The New CDOs? SPACs, Crypto Treasuries, and the Systemic Risks of Speculative Overextension

In the years since the 2008 financial crisis, the financial world has often prided itself on having learned from past mistakes. Yet, as special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) increasingly pivot toward crypto treasuries, a familiar pattern of speculative overextension and opaque risk layering is emerging-one that echoes the pre-2008 collateralized debt obligation (CDO) crisis. The case studies of Strategy Inc. and Cantor Equity Partners illustrate how the marriage of SPACs and crypto assets creates a volatile cocktail of systemic risk, with retail investors bearing the brunt of the fallout.

The Bitcoin Treasury Play: Strategy Inc.'s Gamble

Strategy Inc., formerly MicroStrategy, has become a poster child for the crypto treasury strategy. Since 2020, the company has aggressively accumulated Bitcoin, transforming itself from a software firm into the world's largest corporate holder of the asset. As of March 31, 2025, it holds 528,185 BTC, valued at $44.2 billion-nearly 2.55% of Bitcoin's circulating supply according to a report. This shift has driven a 2,281% surge in its stock price since the strategy's inception according to market analysis.

However, the company's success is built on a precarious foundation. To fund its Bitcoin purchases, Strategy has relied on a multi-channel capital-raising strategy, including at-the-market equity offerings and perpetual preferred stock. For example, a recent $1.2 billion Bitcoin acquisition was financed by $1.2 billion in common stock sales, $18.5 million in preferred stock, and $711 million in a public offering of 10% Series A perpetual preferred shares according to financial reports. While this approach has fueled growth, it also exposes the company-and its investors-to Bitcoin's notorious volatility. A recent $100 million loss on a Bitcoin purchase underscores the fragility of this model according to a report.

The risks extend beyond Strategy. Japanese firm Metaplanet, another Bitcoin-focused treasury company, has followed a similar playbook, issuing bonds to accumulate 21,000 BTC by 2026. Its stock has risen over 51% in a month, but this performance is tied to the same volatile asset according to market data.

SPACs and Tokenization: Cantor Equity Partners' Ambition

Cantor Equity Partners II, Inc. (CEPT) has taken a different but equally speculative route. In 2025, the SPAC announced a $1.25 billion merger with Securitize, a platform for tokenizing real-world assets. The combined entity, Securitize Corp, aims to bring tokenization to public markets, trading under the ticker "SECZ" according to official announcements. This move reflects a broader trend: SPACs leveraging crypto and blockchain technology to create new asset classes.

Yet, the structure of these deals raises red flags. Cantor Equity Partners V (CEPV) recently secured a $5.4 million investment from Cantor Fitzgerald, an affiliate of the SPAC sponsor according to insider trading reports. Such insider investments, while not uncommon in SPACs, highlight the potential for conflicts of interest and overleveraging. When SPACs pivot to crypto treasuries or tokenized assets, they inherit the inherent volatility and regulatory uncertainty of these markets, creating a layered complexity that mirrors the pre-2008 CDO crisis.

Systemic Risks: From CDOs to Crypto-Backed SPACs

An academic paper published in 2025 draws a direct line between today's SPAC-driven crypto strategies and the 2008 crisis according to research findings. The study notes that private equity and collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) now exhibit risks akin to pre-2008 CDOs, including covenant-lite loans, declining underwriting standards, and opaque cross-institutional exposures. These factors create a fragile ecosystem where a single shock-such as a Bitcoin price crash or a regulatory crackdown-could trigger cascading losses.

The parallels are striking. Just as CDOs bundled subprime mortgages into complex, hard-to-value securities, SPACs are now packaging volatile crypto assets into structures that obscure underlying risks. For example, Strategy's reliance on perpetual preferred stock-essentially a hybrid of debt and equity-creates a leveraged position that amplifies losses during downturns. Similarly, Cantor's tokenization deals introduce new layers of complexity, with retail investors often lacking the expertise to assess the true value of these assets.

Retail Investor Fallout: The Human Cost of Hype

The consequences for retail investors are clear. Strategy's stock, while up 2,281% since 2020, has recently declined by 1% amid Bitcoin's volatility according to market analysis. Meanwhile, Cantor Equity Partners' SPACs, though backed by affiliate investments, remain speculative bets for individual investors. A 2025 report by Bloomberg highlights how SPACs have underperformed traditional IPOs in recent years, with many retail investors left holding depreciated shares according to a report.

The systemic risks are compounded by the fact that these SPACs are often marketed as "safe" or "innovative" investments. In reality, they are high-stakes gambles. When a SPAC merges with a crypto treasury company, it inherits not just the asset's volatility but also the sponsor's incentives to overhype the deal. This creates a feedback loop where hype drives capital inflows, which in turn drive further speculation-until the market corrects.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for the New Frontier

The SPAC-crypto treasury phenomenon is a testament to the enduring allure of speculative markets. Yet, as Strategy Inc. and Cantor Equity Partners demonstrate, the risks of this approach are not confined to individual investors. They threaten to create systemic vulnerabilities reminiscent of the 2008 crisis. Regulators, investors, and market participants must recognize that the complexity of these structures-whether in CDOs or crypto-backed SPACs-often masks underlying fragility.

In the words of one anonymous source within the SPAC industry: "We're building a house of cards on a foundation of sand." The question is whether we'll learn from history-or repeat it.