CryptoReflexions#23 - Crypto Treasury in a Belgian Company Opportunity or Risk?

Hello everyone,

A report published in March 2026 by Keyrock, Safe, and DLResearch analyzes the treasury management of 25 major crypto protocols. The finding is striking: 93% of their assets are unproductive. These organizations manage billions, yet leave most of it sitting idle.

This is not a criticism of the crypto sector. It is an opportunity for you.

Because if even crypto professionals underutilize their reserves, the tools they are beginning to adopt to remedy this are precisely the ones you can use, as a Belgian company director, to put your dormant treasury to work differently.

What this article offers: understand these tools, assess their relevance for a Belgian company, and identify the concrete questions to ask before moving forward.

Interested?

Let’s go! 🚀

The Problem This Report Highlights and Why It Concerns You

The report documents 25 crypto protocols collectively managing 5.6 billion dollars. Result: the median protocol allocates only 7% of its assets to yield-generating positions. The rest is immobilized.

The reason? A combination of excessive concentration in a single asset (their own token) and governance inertia.

The lesson for a Belgian company: the problem is not specific to crypto. Many companies accumulate treasury on current accounts with zero or near-zero returns, out of habit, lack of time, or because the alternatives seem complicated.

The difference is that in the crypto world, concrete tools have emerged to solve this problem. Some are accessible to ordinary companies.

What the Report Identifies as Concrete Solutions

The report classifies treasury assets into four states. It is a useful framework, regardless of the sector:

1 — Dormant reserves. Assets held without generating yield. Zero risk, zero productivity. This is the default state of most treasuries.

2 — Onchain credit. Stablecoins deployed on decentralized lending markets. Returns documented in the report: 4 to 8% per year. Liquidity within hours. This is where the most immediately readable opportunity lies for a company wanting to get started.

3 — Staked assets. ETH or other assets deployed in staking. Returns of 3 to 6% per year, but with exposure to the price of the underlying asset. Riskier for a traditional corporate treasury.

4 — RWA and onchain cash management. Tokenized instruments backed by real assets: US Treasury bills, money market funds. Returns of 3 to 5%, low correlation with crypto volatility. The report mentions products such as BlackRock BUIDL, Ondo USDY, Franklin Templeton BENJI. This segment is the most directly comparable to a traditional treasury investment.

Concrete Translation: What This Could Mean for Your Company

Let us take a numerical example, directly inspired by the report’s methodology.

Suppose your company holds 500,000 euros of excess treasury, currently in a current account or in a low-yield term deposit.

If you allocate 30% of this amount (150,000 euros) to yield-generating positions, combining for example 100,000 euros in stablecoin vaults at 5% and 50,000 euros in tokenized RWAs at 4%:

• Estimated annual return on the deployed portion: approximately 4,700 euros
• Return on total treasury: approximately 0.9%

This is not spectacular. But it is more than zero, with maintained liquidity and without selling the principal asset.

At 1 million euros of treasury with the same allocation logic, we reach approximately 9,400 euros in estimated annual return on the deployed portion. The report illustrates the same reasoning at scale. The mechanics are identical. Only the scale differs.

Caution: these figures come from a report produced by commercial players in the sector (Keyrock is a market maker, Safe is an institutional wallet provider). They have an interest in presenting the opportunity in its best light. The cited returns are averages observed under favorable conditions; they vary depending on markets, protocols, and periods.

The Risks the Report Itself Documents

The report is honest about structural risks. That is what makes it credible, and it is what you need to understand before taking action.

Severe drawdown risk. Among the 25 protocols analyzed, the average peak-to-trough loss reached -80.1% in October 2025. These protocols mainly hold their own token, which considerably amplifies volatility. A Belgian company holding stablecoins or tokenized RWAs would not be exposed to this level of risk, but the volatility of crypto assets remains real if you move beyond stablecoins.

Smart contract risk. Onchain vaults rely on smart contracts. Even the most established ones (Aave has been operating for years, Morpho more recently) have a documented security track record, but the risk never drops to zero. The report itself cites respondents who mention smart contract risk as the primary barrier to adoption.

Counterparty risk. For OTC instruments or structured products, counterparty risk exists as in any over-the-counter market.

Liquidity risk. Some instruments require several days to unlock funds (staking in particular). Stablecoin vaults generally offer liquidity within hours, but this is not guaranteed under all market stress scenarios.

What Belgian Accounting Rules Require

If you are considering exposing your company’s treasury to crypto-assets, CNC Opinion 2021/16 (Accounting Standards Commission) applies (read our article on accounting for crypto in companies here). Here is what it concretely implies.

• Historical cost accounting. Crypto-assets held by a Belgian company are recorded at their acquisition value. No revaluation to market value is possible, on the upside.

• Prudence principle and impairment. If the market value falls below the acquisition cost on a lasting basis, a write-down must be recognized. Conversely, an unrealized gain is not recorded until the asset is sold.

• Consequence for stablecoins. A stablecoin (USDC, USDT) is supposed to remain at parity with the dollar. The risk of accounting depreciation is therefore limited in theory but not zero. Historical depegs exist (USDC briefly lost its parity during the Silicon Valley Bank collapse). This should be documented in your risk policy.

• Practical consequence for tokenized RWAs. A product like BUIDL (backed by US Treasury bills) raises an accounting classification question that is not directly settled by the CNC. A more in-depth analysis is needed to ensure proper accounting treatment.

• Taxation of returns. Interest generated by onchain lending positions constitutes taxable income for the company.

Where to Concretely Start

The report distinguishes three levels of sophistication. For a Belgian SME discovering this topic, only the first level is reasonably accessible without specialized guidance.

Level 1 — Stablecoin vaults (relatively direct access). Deposit stablecoins on established lending protocols such as Aave or Morpho. Current returns documented in the report: 4 to 8% annually. Liquidity within hours. Main risk: smart contract. Minimum amount for it to make economic sense after gas and exchange fees: probably starting from 50,000 euros, but this is a personal estimate, not an established rule.

Level 2 — Tokenized RWAs (access via regulated intermediaries). Products like BUIDL or BENJI. Requires access through authorized platforms, often with high minimum investments and KYB (Know Your Business) processes. Closer to an institutional investment than direct access. MiCA regulation in Europe clarifies the access framework for European companies.

Level 3 — Options strategies and covered calls (reserved for institutions). The report devotes several pages to these strategies. They are relevant for treasuries of several tens of millions of euros with a dedicated team. They do not concern a standard Belgian SME today.

Summary

What the report demonstrates, with verifiable onchain data across 25 protocols:

• 93% of large crypto treasury assets remain unproductive, for lack of a deployment strategy.
• The tools to remedy this exist, are operational, and generate documented returns between 3 and 8% depending on the strategies.
• Moving to even a modest allocation (30% of reserves) would multiply treasury income by a factor greater than those available in the banking sector.
• The barriers are more related to governance and internal sophistication than to the absence of infrastructure.

For a Belgian SME, the conclusion is more nuanced than the report’s, which targets institutional protocols:

• The financial opportunity is real, but returns at your scale remain modest in absolute value.
• The Belgian accounting framework imposes specific constraints that the report does not address.
• The risks (smart contract, liquidity, tax classification) must be assessed before any decision.
• The most reasonable entry point remains stablecoins deployed on established protocols, with limited amounts initially.

This is not a revolution for your balance sheet. It is an option to study seriously, with the right advice.

Conclusion

The Keyrock/Safe/DLResearch report documents a structural shift in the way crypto organizations manage their capital. The central thesis — that inactive capital is a form of poor management — applies well beyond the DeFi sector alone.

For Belgian directors, the question is whether among the tools this sector has developed, there are instruments mature and regulated enough to deserve a place in a conservative treasury management policy?

The answer in 2026: yes, for a fraction, with the right tools and the right guidance. But the Belgian framework requires asking the right questions before taking any steps.

To go further: cryptomonnaie.be — The cryptocurrency blog in Belgium | Newsletter CryptoBelgique — Stay informed about news and updates

Florian ERNOTTE Lawyer 👉more infos about what i do