A DAT Is Not a Megaphone Anymore. It Is a Distribution Channel. Panelists Christopher Jensen (@jensane2001, @stablecoin_x), Hyunsu Jung (@hyperiondefi) and Kevin Lepsoe (@lepsoe, @ETHGasOfficial) discussed "Digital Asset Treasury: The New Frontier of Corporate Finance." What is a DAT actually for? Not promotion, and Jensen said it plainly. His StablecoinX holds roughly 20% of Ethena's total token supply. "DAT companies are no longer simply businesses that promote or speak for a specific digital asset." His reframe: the ecosystems behind these assets contain real products, and a DAT can push those products through distribution channels protocols cannot reach directly. Holding company to distribution platform is a different business, and he called the shift a significant one for the category. Is accumulating the job? No, and Jung of Hyperion DeFi treated that as an obligation rather than an option. What DATs need to do is go beyond continuing to accumulate and consistently contribute to the growth of those ecosystems, which means putting the balance sheet backed by those holdings to practical use. His own example: when new markets or products launch on Hyperliquid, Hyperion can supply capital and infrastructure and share in the resulting revenue, while building credit and trading infrastructure for participants entering the ecosystem. So how should anyone value these companies? This is the consequence nobody has priced yet. Jensen's read is that market cap to modified net asset value is the first metric comparing across DATs, but over time they get valued as a sum of their parts. Treasury assets on one side, operating businesses using those assets on the other, and the operating side judged on revenue, customers and ARR like any other company. If DATs start trading on ARR instead of token beta, the whole category re-rates on operations. Moderated by Jun Kim (@junkim), General Manager of Investor Relations at Hashed (@hashed_official). #EastPoint #EastPointSeoul2026 #EPS2026

Thank You for Joining Us at EastPoint:Seoul 2026 September 28, Westin Seoul Parnas On Monday, 627 people came through the doors at the Westin Seoul Parnas, each there by invitation or approved application. Central banks, regulators, legislators, traditional financial institutions, Korean enterprises, global protocols, infrastructure companies, investors, and builders spent the day in the same building, listening to each other and taking questions from the room. That was the point of EastPoint. Why EastPoint Exists Korea did not arrive here with an obvious advantage. It built capital, technical depth, and consumer technology adoption over decades. What has been harder to build is a single table where the people responsible for policy, institutions, enterprise, and technology can sit together long enough to test their assumptions. Policy has often moved in one direction, institutions in another, and builders in a third. Each side has had its own constraints, its own language, and its own reasons to believe the others were not ready yet. EastPoint was created to make that distance smaller. It is not only a tech conference, and it is not only a finance conference. It is a room where finance, technology, policy, and enterprise are asked to meet each other seriously enough to disagree, clarify, and move the conversation forward. A Room Built for Decision-Makers EastPoint was intentionally narrow, but not small. The day brought together 627 checked-in attendees from 385 companies and institutions, alongside 112 speakers, 22 sessions, and 40 roundtables across 4 public and 36 private discussions. Among profiled attendees, 62% were senior decision-makers: 156 C-level leaders, founders, and CEOs, together with 231 executives, division heads, and directors. That composition mattered. The goal was not simply to gather a large audience. It was to bring together people with the authority to allocate capital, set policy, manage risk, build infrastructure, and reach users, and to place them in the same working conversation. The mix reflected that intent: AI and digital asset companies, traditional financial institutions, asset managers, conglomerates, fintech companies, PE and VC firms, government and regulators, academia, and media. Banks, securities firms, asset managers, custodians, exchanges, payment companies, public institutions, and global protocols were not adjacent to the conversation. They were inside it. Institutions, Enterprises, and Builders in One Room Who stood on stage is the clearest expression of what EastPoint is trying to become. Central banks, regulators, and legislators joined the conversation not as distant observers, but as participants: the Bank of Korea’s Office of Digital Currency, the White House Crypto Council, Abu Dhabi Global Market’s regulatory authority, DAXA, four sitting members of the National Assembly, and the Majority Leader of the Utah State Senate. Traditional finance showed up with institutional weight: Franklin Templeton, Mirae Asset Global Investments, KB Asset Management, Hanwha Asset Management, Korea Investment Management, NH-Amundi, Meritz Securities, and Eugene Investment & Securities. Korean enterprise brought a question that matters beyond financial markets: how any of this reaches ordinary users. Kakao Pay, LG Electronics, LG CNS, SM Entertainment, and many others helped widen the frame beyond infrastructure alone. And the builders who have spent years constructing the rails were there as well: @a16zcrypto, @hashed_official , @tether , @circle , @chainlink , @LayerZero_Core , @Anchorage, @BitGo , @FalconXGlobal , @Ondo, @Avax , and many others. Many of these conversations continued beyond the stage, in roundtables where the more difficult and less polished questions had room to breathe. What We Heard The distance between institutions and builders felt shorter than many expected. Institutions were not asking whether digital assets are real. They were asking who holds the keys, who carries the liability, what settlement finality means in practice, and what standards they can responsibly rely on. Builders were not asking simply for permission. They were asking what rules are worth building toward, and what kind of infrastructure would still make sense when the market becomes more institutional, more regulated, and more widely used. Those are not separate conversations. They are the same question approached from different responsibilities. Getting that question asked out loud, in front of the people who can actually move it forward, may be the most useful thing one day can produce. Thank You Above all, thank you to the 627 people who came. You gave up a Monday and stayed through sessions that did not always offer comfortable answers. You carried the discussion into the roundtables, the hallways, the 1:1 meetings, and the conversations that continued long after the panels closed. Across the day, attendees exchanged opinions and built partnerships through over 90 business meetings matched. Those numbers matter because they point to something more important: people did not just attend EastPoint. They used it. The quality of EastPoint came from the questions you were willing to ask in public, and from the seriousness with which you listened to answers that were still unfinished. Thank you to the 112 speakers who prepared, travelled, and spoke with care. Thank you to our sponsors and partners, @kakaopay_kr, @lmtls_research, @circle, @Presto_Labs, Vooy, @ADI_Foundation, @Anchorage, @BitGo, @CantonFdn, @circle, @DCENTWALLETS, @ETHGasOfficial, @FourPillarsFP, @GoKiteAI, @googlecloud, @hadron_tether, @hyperiondefi, @injective, @KaiaChain, @LayerZero_Core, @monad, @moonpay, @Ondo, @Optimism, @PingCAP, @plumenetwork, @soohoio, @talostrading, @Tiger_Research_, @virtuals_io, @Xangle_official whose support made it possible to bring this room together with the care, independence, and hospitality it deserved. EastPoint was not built around banners. It was built around the conversation those banners made possible. And thank you to our co-hosts @hashed_official, @bloomingbit_io, and @hankyungmedia. Korea’s next financial layer will not be built by institutions alone, or by builders alone. If it is built well, it will be built through repeated contact between the people who regulate, allocate, operate, and build. For one day, that was not a thesis. It was a room. What we keep coming back to is that EastPoint was not a conclusion. It was a starting line. Everything said on Monday is now a position that can be tested against a year of evidence. By next September, some of those positions may look obvious. Some may look early. And some of the most important questions may be ones none of us knew how to ask this time. That is the work. This was not the end of the conversation. It was the first page of it. See you at the next one.