Traditional finance and digital assets speak different languages, and the translation is where deals stall. A fund wanting tokenized exposure, a bank wanting to serve digital-asset clients, a corporate treasury wanting digital-asset capability, a broker wanting to offer digital products — each runs into the same problem: the structures and the counterparties do not map cleanly onto one another.
We build the bridge. What the traditional entity can actually do within its permissions, which digital-asset structure satisfies its risk and custody requirements, and how the arrangement is documented so both sides’ regulators and auditors are satisfied.
The work is as much about the traditional side as the digital one. Identifying what a bank, fund or broker is permitted to do, and designing the digital-asset component to fit inside those limits, is usually more productive than trying to change the traditional institution.
- A traditional institution wants to offer digital-asset products and needs to know what it may lawfully do.
- A fund or corporate wants tokenized exposure that meets its custody and audit requirements.
- You are structuring an arrangement between a regulated traditional entity and a digital-asset counterparty.
- A bank or auditor has questioned the custody or auditability of a digital-asset arrangement.
Start from the traditional permissions
What a bank, fund or broker may lawfully do with digital assets is the binding constraint. The digital structure is designed to fit inside it.
Custody is the common blocker
Traditional institutions have custody, audit and segregation requirements that most digital-asset arrangements were not built to satisfy. Reconciling them is the central design task.
Document for both regulators
The arrangement has to satisfy the traditional supervisor and the digital-asset regime. Papering it for one and hoping the other accepts is a reliable way to fail both.
- Permissions analysis for the traditional entity in each relevant jurisdiction
- Bridge structure — fund, trust, feeder or managed-account design
- Custody and segregation architecture meeting institutional requirements
- Audit, valuation and reporting framework for the digital-asset component
- Documentation satisfying both regulatory perspectives
- Counterparty selection and coordination between the two sides
- 01
Establish the permissions
What the traditional entity can lawfully do, in which jurisdiction, with what approvals — because everything else is designed inside that boundary.
- 02
Define the exposure
Whether the objective is holding, offering, custodying on behalf of clients or hedging, which determines the structure that is needed.
- 03
Reconcile custody
Custody, segregation and key management arranged to satisfy institutional requirements, with the digital-asset arrangements documented accordingly.
- 04
Build the reporting
Valuation, audit and reporting configured so the traditional side’s finance and control functions can actually account for the position.
- 05
Document and launch
Arrangements papered for both regimes, counterparties onboarded and the bridge operational.
Permissions and feasibility read
A written assessment of what the traditional entity may do and which bridge structures are available.
Bridge programme
Structure, custody, reporting and documentation delivered through to an operational arrangement.
Custody and audit reconciliation
A focused engagement resolving custody, segregation and auditability for an existing arrangement.
- Arrangements designed to give a traditional institution digital-asset exposure while concealing it from its supervisor or auditor.
- Projects where the traditional entity has no legal capacity for the activity and will not seek it.
In many jurisdictions, yes, subject to conditions — often through a custody subsidiary or a permitted activity notice, and frequently with limitations on direct principal positions. The answer is jurisdiction-specific and permission-specific, which is why we establish it precisely before designing anything.
Usually through a feeder or managed structure where the digital-asset component is held by a custodian meeting the fund’s requirements, with valuation and audit arrangements configured for the fund’s reporting cycle. The structure has to work within the fund’s existing permissions and its investors’ expectations.
Custody and auditability. Traditional institutions need segregation, an auditable record and a valuation they can book — and a great many digital-asset arrangements provide none of those to institutional standard. Resolving that is usually the difference between a structure that works and one that stalls in committee.
Not always formally, but the arrangement must be defensible to both. Often the traditional supervisor’s permissions constrain the activity while the digital-asset regime governs the token and the custody. Designing for one and ignoring the other produces something that fails on the second look.