Articles Archives – Continuum

Fintech Fraud Where Cyber Stops and Crime Begins

Continuum Editor — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 09:41:07 +0000

A customer receives a convincing email appearing to come from their fintech payment provider. The sender requests account verification. The customer, believing it’s legitimate, enters their credentials. Minutes later, funds transfer to an unfamiliar account. The customer holds the provider liable. The provider looks to insurance. But which policy covers this? The answer is simpler than most providers think: Crime insurance.

Social Engineering Fraud Is a Crime Issue

When a customer is deceived into voluntarily transferring funds, that’s fraud. Fraud falls under Crime insurance.

This is straightforward. Social engineering fraud—a voluntary transfer triggered by deception—is not a security breach. The system didn’t fail. The provider didn’t get hacked. A customer was tricked into authorizing the transaction.

Cyber insurance covers security failures and breaches. Crime insurance covers theft and fraud. Social engineering fraud is fraud, which means it belongs under Crime.

Most fintech providers don’t realize this. When social engineering fraud occurs, they look first to Cyber insurance. They debate whether it’s a security incident. They get entangled in discussions about whether “voluntary parting” defeats the claim. Meanwhile, their Crime policy likely already covers it—but they don’t know the terms.

Why This Matters for Fintech

Social engineering is the most common attack vector against payment infrastructure. It requires no technical sophistication. A convincing message. A customer willing to act. That’s it.

In 2024, Singapore recorded S$1.1 billion in losses to social engineering scams, a 70% year-over-year increase. Fintech payment customers were the primary targets. These weren’t system failures or security breaches. They were customers tricked into authorizing transfers through convincing impersonation of payment providers, banks, and trusted institutions. The losses fell directly on the fintech providers caught in the middle.

The impact is immediate. Customer accounts drained. Credentials compromised. Payment instructions unauthorized. The customer demands recovery. The fintech provider is liable.

Understanding that social engineering fraud falls under Crime insurance is the first step. The second step is understanding your specific Crime policy terms.

What Crime Insurance Actually Covers

Crime insurance protects against theft, fraud, and dishonesty. Social engineering fraud—where an outsider deceives a customer into transferring funds—fits squarely within this definition.

But not all Crime policies handle social engineering the same way. Some explicitly cover it. Some sub-limit it. Some exclude it under “voluntary parting” language, arguing that because the customer willingly gave the money, it’s not a covered loss.

This is where policy language matters. Your specific Crime policy terms determine whether social engineering fraud is covered, at what level, and under what conditions.

What Fintech Providers Need to Check

Before social engineering fraud occurs, fintech payment providers should review their Crime policy for three specific things.

First, does your Crime policy explicitly cover social engineering fraud? Some policies are silent on it. Some explicitly include it. Knowing which one you have is critical.

Second, if social engineering fraud is covered, what are the conditions? Are there “voluntary parting” exclusions? Are there specific trigger requirements? Is the coverage tied to particular scenarios?

Third, what does your coverage actually apply to? Does it cover customer losses that your provider is liable for? Does it cover internal fraud attempts? Does it cover wire fraud specifically?

If you can’t answer these questions from your policy documents, ask your broker. If your broker can’t answer clearly, that’s a sign the policy needs review.

The Conversation to Have with Your Broker

Before renewal, fintech providers should have a specific conversation with their broker about social engineering fraud coverage.

The question is simple: “What does our Crime policy cover for social engineering fraud?”

The answer should be equally clear. It should specify whether social engineering is covered, what scenarios it applies to, any exclusions or conditions, and what happens when a social engineering attack occurs.

If the answer is vague or hedging, that’s your signal to address it. Crime insurance terms are negotiable. If social engineering fraud isn’t covered adequately in your current policy, it can be negotiated into your renewal.

Alignment Across Policies

Fintech providers often carry both Cyber and Crime insurance. Understanding where each one sits prevents confusion when losses occur.

Cyber insurance covers security failures, data breaches, and system compromises. Crime insurance covers theft, fraud, and dishonesty—including social engineering fraud.

The key is clarity. Each policy should have clear language about what it covers and what it doesn’t. When social engineering fraud occurs, there should be no ambiguity about which policy responds.

This requires deliberate review before renewal. Many providers operate with only a vague sense of what’s covered. That’s the gap.

Understand Your Coverage Before the Attack

Fintech payment providers operate in an environment where social engineering attacks are inevitable. They will happen. Right now, in Southeast Asia’s most developed fintech hub, they’re happening at scale. When they do, recovery depends on understanding your Crime insurance coverage.

Social engineering fraud is a Crime insurance issue. Your specific policy terms determine what’s covered. Understanding those terms before an attack occurs—not after—determines whether claims are paid or disputed.

Take the step now. Review your Crime policy for social engineering fraud coverage. Ask your broker the specific questions. Understand what you’re actually covered for. Fintech providers who do this before an attack occurs have clarity when they need it most.

Continuum helps fintech payment providers decode their Crime policies to understand exactly what social engineering fraud coverage they have and what their specific terms cover.

Let’s review your Crime policy before the next social engineering attack occurs. Contact us to understand your fintech fraud coverage.

Fintech Errors That Turn Into ProfessionaI Indemnity (PI) Claims

Continuum Editor — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:12:19 +0000

PI-claims

Most fintech payment providers think their biggest risk is a breach. It’s not. Breaches get headlines. Operational errors drain balance sheets. A wrong account number, a decimal point typo, a currency conversion glitch—these quiet mistakes are the leading source of Professional Indemnity (PI) claims against payment infrastructure. But whether a provider recovers depends entirely on policy language, exclusions, and sub-limits most never read until a claim arrives.

The Operational Error Triggers PI Coverage

Professional Indemnity insurance protects fintech payment providers against claims arising from professional services. But this definition matters more than it initially appears. A claim only triggers coverage if the loss arises from professional services as defined in the specific policy schedule.

For payment providers, this creates a critical distinction. A system breach that exposes customer data—that’s typically covered under cyber insurance. An operational error that sends funds to the wrong account—that’s a professional services failure, which falls under PI.

The difference isn’t semantic. It’s the difference between which policy responds and what exclusions apply.

Most payment providers carry both cyber and PI coverage but don’t understand the boundary. When a loss occurs, disputes over which policy should respond can delay recovery for months. And disputes over whether the loss qualifies as a “professional service” under the policy schedule can void coverage entirely.

Common Fintech Errors That Trigger PI Claims

Operational errors in fintech fall into predictable categories. Most providers will face at least one during their operations.

Wrong Account Number

Funds are initiated to an account number the customer provides. The customer later claims the number was wrong, or the funds land in an unrelated account entirely. The money is now with a stranger’s bank. Recovery requires the recipient’s cooperation—which is rarely forthcoming.

The provider is liable to the customer for recovery. PI coverage responds—but only if the policy recognizes the error as a professional services failure, not customer negligence. Many policies include exclusions for “errors arising from customer-provided information,” shifting liability back to the provider.

Wrong Amount

A decimal point error or system glitch sends $100,000 instead of $10,000. The customer discovers the overpayment weeks later and demands recovery. The provider’s system shows the transaction processed exactly as instructed—which is precisely the problem.

Recovery depends on retrieving the overpayment from the recipient. If the recipient refuses cooperation, the provider absorbs the loss. PI coverage typically covers legal defense costs but not the full settlement amount, thanks to sub-limits on consequential loss.

Wrong Currency or Conversion Error

A currency conversion calculates at the wrong rate. The customer meant to send $10,000 USD but received the equivalent in a different currency at an unfavorable rate. The discrepancy costs thousands. The customer disputes it weeks later.

PI coverage for currency errors varies dramatically by policy. Territorial scope exclusions mean coverage in one jurisdiction disappears in another. Sub-limits on currency movement losses cap recoveries at fractions of actual loss.

Delayed or Duplicated Settlement

Settlement processing delays leave funds in clearing accounts longer than expected. Or a system error duplicates the settlement entirely, sending funds twice. Both scenarios trigger customer disputes, reconciliation chaos, and regulatory scrutiny.

Delayed settlements often trigger contractual penalties—which are explicitly excluded from most PI policies. Duplicated transactions create disputes over who bears the reversal cost and who is responsible for recovery timelines.

Misapplied Refund or Chargeback

A refund gets applied to the wrong transaction. A chargeback dispute is mishandled during the response window. The customer disputes the resolution. The provider now defends both the operational error and the customer claim simultaneously.

Refund and chargeback handling errors are the leading claim trigger against payment infrastructure providers. But PI coverage turns on precise definitions. Gross negligence and deliberate act exclusions create gray zones where coverage evaporates unexpectedly.

Where PI Policy Language Stops Coverage

Understanding which errors trigger PI coverage is only half the battle. The other half is understanding when exclusions, sub-limits, and policy conditions void or reduce recovery.

Professional Services Definition

The policy schedule defines what qualifies as “professional services.” For fintech, this typically covers transaction facilitation, payment processing, settlement, and customer account management. But the exact language varies enormously.

Some policies are narrow: they cover only direct transaction errors, excluding system failures, delays, and external factors. Others are broader. But broader policies typically come with more exclusions to compensate.

When a claim arises, the first dispute is always whether the loss qualifies as a professional services failure under the schedule. If the insurer can argue it doesn’t, coverage is denied. Providers have little recourse.

Contractual Penalties and Fines

Most PI policies exclude contractual penalties and regulatory fines entirely. This matters because delayed settlements and processing failures often trigger customer penalties spelled out in service agreements.

A customer’s SLA (Service Level Agreement) might impose $1,000 per hour penalties for settlement delays beyond 24 hours. If a delayed settlement triggers that penalty, the penalty itself is uninsured. The provider absorbs it. PI covers legal defense costs if the customer sues over the delay, but not the contractual penalty itself.

Deliberate Acts and Gross Negligence

PI policies typically exclude losses arising from deliberate acts or gross negligence. But the line between an operational error and gross negligence is blurry.

Is a decimal point typo a mistake or negligence? Is a failure to verify an account number a professional error or gross negligence? Insurers interpret this language conservatively. Many claims hinge on whether the error crosses from “mistake” into “negligence,” and the insurer often wins these disputes.

Sub-Limits on Consequential Loss and Currency Movement

Even when coverage applies, sub-limits quietly cap recovery at a fraction of actual loss. Consequential loss sub-limits typically cap recovery at 10-25% of the main policy limit. Currency movement sub-limits cap recovery on conversion errors.

A $1 million PI policy with a 15% sub-limit on consequential loss effectively caps consequential recovery at $150,000—regardless of actual loss. Providers rarely understand this limitation until a claim is denied or capped.

Notification Deadlines and Conditions

PI policies impose strict notification deadlines. Most require notice within 30-90 days of discovery. Discovery means when the provider first became aware of the error, not when the customer complained.

Late notification voids coverage retroactively. A provider who discovers an error on day 91 and notifies on day 92 loses coverage entirely. Many providers don’t realize this until they’re defending a claim without insurance.

Territorial Scope and Cross-Border Limits

Whether PI coverage follows funds across borders depends on territorial scope. Some policies cover only domestic transactions. Others cover specific jurisdictions. Some explicitly exclude high-risk or regulated jurisdictions.

A payment error in a jurisdiction outside the policy’s territorial scope receives no coverage. The provider must argue the claim should be covered anyway—which rarely succeeds.

Walkthrough: A Typical Wire-to-Closed-Account Claim

Here’s how a common fintech error becomes a PI claim—and where policy language determines recovery.

Day 1: The Error

A customer initiates a wire transfer for $250,000. The account number they provide is incorrect. The funds are sent to an unrelated account. The recipient’s bank accepts the transfer. The money is now with a stranger.

Day 15: Discovery

The customer discovers the funds never arrived. They contact the provider. The provider confirms the transfer posted to the account number provided. The customer claims they provided the correct number and the provider mishandled the transfer.

Day 30: Notification

The provider notifies their PI insurer of the potential claim. The customer is demanding $250,000 plus consequential damages (lost business due to delayed cash flow). The provider’s insurance broker confirms the claim falls within the policy schedule—it’s a professional services error.

Day 60: Investigation

The insurer’s investigation confirms the funds went to the account number the customer provided in writing. But the customer claims they provided a different number verbally, and the provider failed to verify it. The insurer reviews the policy exclusion: “errors arising from customer-provided information.”

The insurer argues this exclusion applies. The customer provided the account number, not the provider. If the customer provided a wrong number, the error is the customer’s, not the provider’s. Coverage is denied.

Day 120: Dispute

The provider disputes the denial. Their contract with the customer requires verification of account numbers. The provider argues they fulfilled their professional duty by sending to the number provided but failed to implement verification procedures. This is a professional services failure—a control failure—not customer error.

The dispute continues for months. Meanwhile, the customer has filed a separate lawsuit against the provider for the $250,000 plus $50,000 in business losses.

Day 180: Partial Resolution

The insurer agrees to defend the provider in the lawsuit but maintains that the $250,000 loss itself is uninsured (customer error under the exclusion). However, the provider’s liability defense costs are covered. The customer agrees to settle the lawsuit for $175,000.

The insurer covers $80,000 in legal defense costs. The provider pays $175,000 from their own balance sheet. Coverage never materialized for the actual loss—only for defense.

Outcome

The provider’s operational error—failing to implement account number verification—triggered a loss that PI coverage partially addressed. But policy language, exclusions, and the boundary between customer error and provider error determined recovery. The provider absorbed most of the loss.

The Gap Between Expectation and Coverage

Most fintech providers believe their PI policy covers operational errors. It does, technically. But the reality is more complex.

Coverage depends on whether the loss qualifies as a professional services failure under the exact policy schedule. It depends on whether exclusions for customer-provided information, deliberate acts, or contractual penalties apply. It depends on whether notification happened within strict deadlines. It depends on territorial scope and sub-limits.

By the time a claim arrives, the provider has minimal control over these factors. The policy language was written months or years earlier. The exclusions were negotiated by the broker, not the provider. The sub-limits were determined by risk appetite at the time of renewal.

Most providers don’t review this language until a claim is denied or capped. By then, it’s too late.

Understanding Your PI Coverage Before the Claim

Payment providers operate in an environment where operational errors are structural risk. They will happen. Recovery—whether through insurance or balance sheet—depends on understanding policy boundaries before claims arrive.

The key questions are straightforward but rarely asked: What does the policy define as professional services? Which errors trigger coverage and which fall under exclusions? What are the sub-limits on consequential loss, currency movement, and other exposures? Does territorial scope cover all jurisdictions where you operate? What are the notification deadlines and conditions?

Fintech providers who answer these questions before operational errors occur have time to negotiate better terms, adjust coverage limits, or prepare for exposures that will remain uninsured.

Those who wait until a claim arrives discover the gaps in coverage when it’s most expensive—when the loss is real and recovery is uncertain.

Map Your PI Coverage Against Your Operational Risk

Continuum helps fintech payment providers decode their PI policies and identify coverage gaps against operational exposure. We review policy language, highlight exclusions, and clarify sub-limits so providers understand exactly where coverage protects and where exposure remains.

Understanding your PI coverage now prevents costly surprises when operational errors occur. Contact us to map your Professional Indemnity coverage against your fintech operational risk.

Tech Professional Indemnity for Fintech Platforms

Continuum Editor — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 09:33:49 +0000

Jul1Carousel

Most fintech payment platforms don’t choose their insurance freely. The moment you sign a sponsor bank agreement, your Tech Professional Indemnity for fintech and other coverage stops being your decision—it becomes a contractual requirement. Sponsor banks set these standards to protect themselves. Understanding what your banking contracts demand is how you avoid discovering coverage gaps when problems occur.

How Banking Contracts Shape Tech Professional Indemnity for Fintech Coverage

The insurance a fintech payment platform carries—including Tech Professional Indemnity requirements—is shaped less by what risks they face and more by what their banking partners demand. This distinction matters enormously because contractual requirements and actual risk exposure often diverge.

A sponsor bank’s primary concern isn’t your ability to handle operations. It’s their own liability. When you process payments on their license or through their banking partners, their reputation and regulatory compliance are at stake. So they write insurance requirements into partnership agreements to transfer some of that risk to you—and to ensure you can defend against any claims.

Correspondent banks add another layer. Before opening an account, they request certificates of insurance proving you meet their standards. Payment acquirers impose their own requirements. Between sponsor banks, correspondents, and acquirers, most payment licensees end up carrying a specific insurance stack that reflects contractual obligation, not internal risk assessment.

This creates a structural gap: providers often carry what the contract requires, not what their exposure justifies.

The Five Requirements Sponsor Banks Demand

Most sponsor bank agreements include an insurance schedule that names required policies and limits. The specifics vary, but the pattern is consistent.

Cyber Insurance with Breach Response

Cyber coverage is non-negotiable, but sponsor banks specify what breach response means. They typically require coverage for breach notification costs, forensic investigation, credit monitoring, and third-party liability for customer data exposure. Some require business interruption coverage tied to system downtime.

Why it matters: A standard cyber policy may not include all these components. Sponsor banks often demand higher breach response sublimits than general cyber policies provide. Your renewal date and your contract review date may not align, leaving gaps.

Crime Insurance: Funds Transfer Fraud

Crime coverage protects against employee dishonesty and external fraud. Sponsor banks specifically require funds transfer fraud coverage because that’s where their regulatory exposure concentrates. Coverage typically includes employee dishonesty, access to customer accounts, and funds transfer schemes.

Why it matters: Not all crime policies include robust funds transfer fraud coverage. Sponsor banks often specify sublimits for this exposure that exceed your general crime limits.

Directors & Officers Insurance

D&O is increasingly a condition of board approval and sponsor bank sign-off. It protects board members from liability related to regulatory violations and payment processing errors. For firms handling large transaction volumes or in higher-risk jurisdictions, D&O is often non-negotiable.

Why it matters: D&O is typically purchased as a governance measure, not a risk-driven decision. But sponsor banks increasingly demand it as a sign of operational maturity. If your board isn’t covered, the sponsor bank may refuse to proceed.

Certificate of Insurance and Additional Insured

How you prove compliance matters as much as what you carry. Sponsor banks require certificates of insurance listing them as additional insured on request. They also demand waiver of subrogation language to prevent insurers from pursuing claims against the bank.

Why it matters: Certificate updates and additional insured endorsements often lag behind contract requirements. Correspondent banks may refuse to open accounts if your certificates don’t reflect their requirements.

The Misalignment Problem: Contracts and Renewal Cycles

Here’s where most payment providers run into trouble: renewal cycles and contract review dates rarely line up.

For example:

Your cyber policy renews in March.
Your sponsor bank agreement expires in June.
Your D&O policy hasn’t been reviewed in two years.
Your crime coverage limits were set three years ago when your transaction volume was half what it is now.

Sponsor bank agreements require annual proof of coverage through updated certificates. Many providers treat insurance renewals as routine paperwork—they renew policies on their usual schedule and assume everything is fine. Then at contract renewal time, they discover the sponsor bank’s requirements have changed, their coverage limits are too low, or their policies don’t match what the contract demands.

This misalignment is expensive to fix mid-contract. If your coverage doesn’t meet contractual requirements, you may face breach notices, suspension of services, or forced renegotiation under pressure.

What Gets Demanded Beyond the Five

Sponsor banks often add additional requirements beyond the core five policies. These extra demands increase both complexity and cost.

Additional Insured Status: You must name the sponsor bank as additional insured on your Tech Professional Indemnity, Cyber, and sometimes Crime policies. This needs to be in place before contract execution.

Waiver of Subrogation: Insurers agree not to pursue claims against the sponsor bank even if the bank’s negligence contributed to your loss. Sponsor banks demand this routinely.

Certificates of Insurance: You must provide updated certificates annually and often 30 days before renewal or policy expiration.

Limits and Sublimits: Specific coverage amounts are written into the contract. Falling below these limits is a breach.

Endorsements and Riders: Sponsor banks often require specific policy riders that general policies don’t include (e.g., cyber breach response enhancements, crime funds transfer fraud sublimits).

Each of these requirements adds complexity and cost. Most payment providers aren’t aware these requirements exist until they’re negotiating a new sponsor bank relationship or renewing an existing agreement.

The Strategic Implications

Understanding your sponsor bank agreement’s insurance schedule has three strategic implications.

First, compliance is contractual, not discretionary. Your insurance coverage is no longer a business decision you make. It’s an obligation you must maintain or face breach of contract.

Second, your renewal schedule must sync with your contract obligations. If your cyber policy expires 60 days after your contract’s insurance review date, you’re building a gap into your operations. This requires proactive calendar management and coordination between your insurance broker and your legal team.

Third, cost is often higher than you’d choose independently. Sponsor banks demand coverage that reflects their risk exposure, not yours. You’ll often carry higher limits, broader coverage, and more sublimits than your standalone risk assessment would justify. This is the price of doing business with sponsor banks.

Navigating the Insurance Schedule

Before signing any sponsor bank or correspondent banking agreement, have your insurance broker review the insurance schedule. Specifically:

Identify all required policies and limits. Map them against your current coverage. Identify gaps and the cost to close them before you sign.

Establish a calendar for certificate updates and policy renewals that aligns with contract obligations. Most providers should review their insurance schedule at least quarterly and update certificates annually or 30 days before renewal.

Build relationships with underwriters who understand payment infrastructure. Not all insurers will write the coverage sponsor banks demand, or will do so at reasonable cost.

Negotiate the insurance schedule during contract discussions. If a sponsor bank requires D&O or limits you consider excessive, push back. Some requirements are negotiable, particularly if you have other leverage in the relationship.

Understand that insurance is no longer optional or fully within your control once you partner with a sponsor bank. But understanding the requirements upfront means you can budget for them, maintain them properly, and avoid mid-contract surprises.

Let’s Review Your Tech Professional Indemnity for Fintech Requirements

If you operate as a fintech payment platform, the insurance schedule in your sponsor bank agreement is likely dictating a significant portion of your Tech Professional Indemnity for fintech and other insurance spend. Most fintech providers don’t review these schedules carefully until renewal time—when it’s often too late to make changes.

Continuum helps fintech payment platforms decode their sponsor bank and correspondent banking agreements to understand exactly what Tech Professional Indemnity for fintech and other insurance is required, what gaps exist, and how to structure coverage that meets contractual obligations while managing cost.

Let’s review your banking agreements. Contact us to map your Tech Professional Indemnity for fintech and sponsor bank insurance requirements

Risk Insight Series: Insuring Stablecoins in APAC

Continuum Editor — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 10:16:37 +0000

Stablecoins have moved from speculative asset to financial plumbing. The question of stablecoin insurance in APAC has moved with them. The total market value of fiat-referenced stablecoins passed USD 323 billion in mid-2026. USDT sits at roughly USD 187 billion. USDC sits at around USD 77 billion. Institutional payment use cases now sit alongside crypto-native trading as growth drivers. A wave of new APAC regulatory regimes has given supervised counterparties the comfort to engage.

What has not kept pace is the insurance picture. Licensed issuers, reserve custodians, infrastructure providers, corporate users, and on-chain protocols each face distinct exposures. The insurance market response is fragmented. Standard wordings for banks or payments firms often do not respond cleanly to stablecoin-specific loss scenarios.

This article maps the insurance question across five categories of buyer. It sets out what the regulatory framework demands. It identifies where the gaps sit. For the fully designed report with references, download the PDF.

What This Report Covers

Why stablecoin insurance in APAC is no longer optional for supervised counterparties
The five lines of cover a licensed issuer now needs
What actually insures the reserves behind a fiat-referenced stablecoin
Three risks that treasury holders and B2B payment users are carrying uninsured
How infrastructure providers (custody platforms, ramps, wallets, payment processors) fit in
Where algorithmic stablecoins and on-chain insurance sit in the picture
What insurers, regulators, and buyers should do next

Why Stablecoin Insurance Matters Now

The stablecoin market in 2026 looks nothing like the market of 2021. Stablecoins are now used by corporate treasuries, B2B payment platforms, and licensed financial institutions. Three regulatory developments drove that shift.

In Hong Kong, the Stablecoins Ordinance brought stablecoin issuance under HKMA supervision from August 2025. The HKMA received 36 applications in the first batch. It granted licences to only two entities: HSBC and Anchorpoint Financial. The five-percent approval rate signals the supervisory bar. Licensees must hold 100 percent backing of outstanding stablecoins. Reserves must sit in custody, segregated from issuer assets.

In Singapore, the Monetary Authority finalised its single-currency stablecoin framework in August 2023. The regime applies to stablecoins pegged to the Singapore dollar or a G10 currency. Issuers must hold 100 percent reserves in cash or short-dated government debt. They must segregate reserve accounts. They must publish monthly attestations. They must undergo annual audits. Redemption at par must happen within five business days.

In Japan, the framework treats stablecoins as electronic payment instruments. Only banks, licensed money-transfer agents, and trust companies can issue them. The FSA supports the MUFG, SMBC, and Mizuho consortium developing a yen-referenced stablecoin. Their target launch is 31 March 2027.

Each regime does substantial work on the regulatory side. None does the equivalent work on the insurance side. The HKMA expects bank-standard risk management. It does not specify what insurance must respond. The MAS framework requires segregated reserves and monthly attestations. It does not specify what cover must sit behind those reserves.

What Is Stablecoin Insurance?

Stablecoin insurance is not one product. It is a cluster of insurance needs across different participants in the stablecoin ecosystem, most of which do not exist as off-the-shelf cover yet.

Five distinct sets of insurance buyers have emerged: licensed issuers, reserve custodians, corporate treasuries and B2B payment users, infrastructure providers, and decentralised stablecoin protocols. Each carries its own risk profile and its own coverage question. The rest of this article works through them in turn.

1. Insurance for Licensed Stablecoin Issuers

Stablecoin insurance in APAC is not one product. It is a cluster of insurance needs across the stablecoin ecosystem. Most of it does not yet exist as off-the-shelf cover.

Directors and Officers Cover for the Issuance Entity

Stablecoin issuance is now a regulated activity, and the directors carry the personal liability that comes with running a supervised business. D&O responds to regulatory inquiries, oversight failure allegations, disclosure breaches, and shareholder actions following a material loss event. The HKMA expects fitness and propriety standards from senior management of licensed issuers, which makes the D&O position load-bearing rather than nominal.

Professional Indemnity for Issuance Services

Issuing, redeeming, and managing a stablecoin is a professional service in the eyes of the regulator. PI responds to errors in issuance, redemption, or settlement: delayed redemptions, misallocation between holders, reconciliation failures. Standard fintech PI wordings rarely contemplate these scenarios and need to be specifically negotiated.

Cyber Cover for Technology and Smart Contract Risk

A licensed issuer typically runs a smart contract on a public blockchain, manages reserves and minting and burning operations off-chain, and connects the two through custody and treasury systems. Each layer carries cyber exposure. Cyber cover needs to respond to network compromise, social engineering, ransomware, and smart contract failure on the on-chain contract itself.

Crime and Specie for Reserves in Custody

Reserve assets sit with custodian banks, money market fund providers, or qualified asset managers. Crime cover responds to internal dishonesty or social engineering targeting the custody arrangement; specie cover responds to the underlying assets. Limits rarely match the size of a stablecoin in circulation, leaving most reserves exposed to custody loss.

2. Who Insures the Reserves?

The defining characteristic of a fiat-referenced stablecoin is that every token in circulation should be backed by an equivalent value of reserve assets. The licensing frameworks in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan all require it. The question the insurance market has not standardised an answer to is what happens to that reserve if something goes wrong in the custody chain.

Where the Reserves Actually Sit

For the largest stablecoins, reserve composition is now well-documented. Tether reported total reserves of USD 181.2 billion as of Q3 2025, with approximately USD 135 billion in direct and indirect US Treasury exposure, USD 12.9 billion in gold, USD 9.9 billion in Bitcoin, and the balance in secured loans and other investments. USDC’s reserves sit primarily in short-dated US Treasuries held in a BlackRock-managed fund, with the remainder in cash deposits at regulated banks.

The Bank for International Settlements has noted that major stablecoin issuers back their tokens primarily with fiat-denominated short-term assets, and the Basel Committee has provided guidance on maturity limits for reserve portfolios. The result is a reserve profile concentrated in short-dated government debt, money market instruments, and bank deposits with custodian counterparties.

The Custody Chain and Its Loss Scenarios

Reserve assets sit with three types of holder: banks (for cash deposits), custodian banks (for treasuries and securities), and money market fund providers. Each carries its own loss scenarios. Cash deposits beyond deposit insurance limits are unsecured claims on the bank. Custodied securities can be lost through fraud at the custodian, although bankers’ liability insurance and custodian indemnities typically respond. Money market fund holdings are subject to fund-level risk and to the fund manager’s own controls.

The USDC depeg in March 2023 is the clearest available case study. Circle held approximately USD 3.3 billion of its USD 40 billion in reserves at Silicon Valley Bank when the bank failed. The exposure was eight percent of the reserve total but enough to trigger a depeg event that saw USDC fall to USD 0.87 within hours. The peg restored within 72 hours after the FDIC guaranteed all SVB deposits, but the broader DeFi market experienced significant contagion, with DAI losing its peg shortly after because it held USDC as a stable reserve asset.

Why Limits Rarely Match Circulation

The mismatch most commonly missed is between insured limits and the size of the stablecoin in circulation. A specie or crime policy with a limit of, say, USD 200 million is meaningful cover for a small issuer but represents less than 0.2 percent of USDT’s circulating supply. At present, issuer disclosure on reserve insurance is inconsistent across APAC licensees, and the differences between licensees are not always apparent without reading the audit and attestation documents in detail.

Tokenised Reserves Add a New Risk

A growing share of stablecoin reserves is now held in tokenised form. BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, Franklin Templeton’s BENJI, and similar tokenised money market funds offer issuers a way to hold short-dated treasuries on-chain. The benefit is operational efficiency and improved reserve transparency. The cost is that the reserves now carry smart contract risk in addition to the underlying credit and market risk of the treasuries themselves.

Insurance for Stablecoin Holders and Users

The insurance picture for firms holding and using stablecoins is markedly thinner than the picture for the issuers themselves. Corporate treasuries, B2B payment platforms, and fintechs using stablecoins as a cross-border value transfer mechanism all face exposures that traditional treasury policies, payment institution PI, and standard cyber wordings were not built to absorb.

Depeg Risk

A stablecoin holder bears the risk that the peg breaks. The 2023 USDC episode showed how quickly that risk can materialise: a fully-collateralised, regulated stablecoin can lose 13 percent of its value in hours on the basis of news about a single banking counterparty. Direct insurance against depeg events is almost non-existent in the conventional insurance market. On-chain parametric cover for depeg exists in limited form, but capacity is small and pricing is volatile.

Issuer Failure Cover

Beyond depeg, the deeper exposure is issuer failure. A licensed issuer can fail. The reserve arrangements can fail to deliver the expected recovery. Holders can find themselves as unsecured creditors of an entity that does not have ready cash to redeem at par. Insurance against this scenario is effectively unavailable in the conventional market. The closest analogue is deposit insurance for bank deposits, which by design does not extend to stablecoin holdings.

Counterparty Risk When the Rail Fails Mid-Transaction

A stablecoin payment that fails mid-transaction creates a different exposure. The funds may be in transit, locked in a smart contract, or sitting in a bridging arrangement at the moment of failure. For high-value B2B payments, the financial exposure can be material, and the recovery process can be slow and contested. Cyber and PI policies for the payment originator may respond to internal failures but typically do not respond to failures in the third-party rail.

Freezing and Blacklisting Risk

A feature of centralised stablecoins that holders often underestimate is the issuer’s ability to freeze tokens at addresses on its blacklist. Both USDT and USDC contracts contain administrative functions that allow the issuer to render tokens unusable at any wallet, typically in response to legal process, sanctions enforcement, or fraud claims. The practice is now routine, with issuers freezing thousands of addresses per year, often in coordination with law enforcement or in response to OFAC designations.

For institutional holders, the exposure is twofold. An upstream counterparty may be blacklisted, leaving tokens stranded mid-transaction. Or a treasury holding stablecoins routed through previously-compromised wallets can have assets frozen as part of an enforcement action regardless of the holder’s own conduct. Standard treasury and PI policies do not contemplate this scenario, and recovery through legal process is slow and uncertain.

Sanctions and AML Exposure on Every Transaction

Every cross-border stablecoin transaction carries sanctions and AML exposure. The FATF travel rule, updated in 2025, expanded the information requirements for cross-border virtual asset transfers above USD or EUR 1,000. Eighty-five jurisdictions have passed implementing legislation, but supervision and enforcement remain uneven.

For corporate users, the practical exposure is twofold. An inadvertent transaction with a sanctioned counterparty can trigger regulatory action even where the originator had no knowledge of the recipient’s status. And an AML compliance failure in the firm’s stablecoin handling process can lead to enforcement consequences that ordinary tech PI and cyber wordings typically exclude.

Audit and Disclosure Pressure

The auditing profession has begun to engage with stablecoin holdings on corporate balance sheets. For a treasury holding meaningful stablecoin positions, the disclosure question is moving from optional to required, and the disclosure typically needs to address insurance and risk transfer arrangements. Firms with no specific cover in place are increasingly being asked to explain the absence rather than the presence.

The Infrastructure Layer

The plumbing of the stablecoin economy carries the same regulatory weight as the issuer itself, often with a thinner insurance response. Loss events tend to concentrate at four points in the value chain: custody platforms, on-ramp and off-ramp providers, wallet providers, and payment processors.

Custody Platforms

Custody platforms hold customer assets for issuers, exchanges, and corporate treasuries. Exposure concentrates in private key management. Cyber cover responds to network compromise and ransomware; crime cover to internal dishonesty and social engineering; specie cover to the underlying assets. Harder to place is operational risk short of a cyber attack: a transfer authorised in error, an authentication failure, a smart contract integration producing an unexpected result. Cover for these scenarios is unsettled and varies materially between providers.

On-Ramp and Off-Ramp Providers

On-ramp providers convert fiat into stablecoins; off-ramp providers do the reverse. Both carry sanctions and AML exposure on every transaction, with the FATF travel rule adding cross-border information requirements on each transfer. The most-missed gap is the exclusion in standard tech PI wordings for regulatory fines, AML penalties, and sanctions-related loss. Firms typically discover it only when an enforcement action arrives.

Wallet Providers

Wallet providers split into custodial (provider holds user keys) and non-custodial (user holds own keys). Custodial wallets face the same exposures as institutional custodians, scaled down to retail. Non-custodial wallets face product liability and PI claims when software fails, when smart contract integrations produce unexpected losses, or when user interface design contributes to a user error. Standard software PI wordings do not always extend to on-chain interactions.

Payment Processors

Payment processors using stablecoins for B2B or cross-border settlement sit at the centre of overlapping regulatory expectations from multiple jurisdictions. Tech PI typically excludes regulatory fines, AML penalties, and sanctions-related losses. Cyber responds to network events but not compliance failures. The combination leaves a meaningful regulatory exposure often sitting outside the firm’s insurance arrangements.

Algorithmic Stablecoins and On-Chain Cover

Algorithmic and crypto-collateralised stablecoins sit outside the licensed issuer regimes. DAI, the largest of the category, is governed by MakerDAO governance and backed by a mix of crypto collateral and real-world assets. The risk profile is different from a fiat-referenced stablecoin in a critical way: there is no regulated entity to hold to account, no balance sheet to look to for redemption, and no traditional custody chain to insure. The risk lives in the code, in the oracle that feeds the code, and in the governance that controls the code.

Where Regulators Stand

Algorithmic and crypto-collateralised stablecoins sit outside the HKMA, MAS, and JFSA frameworks by design. Each of those regimes is built around fiat-referenced stablecoins with identified issuers and segregated reserves, neither of which fits the algorithmic model. The May 2022 collapse of Terra and its UST stablecoin, which wiped approximately USD 45 billion in market value in a matter of days, sharpened the regulatory caution. The Basel Committee’s standards specifically distinguish fiat-referenced stablecoins from other cryptoassets, with the latter facing materially higher capital treatment for any bank exposure.

For market participants, the practical consequence is that algorithmic stablecoins will likely remain outside the supervised regimes for the foreseeable future. The insurance question stays on-chain rather than migrating to traditional carriers.

Where the Losses Actually Come From

Smart contract failure has been the dominant loss event for decentralised protocols. Across DeFi, approximately USD 2.2 billion in funds were stolen in 2024, with smart contract-specific incidents accounting for several hundred million of that total. Logic errors, reentrancy bugs, inadequate access controls, and stolen private keys remain the most common attack vectors.

Oracle manipulation has emerged as a distinct and growing category. The reliance of decentralised stablecoins on price oracles to maintain their pegs creates an attack surface where manipulation of the oracle data can trigger liquidations, mispriced collateral, and cascading losses across the protocol. Single-source oracles remain prevalent in DeFi deployments despite the availability of decentralised alternatives.

Governance attacks introduce a class of risk that traditional D&O does not contemplate. A governance vote that produces a harmful protocol upgrade, a coordinated voting bloc that pushes through a change against the interest of token holders, or a flash loan attack that temporarily acquires voting power can all destabilise an algorithmic stablecoin without any traditional cyber breach occurring.

On-Chain Insurance Protocols

The insurance response to these risks lives mostly on-chain. Nexus Mutual is the largest of the protocols, operating as a member-owned mutual that pools capital from members and pays out claims based on a community-validated assessment process. Its capital pool has grown materially, reaching approximately USD 400 million in assets by late 2025.

Sherlock combines smart contract auditing with insurance cover. After completing an audit, Sherlock offers up to USD 10 million in cover per protocol, with Nexus Mutual providing excess cover for 25 percent of the underlying limit through a partnership arrangement. Nexus Mutual has also integrated with restaking infrastructure to expand its capital base through 2025 and into 2026.

Parametric cover for depeg, for oracle failure, and for specific smart contract failure modes has become available on a small scale. Institutional buyers increasingly want a traditional carrier behind the on-chain wrapper, both for capacity reasons and for the comfort of a regulated counterparty. The hybrid model, on-chain primary cover with traditional reinsurance, is the most likely structural answer.

The Continuum View

The right answer for institutional buyers is rarely a pure on-chain solution and rarely a pure traditional solution. For stablecoin holders and infrastructure providers operating across APAC, the practical response is to combine traditional cover where the carriers will engage (D&O, PI, Cyber, Crime, Specie) with specialist on-chain or parametric cover where the traditional market does not respond at meaningful capacity. Treating the two as separate is the single most common source of unintended gaps. Treating them as a coordinated response is the work the market is still learning how to do well.

Next Steps

Stablecoins have moved into the regulated mainstream across APAC. Hong Kong’s Stablecoins Ordinance has granted its first two licences. Singapore’s single-currency stablecoin framework is now in force. Japan’s largest banks have agreed a joint stablecoin pilot under FSA supervision. The asset class has crossed USD 323 billion in market value, and the institutional buyer base is widening month by month.

What has not standardised is the insurance behind any of it. Licensed issuers face a five-line cover requirement that the market has only recently begun to assemble in a coordinated way. Reserve custody arrangements rely on a mix of specie, crime, and bankers’ liability cover that rarely matches the size of a stablecoin in circulation. Treasury holders and B2B users carry depeg, issuer failure, counterparty, sanctions, and AML exposures that most existing policies do not specifically contemplate. Infrastructure providers operate inside tech PI wordings that typically exclude the regulatory fines and sanctions-related losses they are most exposed to. Decentralised stablecoin protocols rely on on-chain cover with capacity that remains limited relative to the underlying risk.

The 2023 USDC depeg remains the clearest stress test the market has run. A regulated stablecoin with 100 percent backing lost 13 percent of its value within hours because 8 percent of its reserves were trapped at a failing bank. The peg recovered within 72 hours, but the lesson for insurance buyers was specific: reserve attestations are not the same as insurance, and the gap between the two becomes visible only when a custody event occurs.

Licensed issuers should ensure each of the five cover lines is in place with limits and wordings appropriate to their scale and jurisdiction of operations. At the reserve custody level, the work is to disclose the insurance position behind the arrangement with the same rigour applied to the reserve attestation itself. Treasury holders and B2B users should map stablecoin holdings against existing PI, cyber, and crime wordings and identify where digital asset exclusions or silent gaps create unhedged exposure.

Infrastructure providers, particularly on-ramp and off-ramp operators, need to negotiate tech PI wordings that respond to the regulatory and sanctions exposures the firm actually faces. Decentralised protocols will find that the practical answer sits in the hybrid model.

Insurers, meanwhile, face a real and growing underwriting opportunity.Those that build stablecoin-specific capability around reserve composition, custody, smart contract audits, and cross-border compliance will write differentiated business. Those that default to broad digital asset exclusions will cede ground to specialists already in the space.

The peg is now regulated. The insurance behind it isn’t.

Download the Full Report

The full June 2026 Risk Insight, Backed but Uncovered: Analysing Stablecoin Insurance in APAC, includes:

Complete reference list with cited sources
Deeper analysis of each of the five insurance categories
Continuum’s view on where the market is heading in the next 12 to 18 months
The full Summary and Implications sections

Download the PDF →

About Continuum

Continuum is a boutique risk and insurance advisory firm focused on Web 3.0, fintech, and digital asset businesses across Asia-Pacific. We specialise in the insurance categories that traditional brokers do not go deep on: cyber, crime, D&O, professional indemnity, specie, and digital asset custody.

If any of the questions in this article map to something your firm is working through, get in touch.

The Stablecoin Infrastructure Problem

Continuum Editor — Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:03:36 +0000

Jun24The-Stablecoin-Infrastructure-Problem-1

The stablecoin economy doesn’t run on the stablecoins themselves. It runs on infrastructure: custody platforms holding private keys, exchanges enabling buy/sell transactions, wallets facilitating movement, payment processors bridging fiat and crypto. Each layer carries distinct regulatory, operational, and security risk. But not all of it is insurable. Knowing the difference between what insurance can cover and what remains exposure is critical for anyone building or operating in this ecosystem.

The Infrastructure Layers and Their Stablecoin Insurance Risk

Stablecoin infrastructure is distributed across multiple layers, and each layer faces different exposures.

Custody platforms hold customer cryptocurrency and the private keys that unlock it. Risk concentrates in three areas: breach (hackers stealing keys), internal threat (employee theft), and operational failure (keys lost or destroyed). These are security and asset risks—largely insurable through cyber and crime insurance.

On and off-ramps (exchanges and payment processors) are where fiat currency converts to stablecoins and back. Risk concentrates in compliance: AML screening, sanctions verification, KYC procedures. Every transaction is a potential regulatory exposure. These are compliance risks—partially insurable, with significant gaps.

Wallet providers offer software or hardware solutions for holding stablecoins. Risk concentrates in product failure: bugs or exploits that cause customer fund loss. These are product liability risks—insurable but with variable coverage depending on policy terms.

Payment processors move stablecoins across borders and jurisdictions. Risk concentrates in conflicting regulatory obligations: a transaction compliant in one jurisdiction may violate another’s rules. These are cross-border regulatory risks—difficult to insure comprehensively.

What Stablecoin Infrastructure Insurance Can Cover

Standard insurance products exist for many infrastructure risks. The question is whether they work for crypto infrastructure without modification.

Cyber insurance covers data breaches, ransomware, hacking incidents, and their aftermath (notification costs, forensic investigation, liability claims). For custody platforms, this covers the breach scenario. For exchanges and processors, this covers system compromise. Coverage is broad and widely available, though policy terms vary by underwriter.

Crime insurance covers employee theft, fraud, embezzlement, forgery. For custody platforms with employees accessing private keys, this covers internal threat scenarios. Coverage is standard but may exclude certain digital asset scenarios depending on policy language.

Specie insurance covers loss of high-value items, including cryptocurrencies and NFTs. For custody platforms and wallets holding customer assets, this covers asset loss from theft, hacking, or operational failure. This is the right product for the asset itself, though underwriters vary in how they treat digital assets.

Tech PI (Professional Indemnity) covers professional errors and negligence in service delivery. For custody platforms, this covers scenarios where negligent key management procedures, failures to follow security protocols, or errors in asset handling cause customer losses. For wallet providers and payment processors, this covers errors in transaction facilitation or service delivery that result in customer fund loss. Coverage availability depends on whether the underwriter considers crypto infrastructure a covered profession.

All of these products exist. The question is whether they work out of the box for stablecoin infrastructure, or whether they require customization.

Coverage Gaps in Stablecoin Infrastructure Insurance

Standard policies often have exclusions that matter for crypto infrastructure.

Regulatory fines and penalties are the biggest gap. When a compliance officer misses an AML flag and the regulator imposes a fine, that fine is almost never covered by standard cyber or liability policies. Public policy doctrine—the principle that insuring fines would undermine regulatory deterrence—prevents most underwriters from covering them. Some specialized riders exist, but they’re rare and heavily conditioned.

Digital asset specificity is another gap. Standard crime and specie policies were written for traditional assets (cash, jewelry, art). Coverage of cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, and NFTs is newer and less standardized. Some underwriters have adapted; others haven’t. Policy language matters enormously.

Operational risk at scale is a third gap. Wallet providers and payment processors operating at scale face operational failures that standard product liability policies may not contemplate. A bug affecting millions of users or a payment processor’s failure to block sanctioned transactions during a market spike creates loss scenarios outside traditional coverage frameworks.

Cross-border regulatory risk is perhaps the hardest to insure. A payment processor handling stablecoins across jurisdictions faces conflicting rules: what’s allowed in Singapore may violate OFAC rules in the US. Insurance doesn’t easily cover regulatory exposure that spans jurisdictions with conflicting requirements.

These gaps don’t mean insurance is useless. They mean that standard insurance requires careful structuring, and some risks may remain uninsurable.

Mapping Coverage vs. Exposure

The practical question is: for a custody platform, exchange, wallet, or payment processor, what can insurance actually cover?

For custody platforms: Cyber insurance covers breach and compromise. Crime insurance covers employee theft. Specie insurance covers asset loss. Together, they provide meaningful protection against the most common custody risks. Regulatory exposure (if the platform is sanctioned or its customers are) remains largely uninsured.

For on/off-ramps: Cyber insurance covers system compromise and data breach. E&O coverage may cover transaction errors. But AML/sanctions compliance failures typically fall outside coverage. A missed sanctions screening that results in a regulatory fine is an exposure, not an insured loss.

For wallet providers: Tech PI insurance covers product liability if a bug causes fund loss—but only if the underwriter considers wallet services a covered profession. Coverage varies widely by underwriter and policy form.

For payment processors: Tech PI covers transaction errors and service failures. Cyber covers system breach. But cross-border regulatory exposure (conflicting rules across jurisdictions) remains largely uninsured exposure.

The pattern is clear: operational and security risks are largely insurable. Regulatory and compliance risks are partially insurable at best, and often not at all.

Building Your Coverage Strategy

The goal isn’t to insure away all risk. It’s to understand what’s covered, what’s exposure, and how to manage accordingly.

Step 1: Map your actual risk.
Custody platforms should inventory key management procedures, employee access, and asset loss scenarios. Exchanges should map compliance workflows, transaction volumes, and cross-border exposure. Wallets should assess product failure scenarios. Payment processors should document jurisdiction exposure.

Step 2: Identify insurable vs. uninsured risk.
Security breaches are insurable. Compliance failures often aren’t. Operational errors may be, depending on the scenario. Regulatory exposure typically isn’t—but understanding this upfront means you can budget for it, staff for it, or structure your business to limit it.

Step 3: Source the right coverage.
Cyber, crime, specie, and E&O policies exist. The question is whether your specific infrastructure—custody model, compliance procedures, transaction types, jurisdictions—fits within standard policy terms. Many don’t. Customization may be necessary.

Step 4: Understand your coverage limits and exclusions.
A cyber policy may cover breach response but exclude regulatory fines. A specie policy may cover asset loss but require specific security procedures. Knowing these boundaries is critical when a loss occurs.

Step 5: Prepare for uninsured exposure.
Regulatory fines, certain compliance failures, and cross-border conflicts may remain uninsured exposure. Building reserves, staffing compliance expertise, and structuring operations to minimize these risks is part of the strategy.

Why This Matters Now

The stablecoin ecosystem is maturing. Regulators are paying closer attention. Underwriters are developing specialized products for crypto infrastructure. But the market is still fragmented: what one underwriter covers, another excludes. What’s standard in one jurisdiction is novel in another.

Infrastructure operators who map their coverage landscape early—who understand what’s insurable, what’s customizable, and what’s irreducible exposure—can make better business decisions. They can budget more accurately, staff for compliance and security more effectively, and structure operations to minimize uninsured risk.

Those who wait until a loss occurs to discover coverage gaps will face surprises.

Let’s Map Your Coverage

If you operate custody infrastructure, an exchange, a wallet, or a payment processor in the stablecoin ecosystem, the coverage landscape is complex and underwriter-specific. Understanding your true coverage position—what’s protected and what remains exposure—is the first step to building infrastructure that can survive regulatory scrutiny and operational stress.

Continuum specializes in helping stablecoin infrastructure operators navigate this landscape. We source the right insurance products for your specific model, identify coverage gaps upfront, and help you understand where exposure remains.

Let’s map your coverage and exposure together. Contact us to discuss your infrastructure risk profile.

Understanding the Risks of Holding Stablecoins

Continuum Editor — Wed, 17 Jun 2026 09:59:20 +0000

Stablecoin-Insurance

Stablecoin insurance is a question more finance teams now need to ask. Corporate treasuries, payment platforms and fintechs are starting to hold and move money in stablecoins. Most assume their existing insurance will respond if something goes wrong. Usually it will not. Most of that cover protects cash in a bank, nothing more. Stablecoins behave like money, but they carry risks cash cover never anticipated.

Who is holding stablecoins, and why

Stablecoins have moved beyond crypto trading. Treasuries, B2B payment platforms and fintechs now route real money through them. The reasons are practical, not speculative. Stablecoins settle across borders faster and more cheaply than bank rails. They move around the clock, not just in banking hours. Companies also hold a growing share of value in stablecoins on the balance sheet. As adoption grows, so does the value at risk.

Not Quite Cash

A stablecoin can be spent like a dollar, but it does not fail like one. It can be hacked or stolen outright. A payment can be tricked or pushed to the wrong address and, once settled on a blockchain, is almost impossible to claw back. And unlike a bank balance, stablecoins sit in wallets and with custodians, which introduces a custody risk that cash in a current account simply does not have.

This is where the insurance problem starts. The standard commercial crime policy most businesses hold contains a broad exclusion for virtual currency of any kind. In other words, the policy a company relies on to cover theft and fraud is written to decline a stablecoin claim. The losses are real, but the cover behind them is silent unless it has been written for digital assets.

What Stablecoin Insurance Actually Covers

The reassuring part is that these exposures can be insured. They are not covered by an off-the-shelf programme, but by specialist versions of cover designed for digital assets.

Theft and fraud.
The most common loss is the simplest: someone takes what is not theirs, whether through a hack, a fraudulent transfer, a social engineering scam, or a dishonest insider. Crime insurance, written to include digital assets, is built to respond to exactly this.

Storing the coins.
Holding stablecoins means keeping them somewhere, and that store is itself a risk. Specie insurance covers the physical and in-custody loss of high-value assets, and the market has expanded to cover cryptocurrency held in cold storage, including theft, loss or damage of the storage media and the loss of keys held by a custodian.

Systems and hacks.
The technology around the coins is a target in its own right. Cyber insurance responds to the hacks, ransomware, data breaches and system outages that often sit behind a digital asset loss.

Together these three answer most of what a business holding stablecoins is actually exposed to. The protection exists. It simply has to be written for the asset, not assumed from a cash-era policy.

Getting The Cover right

There is a sensible order to this. Map where stablecoins actually sit across the business, hold those positions up against the insurance already in place, and find where the standard wordings fall silent. From there, the insurable gaps, theft, fraud, custody loss and cyber, can be filled with specialist cover and coordinated so the policies work together rather than leaving seams between them.

A couple of honest caveats keep this credible. Some risks are not insurance problems at all. A depeg is a fall in market value, which insurers exclude in the same way they exclude volatility, and there is little on the market to cover a stablecoin issuer failing. Those are exposures to manage through treasury policy and counterparty diligence, not to transfer to a policy. This is also a general recommendation rather than a regulatory checklist, and the right structure depends on the jurisdiction, the custodians used and how the stablecoins are held.

Continuum advises on and arranges these covers for treasuries, payment firms and fintechs across Asia, helping finance teams see where their existing protection ends and what can be put in place for the way they actually hold and move stablecoins. For a clear view of your exposure, contact us today.

Stablecoin Reserve Insurance: Who Protects the 1:1 Backing?

Continuum Editor — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 05:15:41 +0000

Who-Insures-the-Stablecoin-Reserves

Every fiat-referenced stablecoin rests on a single promise: each token can be redeemed for one unit of currency, because the issuer holds reserves to match. Regulators have made that promise enforceable. New regimes, from the US GENIUS Act to Hong Kong’s Stablecoins Ordinance, require backing in cash and high-quality, short-dated liquid assets, fully segregated from the issuer’s own funds.What gets discussed far less is a simpler question. Those reserves sit somewhere, with someone. If they are lost, stolen, or trapped in a failed custodian, who pays? That is the stablecoin reserve insurance question, and the market has not yet standardised an answer.

What Stablecoin Reserves Actually Are

Reserves are not abstract. They are real financial assets held across a chain of third parties. USDC, for example, holds its reserves in a mix of cash, US Treasury bills and overnight repo, with around 80% sitting in a BlackRock-managed money market fund custodied at BNY Mellon. Tether reports roughly 79% of its reserves in US Treasuries, alongside smaller holdings in other assets.

The practical point is that a stablecoin’s backing lives across commercial banks holding cash, custodian banks holding s. ecurities, and fund managers running money market funds. That is the custody chain, and it is where the real loss scenarios sit.

The Loss Scenarios in The Custody Chain

Each link carries its own exposure. Cash and securities can be lost through fraud, theft, employee dishonesty, forgery, or the social engineering of payment instructions. A custodian or counterparty can fail. And as reserves increasingly move on-chain, a new layer of risk appears.

Tokenised money market funds and Treasury products are now a multi-billion-dollar asset class. BlackRock’s tokenised BUIDL fund alone passed one billion dollars in 2024. When reserves are held in tokenised form, smart contract failure and private key compromise become part of the reserve risk, not just an exchange’s problem.

How Insurance Responds

No single policy answers all of this. The exposures map to several distinct covers that have to work together.

Crime insurance responds to theft, fraud, embezzlement, forgery and social engineering, the human and criminal attacks on the funds and the flows around them.

Specie insurance covers physical and in-custody loss of high-value assets. Historically that meant bullion, art and cash, but the specie market has expanded to cover cryptocurrency held in cold storage, protecting against theft, physical loss or damage of the storage media and the loss of keys held by a custodian.

For tokenised or digital-asset reserves, digital asset cover comes into play, and it is best understood as a set of separate policies rather than one product, because the exposures are still evolving.

Around these sit Directors and Officers cover, for the individuals accountable to regulators, and Professional Indemnity, for the issuance and redemption service itself.

Where The Gaps Are

Two realities make this harder than buying a single policy.

The first is capacity. Industry estimates have suggested that only a small fraction of crypto assets are insured at all, and the dedicated crypto insurance market is still measured in low single-digit billions of dollars. Individual custody programmes typically carry limits in the hundreds of millions, with around one billion dollars the upper end available in the market. Set that against stablecoins with tens of billions, in some cases well over one hundred billion, in circulation, and it is clear that available limits rarely match the full value of the reserves behind a large stablecoin.

The second is structure. Custodian indemnities, banker liabilities and the way each cover is worded vary by provider and by jurisdiction. Bought one at a time, from different markets, gaps open up between the wordings that no one owns until a loss tests them.

What Issuers and Applicants Should Do

The work is not collecting policies. It is mapping where the reserves actually sit, matching cover to each point in the custody chain, and making sure crime, specie and digital asset wordings line up so nothing falls between them. For an issuer applying for or holding a licence, a coordinated view of reserve cover is also a clear way to demonstrate proactive risk management to a regulator.

This is a recommendation, not a regulatory checklist, and the right structure depends on the jurisdiction, the custodians and how much of the reserve is tokenised.

Continuum advises on and arranges these covers as a coordinated programme, so the protection behind the 1:1 promise is as solid as the promise itself. Contact us for a non-obligation discussion of reserve exposure.

W&I Insurance: How APAC Private Equity Locks In Returns

Continuum Editor — Thu, 28 May 2026 03:12:17 +0000

The days of escrow as the primary breach protection mechanism are fading in APAC private equity (PE) deals. W&I insurance has evolved from a niche add-on to the standard deal structure, fundamentally changing how PE firms lock in returns and manage post-acquisition risk. For mid-market buyers across Asia-Pacific, understanding Warranty & Indemnity insurance—how it replaces escrow, when to deploy buyer vs. seller coverage, and how knowledge scrapes reduce holdback costs—is now deal table strategy, not insurance fine-print.

From Escrow to W&I Insurance: The Deal Structure Shift

Five years ago, escrow was the default protection. Twenty percent of purchase price held back, tied up for 18 months or longer, earning minimal returns while the seller claimed indemnity breaches. This arrangement was inefficient for both sides: buyers tied up working capital, sellers delayed capital deployment.

W&I insurance changed that calculus. Instead of escrow, PE buyers now purchase insurance that covers warranty breaches directly. The seller can take their money off the table immediately. The buyer gets breach protection without funding a holdback. The insurer bears the risk through underwriting discipline.

The shift has been dramatic. In APAC mid-market deals (deals in the $50M to $500M range), escrow is increasingly replaced by W&I insurance in its entirety. Where escrow persists, it’s often reduced to 5-10 percent of purchase price, with W&I insurance covering the remainder. PE firms have discovered that the insurance premium (typically 3-4 percent of the covered amount) is cheaper than the opportunity cost of capital sitting in escrow earning nothing for 18+ months.

For sellers, W&I insurance solves the working capital problem. They exit with full proceeds immediately. For buyers, W&I insurance solves the coverage problem—claims aren’t subject to seller negotiation, insurer investigation happens independently, and settlements arrive faster than fighting with a seller over escrow release.

Buyer-Side vs. Seller-Side W&I Insurance: When to Deploy Each

This is where W&I insurance strategy gets tactical. Most deals use buyer-side coverage—the buyer purchases the policy to protect against seller breaches. But seller-side W&I insurance has a specific role.

Buyer-side W&I insurance is the default. The buyer owns the policy, can control claims, and benefits directly from coverage. This makes sense for most PE acquisitions because the buyer bears the risk if breaches occur post-closing.

Seller-side W&I insurance covers the seller’s indemnity obligation. Instead of the seller funding an escrow account or maintaining indemnity liability indefinitely, they purchase insurance that covers their potential indemnification claims. This is cheaper for sellers than traditional indemnity arrangements and appeals to PE portfolio companies selling into secondary or tertiary buyers who don’t want open-ended seller liability.

The choice depends on deal dynamics. In competitive processes where sellers have leverage, offering seller-side W&I insurance APAC (or covering premium costs) can be the deal-closer. In PE secondaries where the original PE firm is selling a portfolio company, buyer-side W&I insurance APAC is standard—the new buyer controls coverage and claims.

Some deals use dual coverage: buyer-side for the buyer’s benefit, seller-side for the seller’s indemnity protection. This creates a complete coverage wrapper where both parties have insurance backing claims, eliminating escrow almost entirely.

Knowledge Scrapes and Synthetic Warranties: Reducing the Holdback

One of the biggest innovations in W&I insurance is the use of knowledge scrapes and synthetic warranties to reduce required escrow or increase insured amounts.

A knowledge scrape is exactly what it sounds like: the buyer’s deal team systematically scrapes historical data, communications, and records to uncover potential issues before closing. What you discover during due diligence becomes known risk—and insurers don’t insure known issues. But what you intentionally don’t discover stays protected by the insurance policy. This shifts the incentive structure: thorough due diligence = lower escrow needs.

Synthetic warranties work differently. Instead of relying on seller representations, the buyer (or insurer) synthesizes a warranty based on third-party verification. For example, rather than trusting the seller’s revenue representations, the buyer gets independent verification of customer contracts, payment history, and revenue trends. The insurer underwriting the W&I insurance policy now has verified facts rather than seller assertions—which means they’re comfortable covering larger amounts with lower escrows.

In practice, this means PE firms can do a deep knowledge scrape during the M&A process, document what they found (and didn’t find), negotiate a policy with the insurer that reflects that due diligence, and then minimize escrow because the insurance covers the unknowns. The seller gets their money faster. The buyer gets better coverage. The insurer gets verified data rather than representations.

W&I Insurance APAC Premium: What You’re Actually Paying

The cost structure of W&I insurance is important. Premiums typically run 2.5 to 4 percent of the covered amount. A $100M deal with $80M in insured coverage costs $2M to $3.2M in premium.

This seems expensive until you model escrow opportunity costs. If $15M of that $100M would have been held in escrow for 18 months earning 2 percent annually, that’s $150,000 in lost returns. Add in the administrative burden of escrow account management, seller escrow disputes, and potential partial release negotiations—the true cost of escrow is often 4-6 percent when you factor in friction and opportunity cost.

Suddenly, W&I insurance = premiums look competitive. And increasingly, PE firms negotiate premium-sharing with sellers in competitive processes, making the actual buyer cost even lower.

How Continuum Structures W&I Insurance into APAC PE Deals

Continuum specializes in helping PE firms across APAC embed W&I insurance = into deal structures from the outset, not as an afterthought.

The firm works with deal teams to:

Design coverage architecture
Should this deal use buyer-side only, dual coverage, or seller-side W&I insurance =? Continuum analyzes your deal profile, seller leverage, and risk appetite to recommend the optimal structure. A competitive process with seller leverage might call for seller-side coverage. A bolt-on acquisition into a mature platform might support aggressive buyer-side only coverage with minimal escrow.
Conduct knowledge scrapes strategically
Rather than ad-hoc diligence, Continuum helps structure systematic verification of key representations—revenue, customer contracts, tax compliance, IP ownership. This verified data becomes the foundation for W&I insurance = underwriting, reducing required holdbacks and increasing covered amounts.
Negotiate synthetic warranties
For deals where traditional representations are weak or impossible to verify (emerging markets, businesses with poor records), Continuum works with third-party verifiers and insurers to create synthetic warranties based on independent verification. This keeps coverage levels high while reducing your reliance on seller representations.
Navigate underwriting
Continuum interfaces with insurers during policy placement to ensure underwriting assumptions match your deal profile. Early coordination prevents surprises when premium quotes come back or coverage limits are reduced.
Structure escrow minimization
With W&I insurance = in place and knowledge scrapes documented, Continuum helps negotiate escrow down from traditional 20 percent to 5-10 percent or elimination entirely, freeing capital for the business.

For APAC PE firms, this early engagement with W&I insurance = strategy—rather than treating it as a box to check—often means 2-3 percent better deal economics by the time closing occurs.

The APAC Advantage: Why W&I Insurance APAC Matters in Your Market

W&I insurance is no longer a competitive advantage, it’s table stakes. But understanding how to structure it strategically still is.

PE firms in APAC that embed W&I insurance thinking into deal strategy early achieve better economics: lower escrows, faster seller exit, cleaner post-closing relationships. Those that add it at the last minute or negotiate it defensively miss optimization opportunities.

The competitive PE landscape in APAC rewards speed and certainty. W&I insurance delivers both—it accelerates certainty for all parties and removes the friction of escrow disputes down the road.

Understanding W&I insurance —when to deploy buyer vs. seller coverage, how knowledge scrapes reduce holdbacks, what breach categories actually occur in your sector, and what recovery rates look like—is how you lock in deal returns before you even close.

Ready to Optimize Your Next APAC Deal?

The difference between a well-structured W&I insurance strategy and a reactive one can mean millions in deal economics. Continuum specializes in helping PE firms across Asia-Pacific embed W&I insurance into deal structures from placement through claims.

Whether you’re in the early stages of deal planning or ready to close, Continuum can help you:

Design the right W&I insurance coverage architecture for your deal
Conduct strategic knowledge scrapes to reduce escrow requirements
Navigate policy placement and underwriting efficiently
Position yourself for faster exits and cleaner post-closing operations

Get in touch with Continuum today to discuss how W&I insurance can strengthen your next APAC acquisition. Let’s lock in better deal returns.

What Complete Liability Coverage Looks Like for an APAC VC /PE Fund

Continuum Editor — Thu, 14 May 2026 14:15:15 +0000

For a Venture Capital (VC) or Private Equity (PE) fund operating across APAC, liability exposure does not sit in one place. It spreads across the fund itself, the manager entity, and every portfolio company on the books. The instinct is to treat each policy as a standalone purchase. In practice, the three layers only protect the fund when they map together as one programme.

The cost of missing the connection between them almost always surfaces after a claim, not before.

Why the Three Layers Have to Be Mapped Together

Liability inside a VC or PE fund does not flow through a single risk profile. It moves through three distinct layers, and each one needs its own cover.

The first is D&O liability at the fund level. General partners (GP) face claims tied to how they govern the fund. The second is D&O liability at the portfolio company level, where partners who take board seats carry the same director liability as any other director. Professional liability at the manager entity level is the third, where the firm carries exposure for the investment activity it conducts on behalf of the fund.

Each of these exposures sits under a different policy, with different triggers and different limits. When the three sit alongside each other without reference, gaps appear between them. Policies that look complete in isolation can leave the same risk uninsured across the gap, or duplicate coverage in a way that wastes premium without removing exposure.

A properly mapped programme treats the three layers as one continuous structure. Each layer protects against a specific category of liability, and together they account for the way Director and Officer (D&O) and Professional Indemnity (PI) risk actually moves through a VC or PE fund operating across Singapore, Hong Kong, and the wider region.

Fund-Level GP D&O: The Layer That Covers the Fund Itself

Fund-level GP D&O protects the general partners and the fund entity against claims arising from how the fund operates. This is the layer that responds when an limited partner (LP) brings a claim against the GP for breach of fiduciary duty, misallocation of capital, or any other decision tied to fund governance.

In APAC, where many funds register in one jurisdiction but invest across several others, the wording has to account for cross-border claim triggers. A policy that responds well in Singapore may not respond to a claim brought in another regional jurisdiction. The wording, the territorial scope, and the definition of insured persons all have to reflect where the fund actually carries exposure.

GP D&O is also where the entity-level liability of the fund sits. Without it, a claim against the fund itself, rather than against any individual, can fall entirely outside coverage.

Portfolio Company D&O with Side A Protection

The second layer sits at the portfolio company level. Every portfolio company that a fund’s partners join as a director carries its own D&O policy, and the partner relies on that policy for protection during their time on the board.

The risk most VC partners underestimate is that the portfolio company’s D&O limit covers the whole board collectively. Founders, executives, independent directors, and investor directors all draw from the same tower. In a multi-defendant claim, the limit can run out before it ever reaches the investor director. Side A protection becomes the part that matters most at that point. It responds personally to the named individual when the company can no longer indemnify them, which is often exactly when an insolvency or a derivative action puts a partner under personal exposure.

For APAC VC funds, the portfolio is rarely homogeneous. A single fund may have partners sitting on boards in Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Japan, each under a different portfolio company D&O policy with different wordings. Mapping these seats against the fund’s other cover is the only way to see whether each board role a partner holds actually carries protection.

Professional Liability for the Manager

The third layer is the one most VC firms underestimate. It is professional liability, and it attaches to the manager entity rather than to the fund or to any individual director.

A VC manager is a professional services firm. It makes investment decisions, conducts due diligence, monitors portfolio companies, and reports back to investors. Every one of those activities creates a potential claim. An LP may allege that due diligence fell short. Regulators may question how the manager met its obligations. A third party may bring a claim tied to how the manager carried out its role. None of these sit cleanly under fund-level D&O or portfolio company D&O, because the allegation is about the manager’s professional conduct, not about fund governance or a board seat.

For APAC fund managers, the licensing environment sharpens this exposure. The regimes under the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong impose specific obligations on the manager entity, and regulatory investigations into how the manager met those obligations tend to target the manager directly. A programme that only insures the GP and the portfolio companies leaves the manager to absorb the cost of responding on its own.

Investment Management Insurance for the Manager Entity

Investment Management Insurance, or IMI, is the policy that ties the full coverage programme together. It responds when the claim is about how the manager performed its role, rather than about a specific portfolio investment or a fund governance decision, and in doing so it connects the layers that sit above and below it. Where GP D&O addresses the conduct of individuals in their fiduciary capacity, and portfolio company D&O addresses decisions made at the operating level, IMI occupies the space in between and ensures that professional liability at the manager entity level does not fall through the gaps between those two covers.

A generic professional indemnity policy rarely fits a VC manager well. The wording usually suits a different kind of professional services firm and does not contemplate the specific activities of fund management. IMI follows what a manager actually does, which is why it integrates more naturally into a fund insurance programme than an off-the-shelf PI policy would. It speaks the same language as the other layers rather than sitting alongside them as an awkward addition.

That integration is what makes IMI more than a residual cover. Without it, the manager entity carries professional liability with no policy designed to respond. With it, the programme has coherence: each layer addresses a distinct exposure, and IMI is what ensures those layers function as a whole rather than as three separate policies that happen to coexist.

How Continuum Can Help

Continuum advises APAC VC funds on D&O and professional liability programmes that work as a single structure rather than three disconnected policies. We review GP D&O wordings, portfolio company D&O across every seat the fund holds, and Investment Management Insurance terms, and we identify the gaps and duplications that emerge when the layers do not map together.

If you are running a fund across APAC and you have bought your cover piece by piece rather than designed it as a programme, we can help you see where the gaps actually are. Get in touch with us here.

The Hybrid Finance Insurance Gap

Continuum Editor — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 10:07:29 +0000

Companies operating at the intersection of traditional and decentralised finance carry a unique kind of risk profile. They sit inside frameworks built for established financial institutions, and they take on operational risks the regulators are still learning to describe. The insurance market sits in the middle of that, and most policies in circulation never accounted for a hybrid finance footprint.

Coverage gaps form along that seam, and they rarely surface until something tests them.

Silent Crypto Exclusions Lurking in Traditional PI and D&O Policies

Many traditional PI and D&O policies look identical to the ones in market before the digital asset cycle began. The pricing is similar. The structure is similar. What has changed is the language sitting inside the definitions and exclusion schedules.

Insurers have quietly introduced silent crypto exclusions into renewal wordings across the past few cycles, often with little or no signposting. The exclusion does not always appear under a heading that mentions digital assets. It may sit in a broader carve-out for unregulated activity, or in a cross-reference to a definition of ‘financial product’ that no longer captures tokenised instruments. The policy still binds. The protection against the firm’s actual operating exposure does not.

For a hybrid finance company, this matters more than for a pure-play crypto firm. The TradFi side of the business looks insurable on paper, so the broker may not question the wording. On the DeFi side, the policy carries risks it never contemplated. The gap only becomes visible at claim time.

Regulatory Liability Coverage for Enforcement Actions and Investigations

Hybrid finance companies sit in the line of sight of multiple regulators at once. A single product line can fall under licensing oversight in one jurisdiction, securities regulation in another, and AML scrutiny in a third. Investigations are increasingly common, and they rarely resolve quickly.

Most legacy PI and D&O policies cap or exclude the costs of responding to regulatory action. That cap may have made sense when the underlying risk was a slow-moving compliance audit. It makes much less sense when the firm is responding to a multi-jurisdictional enforcement action across the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, and overseas counterparts simultaneously, with technical experts, external counsel, and forensic accountants on the clock.

Regulatory liability cover, structured properly, addresses this directly. It funds the legal and technical defence costs that arise from investigations and enforcement actions, including the pre-claim period when the firm is responding to information requests rather than facing formal charges. For a hybrid finance company, this is often the most consequential part of the coverage stack, and the part most likely to be missing.

What Is Actually Available in the APAC Digital Asset Insurance Market

The APAC digital asset insurance market has matured faster than many firms realise, but the available capacity is uneven and wordings vary widely between carriers. Knowing what exists is not the same as knowing what responds.

Several specific covers exist across the region for companies with a hybrid finance profile:

Tech PI with digital asset extensions: Professional indemnity wordings now exist that explicitly contemplate smart contract failure, protocol risk, and tokenised product liability, rather than leaving them in a grey zone.

D&O with multi-jurisdiction endorsements: D&O policies built for cross-border activity respond to enforcement action under regulatory frameworks the firm holds a licence in, including Singapore, Hong Kong, Labuan, and beyond.

Specie and custody cover for digital assets: Coverage for theft, key compromise, and custody-related losses exists for institutional-grade custody arrangements, and sits separately from traditional crime cover.

Fintech package wordings: Bundled covers built around the operating reality of a hybrid finance company, combining tech PI, cyber, crime, and D&O in one structure rather than three or four disconnected policies.

The capacity is there. What is often missing is the broker-side knowledge of how to access it and how to structure it against the firm’s specific operating model. International standards from the Financial Stability Board increasingly inform how underwriters assess hybrid finance risk, but translating those standards into a workable wording still requires specialist input.

Why Hybrid Finance Needs a Specialist Approach

Generalist brokers tend to treat hybrid finance as either a TradFi account with a digital asset add-on, or a crypto account with a TradFi overlay. Neither framing reflects how the firm actually operates. The risk sits in the seam between the two, and the policy has to cover that seam rather than bolt onto one side of it.

A specialist approach starts with reading the existing policies in detail, identifying silent exclusions and definition gaps, and mapping them against the firm’s actual operating activity. From there, it involves engaging carriers who understand digital asset risk, structuring wordings that reflect cross-border exposure, and aligning coverage with the regulatory frameworks the firm operates under. It also means revisiting that structure as the regulatory landscape shifts, which it continues to do across the region.

Specialist review costs very little. Discovering a coverage gap during a claim costs a great deal more.

How Continuum Can Help

Continuum specialises in insurance advisory and risk consultancy for companies operating at the intersection of traditional and decentralised finance. We review existing PI, D&O, cyber, and fintech package wordings for silent exclusions and regulatory coverage gaps, and we structure bespoke programmes for hybrid finance clients across Singapore, Hong Kong, Labuan, and the wider APAC region.

If your firm is sitting in the seam between TradFi and DeFi and your coverage reflects only one side of that, we can help you find out what is actually responding before a claim makes the answer obvious. Get in touch with us.