Nash (including its MiCA-regulated entities) is committed to transparency and investor protection. While we operate robust compliance, security, and risk-management frameworks, engaging with crypto-assets involves risks that cannot be fully eliminated. This disclosure summarizes material risks associated with assets and services accessible via Nash. It is not exhaustive and does not replace your own due diligence or professional advice (tax, legal, investment).
Important: The quality and completeness of asset disclosures can materially affect outcomes. Where projects lack a MiCA-compliant whitepaper or substitute it with other materials, risks increase.
Crypto-assets can experience rapid, unpredictable price swings due to speculation, liquidity shocks, macro events, protocol incidents, or regulatory news. Sudden market moves can result in total loss of invested capital. If the asset’s documentation lacks MiCA-level risk factors, investors may underestimate volatility drivers.
Shallow order books and low volumes can cause large price impact, partial fills, or inability to exit positions. Tokens with thin markets and limited disclosure often carry higher liquidity uncertainty.
If your base currency (e.g., EUR) differs from the asset denomination (e.g., USD), conversions can turn nominal gains into losses. This risk is frequently under-described in non-standard materials.
Overexposure to a single asset, sector, or protocol magnifies drawdown risk. Undisclosed insider unlocks, vesting terms, or treasury sales can intensify concentration effects when not fully documented.
Stablecoins can lose their peg due to reserve issues, algorithmic failure, market stress, or regulatory actions, causing permanent value impairment. Disclosures that omit reserve mechanics or attestation cadence heighten this risk.
During volatility or on illiquid venues, fills can deviate significantly from quoted prices. Information asymmetry about liquidity sources or MEV exposure may worsen execution outcomes.
Rewards from staking, lending, or “earn” products are variable and not guaranteed. Methodologies and inputs (e.g., validator performance, borrower mix) should be clearly disclosed; where they aren’t, tail-risk is higher.
Tokens with uncapped or flexible supply can dilute holders. If issuance schedules or governance levers aren’t transparent or MiCA-compliant, dilution risk rises.
Assets may be listed or removed due to market, legal, or disclosure considerations. Where whitepapers are non-MiCA or replaced by informal/technical sites, the probability of future restrictions or delistings may be higher.
Even audited contracts can contain exploitable bugs. If security assumptions, audits, or admin key controls are not fully disclosed or independently verifiable, risk increases.
Forks, 51% attacks, censorship, congestion, or validator failures can disrupt settlement, cause reorgs, or delay withdrawals.
Self-custody users are fully responsible for private keys; loss/theft is irreversible. If a project’s docs understate operational key risks (e.g., multisig thresholds, upgrade keys), users may misjudge exposure.
Phishing, SIM-swap, malware, exchange or wallet compromises can lead to asset loss. Informal or promotional sites may lack robust security disclosures, raising user exposure.
Protocol upgrades (hard/soft forks) and client diversity issues may introduce incompatibilities or unexpected behavior. Where upgrade governance and roll-back plans are opaque, users face greater uncertainty.
Custodians, validators, or cloud providers may suffer outages or insolvency. If counterparties and dependency maps aren’t clearly documented, risk is harder to assess.
Public ledgers expose transaction histories; linking identities can increase targeted-attack risk. Non-standard disclosures often omit privacy architecture or threat models.
Developers can withdraw liquidity or abandon projects, leaving tokens worthless. Marketing-only materials may mask red flags.
Low-float or thinly traded tokens are susceptible to manipulation. Opaque token distribution and unlocks elevate this risk.
Large insider holdings or uneven distribution can trigger sharp declines upon unlocks or sales. Where cap tables/vesting aren’t MiCA-standard, information asymmetry increases.
Borrowers or custodians may default or become insolvent. If credit frameworks and collateral practices are insufficiently disclosed, recovery prospects worsen.
Failures at key market nodes (exchanges, stablecoin issuers, custodians, major protocols) can cascade across assets. Sparse or non-compliant disclosures can impair early warning signals.
Rules governing crypto-assets are developing. Services or tokens may be restricted, require new approvals, or become unavailable.
What’s permitted in one jurisdiction may be restricted in another; users are responsible for local compliance.
Under MiCA, issuers must publish whitepapers meeting strict standards on governance, token economics, rights/obligations, and risks. Many projects (especially extra-EU or pre-MiCA) use materials that do not meet these standards, or substitute them with other sources:
Incomplete or Misleading Information
Substitution with Non-Standard Materials
Legal and Regulatory Uncertainty
Heightened Due Diligence
Asymmetric Information
Bottom line: Substituting or lacking a MiCA-compliant whitepaper materially increases risks related to misunderstanding, misinformation, and enforceability. Exercise enhanced caution and assume higher uncertainty.
In some jurisdictions, smart contracts may not confer clear, enforceable rights; remedies can be limited (see §4.3 on information sufficiency).
Transactions may trigger taxable events (income, capital gains, VAT). Evolving rules and limited disclosures can complicate tax analysis.
Users should review custodian disclosures; where non-standard, factor higher risk.
Energy-intensive consensus (e.g., PoW) may face restrictions or societal pushback, affecting availability/pricing. Projects with sparse environmental disclosures add uncertainty.
Negative publicity, investigations, or leadership issues can erode trust. Limited or selective communications can exacerbate sudden value shifts.
Cross-chain bridges and wrapped assets depend on complex trust/validator models. If bridge security and governance aren’t rigorously documented, catastrophic loss risk rises.
Forked assets may be unsupported or illiquid. If support policies aren’t disclosed in MiCA-grade docs, assets may become stranded.
Crypto transactions are typically irreversible. Mis-sent funds, weak credentials, or lack of 2FA can permanently compromise assets. Non-standard materials often underemphasize user-opsec.
Nash does not provide financial, investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Asset availability is not a recommendation. You are solely responsible for determining suitability in light of your objectives, financial situation, and risk tolerance. Where disclosures are non-MiCA or substituted, apply enhanced scrutiny.
Crypto-asset participation entails substantial risk, including loss of all invested capital. Risk levels increase when asset information is non-MiCA compliant or substituted by informal or technical sources. Conduct independent due diligence and consult qualified advisors before engaging.
Neon Exchange Aktiengesellschaft is a partner of Modulr Finance B.V., a company registered in the Netherlands with company number 81852401, which is authorised and regulated by the Dutch Central Bank (DNB) as an Electronic Money Institution (Firm Reference Number: R182870) for the issuance of electronic money and payment services. Your account and related payment services are provided by Modulr Finance B.V. Your funds will be held in one or more segregated accounts and safeguarded in line with the Financial Supervision Act – for more information, please see this link
Your card is issued by Modulr Finance B.V. pursuant to a license by Visa Europe. Visa and the Visa brand mark are registered trademarks of Visa Europe.