Capital protection and audited structures turn liquidation risk into controlled exposure.

When volatility is policy risk, not a trading story

A tariff headline turned into a market-structure stress. Bitcoin fell to about USD 104,800 within hours. Estimated liquidations reached roughly USD 19B, and more than 1.6 million accounts were closed out. This was an avoidable outcome for institutions.

What happened

A 100% tariff announcement on Chinese tech coincided with rapid deleveraging across crypto venues. Perpetuals and retail leverage amplified the move, books thinned when liquidity was needed most, and forced selling became the mechanism of loss.

Why this was avoidable for CIOs and PMs

Institutional exposure to Bitcoin should sit inside governed structures that target risk, cap downside at maturity, and remain operable when liquidity thins. Retail instruments and balance-sheet leverage are not a policy. Committees require documented controls, predictable path risk, and principal protection at maturity.

How our bespoke structure handled the shock

Our Bitcoin note links to a rules-based Bitcoin futures index that targets 23% annualised volatility. Issuance is by an A-rated, FINMA-regulated investment bank. The note provides 100% capital protection at maturity, calibrated participation, and audit-grade documentation. During the recent volatility, clients maintained exposure within the risk budget, avoided forced selling, and preserved capital, as designed.

Governance and regulatory clarity

Capital protection at maturity is the senior unsecured obligation of the issuing bank, which is A-rated and regulated by FINMA, Switzerland’s financial supervisory authority. The structure is built for board approval, investment committee review, and internal audit, with full programme documentation and reporting.

Originally posted in Substack