Digital Assets as Collateral
Bitcoin as Collateral
Bitcoin has quietly become one of the best-behaved forms of collateral in existence. Not because of what it might be worth, but because of how it behaves operationally.
It is liquid, continuously. Bitcoin prices around the clock across dozens of venues. A lender does not have to guess what the collateral is worth on a Sunday night. There is no appraisal, no mark-to-model, no waiting for a quarter-end valuation.
It is homogeneous. One bitcoin is identical to another. Unlike property, receivables or private equity, there is nothing to underwrite about the specific unit being pledged no title search, no condition report, no concentration analysis of a single tenant or customer.
It settles quickly and verifiably. Ownership can be confirmed cryptographically and moved in minutes. Collateral that can be verified independently is collateral that can be financed cheaply.
It has a deep derivative market. This is the part most balance sheet holders overlook. Listed and OTC options on BTC are liquid enough, at institutional size and across meaningful tenors, to price and hedge structured payoffs. That market is what makes it possible to convert future upside into present-day financing cost the foundation of everything Bima does.
The same properties increasingly hold for ETH and to a narrower degree for other major assets. Depth and term availability differ by asset, which is why terms are quoted asset by asset rather than one set across the board. See Eligible Collateral.
And yet the balances sit idle.
Despite all of that, most institutional digital asset balances earn nothing and do nothing. The reasons are consistent:
Cost of capital
On-chain borrowing is still priced off legacy finance. Funding rates surge with market stress and peg stability weakens USDC borrowing has reached the mid-teens in percentage terms at points in the cycle.
Custody fragmentation
Deploying a strategy usually means relinquishing custody, which creates compliance risk, operational friction and regulatory exposure that a treasury or fund cannot accept.
Liquidity gap
Reserves sit idle bearing full opportunity cost. When liquidity or leverage is available, it usually arrives attached to liquidation risk or counterparty lockups.
Limited optionality
Too few strategies clear the cost of capital and still leave a profit. Faced with that maths, many holders rationally choose to earn nothing at all.
Tax and accounting friction
Selling to raise cash crystallises a disposal. For many holders that alone rules out the simplest route to liquidity.
The Emergence of Digital Credit
Three things have changed in the last few years, and together they open a market that did not previously exist.
The holder base has institutionalised
Corporate treasuries, funds, exchanges, family offices, sovereign-linked developers and regulated brokers now hold digital assets on balance sheet as long-term positions rather than trading inventory. A long-term holder with a permanent position is precisely the profile that wants financing rather than a sale.
The infrastructure has matured.
Regulated prime brokers, purpose-built vault and verification infrastructure, and licensed swap dealers now exist in the same stack. It is possible to build a financing arrangement where every counterparty is a named, regulated entity and where the client can diligence each one independently before depositing anything.
The derivative market got deep enough to underwrite credit.
This is the decisive one. When the options market on an asset is liquid at an institutional size, the premium available from that market can be used to subsidize the cost of borrowing against it. Financing stops being purely a function of the funding curve and becomes a function of volatility which, in digital assets, is abundant.
That last point reframes the whole category. The first generation of crypto lending was overcollateralised borrowing with liquidation engines attached: fast, but fragile, and priced high because the lender was wearing all of the risk. The next generation prices the risk into a structure both sides agree to at the outset, and pays for the financing out of the asset's own volatility.
Where Bima Fits
Bima sits between the digital asset holder and the institutional derivative and prime brokerage markets, and does the work the holder cannot practically do alone.
Concretely, Bima:
Structures the collar. Sets the protection level and the level above which appreciation is shared, so the premium generated covers the financing cost. This is why the headline rate is 0%.
Executes the derivative leg institutionally. Options execution, premium generation, hedge management and portfolio-level risk control the part that requires a desk, not a dashboard.
Assembles the counterparties. Vault infrastructure from Accountable, capital and prime brokerage from FalconX, both named up front.
Administers the programme end to end. Term sheets, deposit, verification, release, settlement, rollover and reporting.
Quotes asset by asset. Deeper markets support larger amounts and longer terms; thinner ones support less. Terms reflect the asset's own liquidity rather than a single blanket policy.
Who this is built for
Treasuries and corporates holding a long-term digital asset position who need working capital without a disposal.
Funds and asset managers who want liquidity against a core holding while retaining the position and its mandate exposure.
Brokers, exchanges and lending desks who want to borrow at a subsidised cost, lend on to their own client base, and keep the spread including yen-denominated programmes for Japan-based books.
Enterprises and developers using a digital asset treasury to support financing for real-economy projects.
Bima is not a fit for every holder. If your view is that the asset will run far past the agreed level within the term, the honest answer is that you would do better holding it unencumbered. See The Trade-Off
Last updated