The Global Risks Alliance (GRA)
Crypto-assets, stablecoins and decentralised finance have built a market with its own trading venues, lending, leverage and settlement layers, increasingly linked to banks, payment systems and funds. Failures have come from runs, code exploits, fraud, governance disputes and the collapse of intermediaries. This page treats digital asset risk as a field of research, with no exchange, brokerage or custody role, and sets out how risk develops and spills over, how it is observed, and who regulates it.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 2
Connected activity, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For digital assets risk, in GRA's spatial-finance reading, the map opens on night lights and population density with built-up and settlement extent from NASA GIBS, framed on East Africa; every other NASA layer, live feed and forecast waits in the layer list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Crypto-asset risk is the risk of loss from crypto-assets, stablecoins and decentralised finance, a market with its own venues, lending, leverage and settlement layers increasingly linked to banks, payments and funds. Failures have come from runs, code and bridge exploits, fraud and intermediaries combining roles that regulated finance keeps apart.
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Digital assets risk · Fintech F1 · Week 23
| Women | 42 | 3 | Review |
| Rural | 52 | 6 | Review |
| Under 25 | 40 | 8 | Within |
Digital asset and tokenization research without exchange or custody. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
A stablecoin is a promise to redeem at par. If holders doubt the reserves or the redemption terms, they redeem together, and forced sales of reserve assets can then stress the markets in which those reserves are held.
Lending protocols and derivatives venues liquidate collateral by code when prices fall. Liquidations push prices lower, triggering further liquidations across platforms within minutes.
Self-executing contracts, cross-chain bridges and price oracles hold or move large values under code that can contain defects. Exploits are often irreversible and cross jurisdictions within a single transaction.
Some platforms combine exchange, custody, lending and market making under one roof. Conflicts of interest, commingled assets and weak disclosure turn one failure into losses for customers and counterparties alike.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Stablecoin | A crypto-asset designed to hold a stable value against a reference such as a currency, often backed by reserves. |
| MiCA | The EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, which sets rules for crypto-asset issuers and service providers. |
| Travel rule | The FATF requirement that originator and beneficiary information accompany virtual asset transfers. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stablecoin outstanding supply by issuer | value in reference currency | daily | Public ledger data and issuer disclosures | OBSERVED |
| Stablecoin reserve composition | share by asset class | monthly | Issuer attestations | DECLARED |
| Value lost to protocol exploits and bridge attacks | value in reference currency per quarter | quarterly | Incident trackers and ledger analysis | ESTIMATED |
| Collateral liquidations on lending protocols | value per day | daily | Public ledger data | OBSERVED |
| Bank exposures to crypto-assets | value and share of capital | annual | Supervisory data collections | OFFICIAL |
| Illicit share of on-chain transaction value | percent of transaction value | annual | Blockchain analytics estimates | ESTIMATED |
| Authorised crypto-asset service providers and issuers | count by jurisdiction | monthly | Regulator registers | OFFICIAL |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Public ledger records | Transactions, balances and contract states on permissionless networks | Open data, terms per network |
| ESMA interim MiCA register | Authorised crypto-asset service providers, white papers and issuers of asset-referenced and e-money tokens | Public register, ESMA terms |
| FSB and BIS reports on crypto-assets and stablecoins | Financial stability monitoring of crypto-asset markets and their links to finance | Free, attribution under FSB and BIS terms |
| Basel Committee monitoring of bank cryptoasset exposures | Bank exposures reported under the prudential standard | Free, attribution under BIS terms of use |
| Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance digital asset research | Mining, network and adoption data on crypto-assets | Free, terms per publisher |
| FATF targeted updates on virtual assets | Jurisdictions' implementation of the standards for virtual assets and the travel rule | Free, terms per FATF |
| Commercial blockchain analytics reports | Estimates of illicit flows and exploit losses with proprietary attribution | Free summaries; full data by licence |
Fintech Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Securities and crypto-asset regulators | Which issuers and service providers to authorise, and on what disclosure, custody and conduct terms | Register data, failure typologies, comparative regime notes |
| Central banks and payment overseers | Whether a stablecoin arrangement is systemically important in payments and how it is overseen | Reserve composition, supply and redemption evidence, spillover maps |
| Prudential supervisors and bank boards | What exposure limits and capital treatment apply to crypto-asset holdings and services | Exposure data, mapping to the Basel standard, spillover analysis |
| Financial intelligence units | How the travel rule and AML controls apply to virtual asset transfers and self-hosted wallets | FATF updates, illicit flow estimates with their uncertainty |
Many digital asset failures share familiar financial patterns: firms that borrowed short and lent long, used customer assets for their own trading, held concentrated exposures or relied on the value of their own tokens. Liquidity can disappear rapidly when confidence falls, and interconnections between platforms can spread failures. Algorithmic and under-collateralized stablecoins have collapsed when redemption demand exceeded their mechanisms.
Custody risk is central: whether client assets are segregated, who controls the cryptographic keys and how assets are treated in insolvency. Decentralized finance protocols run on code that can contain vulnerabilities, and attacks exploiting such flaws or manipulating price feeds have caused large losses. Governance of protocols, including who can change the code, is often concentrated despite claims of decentralization.
Links to traditional finance run through banks serving digital asset firms, stablecoin reserves held in conventional instruments and institutional investment. Authorities monitor these links for spillover risk.
Consumer harm has been a recurring feature, through losses on failed platforms, scams marketed through social media and products whose risks were poorly disclosed. Research on these patterns informs consumer protection debates without assessing any individual offering.
Tracing flows on public ledgers; attribution to entities is uncertain.
Studying liquidity, price formation and manipulation; data quality varies across venues.
Studying past collapses through court filings and reports.
Limits: off-ledger activity is opaque, reported volumes may be inflated and the market changes quickly, dating findings.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.