As digital assets become more common in the portfolios of high-net-worth and institutional investors, wealth managers face the challenge of balancing interest with risk management. Edward Lashinski, Managing Partner at Nova Pacific Group, a consulting practice and Managing Director at FCL Advisory, a licensed Advisory and Fund Manager, described digital assets as an investment requiring discipline, expertise, and caution rather than ideological commitment. At the Hubbis Investment Forum in Hong Kong, Lashinski offered a practical viewpoint during a panel largely focused on technological developments. While other panelists discussed on-chain infrastructure, stablecoin adoption, and tokenised real estate, Lashinski highlighted investor behavior, portfolio strategy, and lessons from recent crypto market volatility.
Beyond the Buzzwords: A Portfolio-Led Approach to Digital Assets
Lashinski’s opening message was simple: start with portfolio objectives, not product trends. “What I do is speak with clients and help position portfolios,” he said. “That means understanding what kind of exposure they want, how to manage that exposure, and what constraints or liquidity needs they might have.”
While others on the panel championed tokenisation and decentralised finance (DeFi) innovation, Lashinski remained focused on risk-adjusted outcomes. “Yes, you can invest in liquid tokens or early-stage projects,” he said. “But the bigger question is: what part of the value chain do you want to own, and why?”
His experience working with family offices, foundations and wealth platforms gives him a uniquely practical lens. “We are not here to chase returns. We are here to create durable value, through informed allocation, regulatory compliance, and operational discipline.”
Liquid Tokens, Illiquid Assumptions
Lashinski acknowledged the appeal of liquid crypto assets, particularly for younger investors or those seeking asymmetric upside, but cautioned against equating liquidity with simplicity.
“Just because something trades 24/7 does not mean it is easy to understand, or even investable,” he said. “There is still no effective way to value most tokens. Whether Bitcoin should be USD10,000 or USD1 million, no one really knows. It is sentiment-driven.”
He also questioned the narrative around digital assets as “money.” “Bitcoin is too volatile to function as a transactional currency,” he argued. “It is treated more as a speculative store of value. That may work for some clients, but it should be framed as such, not mistaken for yield-bearing or inflation-hedged certainty.”
For clients allocating to digital assets, Lashinski applies the same macro lens he uses across traditional markets: “What is the use case? What are the return drivers? What are the risks? If you cannot answer those questions, you should not be allocating.”
Tokenisation: Promise Meets Friction
Like many on the panel, Lashinski recognised the transformative potential of tokenisation, but insisted on substance over salesmanship. “Tokenisation is interesting,” he said, “but it must create genuine economic value.”
He pointed to real estate and private equity as two examples where tokenisation could unlock liquidity and reduce friction. “Fractional ownership is not new,” he observed. “But if you can make it tradable, transparent, and compliant, without introducing excessive volatility, then you have something investors might actually use.”
The risk, he warned, is in packaging complexity as simplicity. “Some tokenised products look cleaner than they are. If the redemption mechanisms are vague, or custody is not ring-fenced, or price discovery is unclear, then you are not improving the investment experience, you are just dressing it up.”
Stablecoins and the Infrastructure Layer
One area Lashinski views with cautious optimism is stablecoins. “These are effectively the plumbing of the digital asset ecosystem,” he noted. “They enable instant settlement, access to decentralised protocols, and interoperability across platforms.”
But he also highlighted the opaque business model behind some of the largest stablecoin issuers. “Think about what is happening,” he said. “You give your fiat to an issuer. They give you a token, and then invest that fiat in US Treasuries. They keep the yield, and you get the utility. That is an extraordinary business model, but one that is not always transparent to the user.”
Lashinski sees this dynamic as both a risk and an opportunity. “From a user’s perspective, it is convenient. But from a regulator’s perspective, or a fiduciary’s perspective, it raises questions. That is why custody, audits, and disclosures are so important.”
The Role of the Fiduciary
As digital assets move toward institutional portfolios, the role of the fiduciary becomes central. Lashinski sees himself, and his peers, as filters, not funnels.
“Our job is not to be evangelists,” he said. “It is to assess. To apply standards. To test assumptions. And to help clients separate what is real from what is noise.”
This applies especially to wealth managers and multi-family offices. “If you are not doing digital assets today, you are already behind,” he said. “But that does not mean you rush in. You build the framework, risk, custody, compliance, before you allocate.”
He pointed to regulated platforms and banks with crypto licensing as potential partners. “You need counterparties who understand both sides of the fence, traditional finance (TradFi) and digital infrastructure. Without that, you are operating blind.”
Geography and Regulation: A Moving Target
When asked about regulatory differences across key markets, Lashinski offered a balanced view. “Hong Kong is embracing crypto, but with a high bar for licensing. Singapore is catching up after some caution. Dubai has moved quickly and decisively.”
He noted that the divergence in frameworks reflects broader political and economic strategies. “Regulation is not just about risk, it is about positioning. These markets want to attract capital, talent, and innovation. But they are taking different routes.”
For investors, the takeaway is clear: jurisdiction matters. “Where you custody, where you onboard, where your client is domiciled, it all affects how you structure the allocation.”
Ten Years Out: What Remains and What Disappears
Looking to the future, Lashinski offered a tempered prediction. “In ten years, we may not be talking about crypto as a separate category,” he said. “It will be embedded. Invisible. Just part of the system.”
But he also warned against complacency. “There is no guarantee Bitcoin remains dominant. There is no certainty stablecoins remain stable. Everything that exists today is up for revision.”
What will endure, he believes, is the underlying technological shift. “Smart contracts, instant settlement, programmable assets, these will transform how we issue, own, and trade financial products, how credit creation is facilitated and how capital is more efficiently managed through the economy.”
His advice to wealth managers: prepare now. “You do not need to become a blockchain expert. But you do need to understand the infrastructure, the risks, and the regulatory environment, because your clients already do.”
Lessons from the Field: Risk, Reality, and Restraint
When asked to reflect on the biggest lessons learned over the past decade, Lashinski did not hesitate. “Investor behaviour remains the hardest thing to manage,” he said. “Fear and greed still drive decisions, often more than logic or data.”
He described watching market cycles play out with disturbing regularity. “People pile in on the way up, panic on the way down, and repeat the same mistakes. That is true in crypto, but also in equities, real estate, every asset class.”
What has changed, he argued, is the velocity. “Digital markets move faster. Information moves faster. Losses crystallise faster. That is why discipline and structure matter more than ever.”
His advice? “Stay curious, but sceptical. Invest in knowledge before capital. And remember that no one has a crystal ball, not in crypto, not in TradFi.”
