Jake Claver

Your investment committee does not have to believe in crypto to allocate to it

That is the sentence that gets most family offices unstuck

Because the thing stopping the allocation is almost never the asset

It is that nobody at the table knows who actually gets to decide

I have watched a committee of smart people, a sharp CIO, a trusted outside advisor, a family member with real deal experience, leave every meeting vaguely frustrated

The allocation never moved

Not because they hated the idea

Because three different people each thought the final call was theirs

That is a charter problem, not a conviction problem

Here is what a working investment committee charter settles before crypto ever comes up

Who sits on the committee, and which seat is the independent one that can say the awkward thing

What needs a simple majority, and what needs a 75% supermajority

Whether the founder keeps a veto, in writing, and when it can be used

Who records the vote, and where it lives

Once that exists, the digital asset decision gets boring, which is exactly what you want

The families doing this are not going all in. They are sizing a 10 to 20% sleeve, rebalancing on triggers instead of calendar dates, and treating it like any other alternative

The committee never had to fall in love with the asset

It just needed permission to make a decision

What is actually blocking your allocation, the asset or the governance around it