Family Office Crypto Allocation Policy

1 min readBy Jake Claver

A crypto allocation policy is the written document that fixes the band, names who sets it, who may vary it, and who executes a rebalance, before any of those questions is contested. Most families write the band and stop there. My view is that the clause deciding everything is the one covering a position that lands outside the band because it appreciated, when nobody bought a thing.

Part of our guide: Family Office.

The short version

  • A band nobody wrote down cannot be breached, so the document turns a preference into something anyone can be held to.
  • Three authorities, collapsed into one chair: who sets the band, who approves a variance, who instructs the custodian.
  • Drift from appreciation and drift from purchase read the same and decide differently. Say in advance which obliges action.
  • Encumbered units belong in the measurement and cannot cure a breach. Locked, staked, pledged, or behind an entity vote: name them apart.
  • Where a trust holds it, the trust’s own objectives govern: Wyoming calls the prudent investor rule “a default rule” that only a trust’s provisions alter (W.S. 4-10-901(b)).

Why the band has to exist before anything tests it

Fiduciary law states why the date on the document matters. Wyoming’s enactment of the Uniform Prudent Investor Act puts it in one sentence:

Compliance with the prudent investor rule under this article is determined in light of the facts and circumstances existing at the time of a trustee’s decision or action and not by hindsight.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 4-10-908 (Wyoming Legislature)

A band adopted in January is one of the facts existing in January. A range described at a meeting and never typed up has no such standing, and everyone recalls it differently once a number moves. The logic holds with no trust in the structure, since the argument after a drawdown is about what was agreed and when.

The document also has to say what it measures: exposure to what, priced from which source, observed at what moment, against which total. Leave any of the four open and two capable people produce two defensible exposures from identical holdings. The total is skipped most, and it is why a family office and a trustee disagree about a position neither has touched.

Three authorities the document has to keep apart

Setting the band, varying it, and executing inside it are three acts, and one person usually performs all three. That holds up until somebody objects and no approval record exists, because approval never had a counterparty.

Federal law reaches this. Congress excluded family offices from the Advisers Act definition of investment adviser (15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11)(G)), and the Commission’s rule conditions that exclusion on the office being “wholly owned by family clients and is exclusively controlled” by family members or family entities (17 CFR 275.202(a)(11)(G)-1). Control is a governance fact, so who sits on the body varying the band carries a regulatory consequence.

Where a trust holds the assets, two lawful routes exist. A trustee may delegate investment functions with reasonable care in selecting the agent, setting the scope and terms, and “Periodically reviewing the agent’s actions” (W.S. 4-10-909(a)); a trustee who simply adopts the family band has done none of the three and keeps the liability that section would lift. Or a trust advisor named in the instrument holds power to “direct, consent or disapprove a trustee’s or cotrustee’s action or inaction relating to investments of trust assets” (W.S. 4-10-712(a)), which reaches trust property legitimately and makes the advisor a fiduciary as to those powers (W.S. 4-10-713). Whether a trustee may hire help is its own question.

The trigger, and the breach nobody caused

Triggers come in three shapes: a calendar date, a threshold crossing, or a scheduled review with discretion. Any works. What fails is a band with no attached event obliging anyone to look at it.

The regulator states the mechanic plainly: rebalancing “brings a portfolio back to its original asset allocation mix,” and becomes necessary because “over time, some investments will grow faster than others, and holdings may become out of alignment with investment goals” (Investor.gov, Rebalancing).

That is the hardest clause to draft. A position can sit outside the band with no transaction behind it, so the breach has an author nobody can name. One policy treats the reading as a condition to be cured, pre-committing the family to a disposition on a date price movement chose. Another treats it as an event requiring a recorded decision inside a stated window, where holding stays available to anyone who writes down the reasoning. The second survives contact with a taxable asset, since a rebalance is a disposition of property (IRS, Digital assets) whose cost was set years ago by basis and holding period (Topic no. 409).

Without a clause naming who gets told, within how long, and which responses are permitted, the reading waits for the next quarterly pack, and waiting becomes the decision.

The units that cannot leave a band they sit inside

Some of the position cannot move: units locked by a vesting or lock-up contract, units in a staking unbonding period, units pledged as collateral, units behind an entity vote. Each raises two questions the policy answers separately.

Do they count in the measurement? Yes. The exposure exists whether or not anyone can act on it, and a band computed on the free remainder understates what the family holds. Can they cure a breach? No. They sit outside the units available to any permitted response.

A policy saying only “hold the asset within the band” becomes unfollowable once most of the position is encumbered, and an unfollowable policy is worse than none: the file now shows a standard the family set and failed. The fix is a second column: total exposure, and the portion actually available on a stated horizon, each carrying its own date. Settle alongside it how an encumbered unit is priced while unsellable, whether a stablecoin working balance counts inside the band, and which custody arrangement holds the units the response clause assumes are reachable.

What I actually see

The band that lives in a slide. A range was presented, everyone nodded, and no document carries it. Two years on the position sits well outside whatever was said, and the argument is about what was said.

The policy the family adopted and applied to its trusts by assumption. The trustee has never seen it, or treats it as an instruction. Neither is delegation under W.S. 4-10-909, and neither is direction under W.S. 4-10-712. When it comes apart the trustee holds the duty and the committee holds the decision, and no provision joins them.

The breach everybody can see and nobody owns. The quarterly pack flags the position outside the band, four packs running. No clause names who must respond or by when, so the reporting becomes a record of a condition nobody addressed, and the strongest document against the family in any argument about it.

The check I would run takes twenty minutes. Open last quarter’s report and, before opening the policy, write down four answers: the total the band is measured against, the price source and time behind the current reading, who may approve a variance, and how many units could have moved in the thirty days after. Then open the policy and count how many of the four it answers. In my experience it answers one.

Where this goes wrong

The document usually fails in the direction nobody drafts for: exact about the number, silent about the people and the calendar.

The specific failures. A band stated against a total nobody defined, so the family office and the trustee compute different exposures from the same holdings, both honestly. A variance clause with no named authority, so every variance is either unauthorized or blessed retroactively. Encumbered units counted as available, so the cure the policy contemplated was never executable. And the one that costs most: a policy adopted, never dated, never reviewed, and produced for the first time in the argument it was written to settle.

The decision rule

  1. Write the band down and date it, because that is the fact a later reviewer treats as existing at the time.
  2. Define the total, the price source, and the observation moment once, so two readers of identical holdings arrive at one number.
  3. Separate the three authorities: who sets the band, who approves a variance, who instructs the custodian.
  4. State what a reading outside the band obliges: who is told, within what window, what gets recorded, which responses are permitted.
  5. Draft appreciation drift as its own clause, since nobody transacted and the cure carries an old tax cost.
  6. Carve out encumbered units explicitly, counting them in the exposure and excluding them from whatever cures a breach.
  7. Give each trust its own route in, by a delegation meeting W.S. 4-10-909 or an advisor power in the instrument, reviewed on a stated cycle.

Where this sits

An allocation policy sits above the operating documents and depends on all of them: custody settles who can instruct a movement and therefore whether the response clause runs at all, trusts settle whether a family band reaches the assets and on whose authority, Wyoming LLCs settle the vote a disposition needs, and estate planning settles what becomes of the arrangement when a signer dies. The next document to write is usually the investment policy statement this belongs inside, alongside the governance framework naming who reviews it.

These questions cross professional boundaries, and the join is what fails. The attorney drafts the trust deciding whether a committee may direct anything. The CPA carries the basis and holding period that price every cure. The custody arrangement holds the list of who may actually instruct a transfer. Each is correct inside their own file, none holds the whole document, and reconciling the three belongs to nobody’s engagement letter, which leaves the family office as the only party able to schedule it.

Sources

Related

Last updated: 3 August 2026.

This article is general education, not legal, tax, or investment advice. It recommends no allocation, band, target, timing, or course of action and takes no view on any asset, and where a trust holds the position that trust’s own terms and governing law control. Talk to a qualified attorney, CPA, and investment adviser about your own situation.

Sources

    Jake Claver

    Written by

    Jake Claver

    Family office professional working on how substantial holdings are held, structured and passed on. Qualified Family Office Professional. Finance degree, University of North Texas. Board member, Arkansas Blockchain Council. Author of Wealth in Numbers and Infinite Banking for Crypto Investors.

    Full background Media kit Speaking

    More from the record

    The full record