Banks that believe digital asset risks sit outside their organizations may already have exposure through ETFs, stablecoins, custodians, exchanges, and counterparties. Ana De Sousa argues that traditional risk frameworks are struggling to keep pace with a
The biggest danger facing financial
institutions entering digital assets may not be taking too much risk, but
failing to recognize where that risk already exists.
Many banks continue to view digital
assets as a niche activity that can be avoided by simply choosing not to
participate directly.
Yet the reality is that exposure
increasingly exists through investment products, counterparties, custodians,
stablecoin issuers, and broader financial market infrastructure.
Understanding those risks requires a
different approach to counterparty and third-party risk assessment than many
organizations currently employ.
Speaking at CeFPro’s latest Vendor
Risk USA event, Ana De Sousa, Chief Executive Officer of Agio Ratings, warned
that traditional risk management tools are often ill-equipped to evaluate
digital asset ecosystems and the counterparties that support them.
Drawing on her experience at digital
asset brokerage FalconX and later within the Federal Reserve Bank of San
Francisco’s banking supervision group, De Sousa explained that one of the
industry's biggest challenges is the lack of robust risk infrastructure capable
of helping institutions understand emerging digital asset exposures.
"What I did coming out of those
two experiences at FalconX, at the Federal Reserve, was recognize that the
practitioners and the regulators and the supervisors just did not have good
enough risk infrastructure or risk insights to deal with the risks that they
were being exposed to," she said.
The consequences of inadequate
assessment can be significant. De Sousa highlighted the collapse of FTX as an
example of how traditional assumptions about market position and reputation can
obscure underlying risks.
Her firm's analysis assigned FTX a
12% probability of default during a period when many market participants viewed
the exchange as one of the strongest institutions in the sector.
"We looked beyond the risk
angles that were being reported at the time," she said.
That experience reinforced her view
that digital asset counterparties cannot be assessed using conventional
frameworks alone.
Instead, organizations need
methodologies tailored to the unique characteristics of exchanges, custodians,
stablecoin issuers, brokers, and other participants operating within the
ecosystem.
The challenge is becoming
increasingly relevant for banks. De Sousa noted that financial institutions are
now actively evaluating digital asset ETFs, custody arrangements, and new
product offerings linked to cryptocurrencies and tokenized assets.
In some cases, banks have approached
her firm seeking assessments of risks associated with ETF structures and the
entities supporting them.
