IN YOUR SOCIAL FEED

The corporate world’s relationship with cryptocurrency continues to evolve as traditional businesses increasingly recognize digital assets as legitimate treasury investments. In a strategic move that signals growing institutional confidence in digital currencies, Reliance Global Group has announced its decision to add Bitcoin to its treasury holdings, marking a significant milestone in the company’s financial strategy. This decision places the organization among a select group of forward-thinking corporations that view cryptocurrency adoption as essential to maintaining competitive advantage in an increasingly digital economy.

The announcement has generated considerable attention across financial markets, particularly as it demonstrates how businesses beyond the technology sector are embracing blockchain technology and cryptocurrency investments. Reliance Global Group’s move reflects a broader trend where companies are diversifying their treasury reserves beyond traditional fiat currencies and conventional assets. As inflation concerns persist and central banks worldwide navigate complex monetary policies, Bitcoin’s fixed supply and decentralized nature have become increasingly attractive to corporate treasurers seeking alternative stores of value.

This strategic allocation represents more than just portfolio diversification; it signals a fundamental shift in how established corporations view the future of finance. By incorporating Bitcoin into its treasury strategy, Reliance Global Group joins industry pioneers who recognize that digital asset management is no longer optional but essential for modern financial planning.

Corporate Bitcoin Treasury Adoption

The concept of corporations holding Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset has gained substantial momentum over recent years. What began as an unconventional strategy pursued by a handful of technology-focused companies has transformed into a mainstream corporate finance practice. Companies are increasingly recognizing that maintaining substantial cash reserves in traditional currencies exposes them to inflation risk and currency devaluation, particularly in volatile economic environments.

Corporate treasury management has traditionally focused on maintaining liquidity while preserving capital through conservative investments in government bonds, money market funds, and short-term securities. However, the unprecedented monetary expansion following global economic challenges has prompted financial officers to reconsider these conventional approaches. Bitcoin offers characteristics that address several concerns facing modern treasury departments: it operates independently of any single government or central bank, maintains a mathematically enforced scarcity with a maximum supply of 21 million coins, and provides 24/7 market accessibility across global exchanges.

The decision to allocate treasury funds to Bitcoin requires careful consideration of regulatory compliance, accounting treatment, volatility management, and operational security. Companies must establish robust cryptocurrency custody solutions, implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, and ensure proper reporting procedures that satisfy both internal governance requirements and external regulatory obligations. Despite these complexities, the number of corporations adding Bitcoin to their balance sheets continues to grow, reflecting increased confidence in the asset class’s long-term viability.

Reliance Global Group’s Strategic Vision

Reliance Global Group’s decision to incorporate Bitcoin into its treasury holdings demonstrates strategic foresight and willingness to embrace financial innovation. The company’s leadership has evidently concluded that the potential benefits of Bitcoin exposure outweigh the risks associated with cryptocurrency volatility. This calculated approach suggests that extensive due diligence was conducted to evaluate Bitcoin’s role within the broader corporate investment strategy.

The timing of this announcement is particularly noteworthy as it comes during a period of increased institutional adoption and regulatory clarity. Major financial institutions have developed comprehensive cryptocurrency services, regulatory frameworks have matured in key jurisdictions, and market infrastructure has evolved to support institutional-grade custody and trading solutions. These developments have reduced many barriers that previously deterred corporate adoption.

By taking this step, Reliance Global Group positions itself at the forefront of financial innovation within its industry. The company’s willingness to adapt its treasury strategy reflects an understanding that business success in the digital age requires embracing technological transformation across all aspects of operations, including financial management. This move may also provide competitive advantages by demonstrating technological sophistication to stakeholders, attracting talent interested in working for forward-thinking organizations, and potentially generating superior returns compared to traditional treasury investments.

The Broader Context of Institutional Bitcoin Adoption

Reliance Global Group’s Bitcoin purchase occurs within a larger narrative of institutional cryptocurrency investment that has fundamentally altered the digital asset landscape. Major corporations, asset management firms, pension funds, and insurance companies have increasingly allocated capital to Bitcoin, providing validation that extends far beyond the cryptocurrency’s early adopter community.

This institutional wave has brought enhanced market maturity, improved liquidity, and greater price stability compared to Bitcoin’s earlier years. When corporations with established reputations and rigorous financial controls commit treasury resources to Bitcoin, they signal to markets that cryptocurrency has evolved beyond speculative assets into legitimate financial instruments worthy of serious consideration.

The infrastructure supporting corporate Bitcoin adoption has evolved considerably as well. Professional custody services now offer institutional-grade security with insurance coverage, regulatory compliance frameworks, and operational procedures that meet corporate governance standards. Major accounting firms have developed clear guidance on cryptocurrency accounting treatment, exchanges provide sophisticated trading platforms designed for institutional users, and blockchain analytics tools enable comprehensive transaction monitoring and compliance reporting.

Financial advisors and consultants specializing in corporate cryptocurrency strategy have emerged to guide companies through the adoption process. These professionals help organizations evaluate appropriate allocation percentages, select custody solutions, implement operational controls, and navigate regulatory requirements specific to their jurisdictions. This growing ecosystem of specialized services has reduced the barriers to entry that previously discouraged corporate adoption.

Implications for the Cryptocurrency Market

When established corporations announce Bitcoin treasury purchases, the impact extends throughout the cryptocurrency ecosystem. These decisions provide market validation that influences other corporate decision-makers considering similar strategies. Each new corporate adoption creates precedent that makes subsequent decisions easier for other organizations, generating a network effect that accelerates institutional participation.

The cryptocurrency market dynamics shift as more corporate treasuries accumulate Bitcoin. Institutional buying patterns differ significantly from retail investor behavior, with corporations typically taking longer-term positions rather than engaging in frequent trading. This long-term holding tendency can reduce available supply on exchanges, potentially affecting price dynamics and reducing volatility over time.

Corporate participation also attracts additional regulatory attention, which paradoxically strengthens the ecosystem by encouraging clearer frameworks and greater legal certainty. Regulators worldwide recognize that when major corporations hold digital assets, comprehensive oversight becomes essential. This regulatory engagement, while sometimes creating short-term uncertainty, ultimately provides the clarity necessary for broader institutional adoption.

Risk Considerations and Treasury Management

While Bitcoin offers potential benefits as a treasury asset, corporations must carefully manage associated risks. Cryptocurrency volatility remains significantly higher than traditional treasury investments, requiring appropriate position sizing relative to overall treasury holdings. Companies must establish clear policies regarding acceptable volatility levels, rebalancing triggers, and circumstances under which positions might be reduced or liquidated.

Cryptocurrency security protocols represent another critical consideration for corporate treasury departments. Unlike traditional financial assets held with established custodians, Bitcoin requires specialized security measures to prevent theft or loss. Companies must choose between self-custody solutions that provide direct control but require extensive technical expertise, or third-party custody services that offer professional management but introduce counterparty risk.

Accounting treatment for cryptocurrency holdings can impact financial statement presentation and create reporting complexities. Under current accounting standards in many jurisdictions, Bitcoin is classified as an intangible asset subject to impairment testing, meaning companies must recognize decreases in value but cannot record increases until assets are sold. This accounting treatment can create earnings volatility that some companies find challenging to explain to stakeholders.

The Future of Corporate Cryptocurrency Holdings

Reliance Global Group’s Bitcoin purchase represents one chapter in an evolving story of corporate cryptocurrency adoption. As more companies successfully integrate digital assets into treasury operations, the practice will likely become increasingly normalized across industries. The development of exchange-traded products, improved regulatory frameworks, and enhanced market infrastructure will continue reducing barriers to corporate participation.

Future developments may include corporations holding multiple cryptocurrencies rather than focusing exclusively on Bitcoin, as the broader digital asset ecosystem matures and alternative protocols demonstrate sustained utility and value. Companies might also explore decentralized finance applications for treasury management, potentially earning yields on cryptocurrency holdings through lending protocols or liquidity provision.

The integration of cryptocurrency into corporate treasury strategy may eventually extend beyond passive holding to more active participation in blockchain ecosystems. Companies could accept cryptocurrency payments from customers, compensate employees with digital assets, or leverage blockchain technology for supply chain management and operational efficiency. Reliance Global Group’s current Bitcoin purchase may represent an initial step toward more comprehensive blockchain integration across business operations.

Conclusion

Reliance Global Group’s decision to purchase Bitcoin for treasury holdings marks a significant development in the ongoing evolution of corporate finance. By embracing cryptocurrency as a legitimate treasury asset, the company demonstrates confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term value proposition and positions itself among industry leaders willing to adapt financial strategies for the digital age. This move reflects broader trends toward institutional cryptocurrency acceptance and signals that digital assets have achieved a level of maturity that warrants serious consideration from corporate treasurers.

The implications extend beyond Reliance Global Group itself, contributing to growing momentum that makes cryptocurrency adoption more accessible for other corporations contemplating similar strategies. As regulatory clarity improves, infrastructure matures, and more companies successfully implement Bitcoin treasury strategies, digital assets will likely become standard components of diversified corporate portfolios. Reliance Global Group’s announcement represents not an endpoint but a milestone in the continuing journey toward mainstream cryptocurrency integration in corporate finance.how to add bitcoin to corporate treasury

FAQs

1. Why are corporations adding Bitcoin to their treasury holdings?

Corporations are increasingly viewing Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation. With its fixed supply of 21 million coins and decentralized nature, Bitcoin offers protection from monetary expansion policies that can erode the value of traditional cash reserves. Additionally, companies seek portfolio diversification beyond conventional treasury investments, and Bitcoin’s low correlation with traditional assets makes it an attractive diversification tool for corporate treasuries seeking enhanced returns.

2. What risks do companies face when holding Bitcoin in their treasuries?

The primary risk is price volatility, as Bitcoin can experience significant value fluctuations over short periods, potentially affecting corporate balance sheets and earnings reports. Companies also face security challenges related to cryptocurrency custody and storage, requiring robust protocols to prevent theft or loss. Additionally, accounting treatment under current standards can create reporting complexities, and regulatory uncertainty in some jurisdictions may pose compliance challenges that companies must carefully navigate.

3. How do companies securely store Bitcoin in their corporate treasuries?

Most corporations utilize institutional-grade custody solutions provided by specialized firms that offer multi-signature security, cold storage systems, and insurance coverage against theft or loss. These custodians implement bank-level security protocols including hardware security modules, geographically distributed storage, and comprehensive operational controls. Some companies opt for self-custody using enterprise wallet solutions, though this requires significant technical expertise and internal security infrastructure to manage private keys safely.how to add bitcoin to corporate treasury

4. Does adding Bitcoin to corporate treasuries affect financial reporting?

Yes, cryptocurrency holdings impact financial statements in several ways. Under current accounting standards in many jurisdictions, Bitcoin is classified as an indefinite-lived intangible asset subject to impairment testing. Companies must recognize declines in value below cost basis but cannot record gains until assets are sold. This treatment can create earnings volatility and requires detailed disclosures in financial statements explaining cryptocurrency holdings, valuation methods, and any impairment charges recognized during reporting periods.

5. Will more companies follow Reliance Global Group’s example?

The trend toward corporate Bitcoin adoption appears likely to continue as infrastructure improves and more companies successfully implement cryptocurrency treasury strategies. As regulatory frameworks mature and accounting guidance becomes clearer, barriers to entry decrease, making adoption more accessible. The growing number of case studies from companies that have successfully integrated Bitcoin into their treasuries provides valuable precedents for other corporations considering similar strategies, suggesting that institutional adoption will continue accelerating in coming years.

SEE MORE: bitcoin_price_prediction_next_5_years Expert Forecasts

Explore more articles like this

Subscribe to the Finance Redefined newsletter

A weekly toolkit that breaks down the latest DeFi developments, offers sharp analysis, and uncovers new financial opportunities to help you make smart decisions with confidence. Delivered every Friday

By subscribing, you agree to our Terms of Services and Privacy Policy

Best Altcoins to Invest in 2025 Top Cryptocurrency Investment

Blockchain Investment Funds for Beginners Start Today

How to Buy Bitcoin for Beginners Complete 2025 Guide to Safe

Muhammad Kashif

10:46 am

Why Ethereum Is Losing Institutional Favor

COIN4U IN YOUR SOCIAL FEED

Ethereum, once the unquestioned leader of the smart contract revolution, stood for years as the natural choice for banks, hedge funds, enterprises, and large financial institutions experimenting with blockchain technology. As the first major network to make decentralized applications and programmable smart contracts possible, it attracted developers, liquidity, and attention from the world’s most powerful investors. Why Ethereum Is Losing. In its early days, Ethereum was seen as the future of decentralized finance and the backbone for institutional blockchain adoption. However, as blockchain technology has rapidly evolved and competitors have matured, the narrative has shifted. Institutions, which once viewed Ethereum as the default solution, are now exploring alternative networks that are faster, cheaper, more scalable, and in some cases more aligned with regulatory and compliance requirements.

To why Ethereum is no longer the top choice for institutions, it is essential to examine the fundamental changes taking place in the blockchain ecosystem. Institutions now have significantly more options than they did in the past, and many of these options address the limitations that have held Ethereum back. High gas fees, network congestion, environmental concerns, and regulatory uncertainties have all contributed to a changing institutional landscape. At the same time, Ethereum still maintains a strong position, but the days of uncontested dominance are over. The question is not whether Ethereum still matters—it absolutely does—but why institutions are broadening their focus and, in some cases, shifting away from Ethereum in favor of platforms that better meet their evolving needs.

Ethereum’s Early Institutional Dominance

Ethereum’s early success with institutions can be attributed to its ability to do what Bitcoin could not. While Bitcoin was revolutionary as a decentralized store of value, Ethereum introduced smart contracts, a transformative innovation that allowed code to self-execute on the blockchain. This breakthrough opened the door to decentralized applications, tokenized assets, automated financial products, and the early foundations of what would become the massive DeFi sector. Institutions that were curious about blockchain technology found Ethereum appealing because it offered functionality, programmability, and innovation potential unmatched by any other network at the time.

Throughout its early years, Ethereum benefited from the largest developer community in the blockchain industry. This meant new tools, applications, and services were constantly being built, providing a stronger infrastructure for institutional experimentation. Ethereum also captured the majority of stablecoin volume, decentralized exchanges, and liquidity pools. For institutions wanting to interact with blockchain-based markets, Ethereum was the place where the most activity happened. Because it had such a strong brand and such deep liquidity, institutions could feel confident that they were entering an ecosystem with relevance, future growth potential, and wide support from custodians and infrastructure providers.

However, the very success that made Ethereum dominant also created problems. As the network grew, congestion became common. As more decentralized applications launched and user demand skyrocketed, Ethereum’s limited throughput became a bottleneck. Although institutions tend to be long-term thinkers, they also require a degree of predictability, performance, and cost-efficiency that Ethereum often struggled to provide.

The Scalability Problem: High Gas Fees and Network Congestion

One of the clearest reasons Ethereum is no longer the top choice for institutions comes from its well-documented scalability challenges. Ethereum’s base layer has limited bandwidth, and when the network becomes congested, transaction fees—known as gas fees—can spike to extremely high levels. There have been periods when processing a single transaction could cost hundreds of dollars, making it impractical for institutions that want to move significant amounts of assets efficiently or frequently.

For organizations that manage large portfolios, execute high-frequency trades, or run automated smart contract strategies, unpredictable fees are a major concern. Institutions need reliability and cost predictability, especially when executing operations at scale. Ethereum, because of its congested network and fluctuating costs, has not always been able to provide these guarantees. Despite the shift to Proof-of-Stake and ongoing improvements, the base layer still faces the same structural limitations. This means that institutions operating on Ethereum must either accept high fees or shift their activity to Layer 2 networks. Many institutions are reluctant to do so because multiple layers introduce complexity, risk, and integration challenges.

Ethereum’s throughput challenges also mean that transactions sometimes take longer than institutions prefer. Lightning-fast settlement is not just a convenience; for financial institutions, it can be essential. When alternative blockchains can confirm transactions in seconds for a fraction of the cost, it becomes easy to see why many organizations are exploring new options.

The Rise of Faster and Cheaper Layer 1 Competitors

The emergence of high-performance Layer 1 blockchains is one of the most significant reasons institutions have expanded beyond Ethereum. Platforms like Solana, Avalanche, BNB Chain, and others have marketed themselves as faster, cheaper, and more scalable alternatives. These networks often process thousands of transactions per second, offer extremely low fees, and provide near-instant settlement. For institutions focused on speed, throughput, and cost-efficiency, these platforms can be more appealing than Ethereum’s congested base layer.

What makes this shift particularly impactful is that these competing blockchains are no longer experimental. They have matured into full-fledged ecosystems with decentralized finance platforms, tokenized assets, derivatives markets, and development environments that rival Ethereum. As liquidity grows on these networks and institutional infrastructure improves, institutions feel increasingly comfortable diversifying into or even prioritizing these alternative ecosystems.

Another important factor is the speed with which some competitors have embraced enterprise use cases. Instead of trying to adapt a general-purpose blockchain to institutional needs, many networks are building features designed specifically for businesses. These may include custom consensus mechanisms, governance models tailored for organizations, and improved data privacy frameworks. Ethereum, while powerful, was not originally designed with institutional specialization in mind, and this has created opportunities for competitors to position themselves as better fits for corporate users.

Layer 2 Complexity and Institutional Hesitation

To address its scalability issues, Ethereum has turned to Layer 2 solutions, such as optimistic rollups and zero-knowledge rollups. These scaling networks offer faster and cheaper transactions by processing activity off the main Ethereum chain and then settling the data on the base layer. From a technological perspective, Layer 2 solutions are essential to Ethereum’s long-term scalability. However, from an institutional adoption perspective, they introduce new complexities that some organizations find difficult to manage.

Instead of dealing with a single network, institutions must now interact with multiple Layer 2 environments, each with its own bridging solutions, liquidity pools, security assumptions, and operational challenges. Institutions generally prefer simplicity and standardization, and the fragmentation of Ethereum’s ecosystem can create complications that discourage adoption. The need to manage bridging between networks, understand differing fee markets, and ensure secure operational processes makes Ethereum’s multi-layer ecosystem harder to navigate.

Although Layer 2 networks derive security from Ethereum itself, they still represent additional layers of technology that must be audited, monitored, and understood. Traditional institutions often prefer a single, unified environment where risks are minimized and performance is consistent. Until Ethereum’s Layer 2 ecosystem becomes more streamlined and standardized, these complexities may continue to push institutions toward alternative solutions.

Regulatory and Compliance Challenges

Regulation is another critical factor in determining why Ethereum is no longer the top institutional choice. Ethereum is a public blockchain, meaning all transactions are visible on the ledger. While transparency is an advantage for decentralization, it is not always ideal for institutions that must protect client privacy, sensitive financial data, and confidential internal processes. Public visibility can create compliance and privacy concerns that make it difficult for certain institutional use cases to operate on Ethereum’s public layer.

Additionally, institutions must comply with strict KYC, AML, and reporting requirements. If regulators view Ethereum-based assets or certain decentralized finance activities as high-risk or potentially unregulated, institutions may reduce or limit their engagement. The uncertain regulatory environment surrounding some Ethereum-based tokens and DeFi protocols has pushed institutions to look for platforms that offer clearer compliance pathways.

Private and permissioned blockchains have gained interest because they provide controlled environments with defined governance and restricted access. Some organizations prefer hybrid or permissioned networks that allow them to maintain confidentiality and meet regulatory requirements without exposing sensitive information to the public. Ethereum does offer enterprise solutions through frameworks such as Enterprise Ethereum and private chain options, but competing blockchain platforms have been more aggressive in positioning themselves directly as institutional-grade solutions.

Shifting Institutional Priorities and Multi-Chain Strategies

Institutional priorities have changed significantly over time. In the past, institutions adopted blockchain primarily for experimentation and innovation. Ethereum, with its robust ecosystem and early leadership, was the natural choice for pilot projects. Today, however, institutions are more strategic and selective. They consider specific use cases such as cross-border payments, tokenized real-world assets, digital identity systems, and decentralized finance through a different lens. Each use case may align better with a particular blockchain’s strengths.

As a result, institutions increasingly prefer a multi-chain strategy. Instead of choosing a single platform, they distribute activity across several networks based on their performance, cost structure, and regulatory alignment. Ethereum still plays an important role in this landscape, especially for DeFi and tokenization, but it is no longer the only serious option. Institutions now evaluate blockchain platforms as part of a broader ecosystem rather than defaulting to Ethereum because of its early dominance.

Another important shift is the desire for specialized networks. Not all blockchains aim to be general-purpose platforms. Some are built specifically for high-frequency trading, institutional settlement, or enterprise-level customization. Where Ethereum lacks specialization, other networks have stepped in with purpose-built architectures designed to meet precise institutional needs. This shift toward specialization is one of the main reasons institutions are exploring other blockchains more aggressively than before.

Ethereum’s Institutional Strengths and Continued Importance

Despite increased competition and its declining status as the sole top choice, Ethereum remains one of the most important networks in the institutional blockchain world. It continues to hold the largest decentralized finance ecosystem, the widest pool of liquidity, and the most established community of developers. Institutions that want exposure to DeFi, staking, or tokenization often still rely heavily on Ethereum due to its depth and maturity.

Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake upgrade and ongoing scalability roadmap show that the network is committed to addressing its limitations. As rollups mature, transaction costs decrease, and interoperability improves, Ethereum may regain some lost ground among institutions. Its strong brand, long-term vision, and large community ensure that it will remain a foundational element of the blockchain ecosystem regardless of shifts in institutional sentiment.

However, while Ethereum will likely remain central to the future of blockchain innovation, it must adapt to the realities of a more competitive ecosystem. Institutions now demand speed, scalability, predictable costs, and regulatory clarity. Ethereum must evolve to meet these expectations while maintaining the decentralization and security that made it valuable in the first place.

Will Ethereum Regain Its Institutional Dominance?

The future of Ethereum’s relationship with institutions depends on how effectively it can simplify its scaling solutions, reduce friction in Layer 2 onboarding, and deliver lower transaction costs. Institutions may return in greater numbers if Ethereum provides a streamlined, scalable, and unified experience across its ecosystem. The ongoing development of rollups, cross-chain standards, and improved user experiences is a positive sign, but the competition is fierce. Other blockchains have strong technical advantages, and many are tailoring their products directly to institutional audiences.

The blockchain world is now firmly multi-chain, and Ethereum must coexist with other networks rather than dominate them. Whether or not it regains its institutional leadership will depend on the success of its upgrades, the strength of its developer community, and the ability of its ecosystem to maintain relevance in an increasingly diverse and competitive environment.

Conclusion

Ethereum’s evolution from a pioneering smart contract platform to one part of a broader multi-chain ecosystem reflects the rapid growth of blockchain technology. While once the uncontested leader for institutional experiments and innovation, Ethereum now faces competitors that offer higher throughput, lower fees, and specialized solutions for enterprise needs. High gas fees, network congestion, Layer 2 complexity, regulatory concerns, and the rise of faster Layer 1 networks have all contributed to institutions rethinking their approach to blockchain adoption.

Today’s institutions are guided by strategic use cases, regulatory pressures, and operational efficiency. Ethereum remains a key player, but it is no longer the only path forward. Instead, it is part of a diversified landscape where multiple blockchains serve different purposes. Ethereum’s future success with institutions will depend on its ability to continue evolving, delivering scalable solutions, and meeting the demands of a market that now values performance, specialization, and flexibility.