'Available to buy' is not the same as 'safe to own': the UK crypto wrapper and permissions problem

A practical guide to UK wrapper risk, platform permissions and client assumptions. What professionals should standardise before crypto becomes a complaint.

Introduction

Clients often assume that if something is available on a mainstream platform, it must be suitable, protected, and properly authorised. In crypto and crypto-linked products, that assumption is risky. Professionals need a clean way to explain a simple truth: Distribution does not equal protection.

Key takeaways

• Availability is not the same as suitability, authorisation, or protection. • 'Crypto-linked' products can carry risks clients do not recognise (counterparty exposure, wrapper complexity, access and transfer restrictions). • The professional role is to standardise due diligence questions and set expectations. • Bitzo supports the operational reality: documented holdings, access routes, and continuity, regardless of product wrapper.

What 'wrapper risk' looks like in the real world

In the UK market, clients may hold: • exchange accounts, • self-custody wallets, • structured products, • crypto-linked ETPs/ETNs (where available), • funds with indirect exposure. Each introduces different risks: • who holds what, • what the client actually owns (claim vs asset), • how transfer and liquidation works, • what happens on death, • what evidence exists.

The three assumption traps clients fall into

1) 'It's regulated because it's in my app' A trading app's UX can look identical whether you are buying a regulated share or a high-risk product with limited protections. 2) 'It's protected like my bank account' Clients frequently over-assume compensation schemes or complaint pathways. In crypto, the reality can be very different depending on structure. 3) 'My family can sort it out later' Wrappers do not remove the need for clear records, authority, and an execution plan.

Due diligence questions professionals should standardise

If your firm wants a repeatable approach, start with these: Product and counterparty • What is the product (spot crypto, derivative, ETN/ETP, fund exposure)? • Who is the counterparty and what is their role? • What protections exist (and what do not)? • What are the transfer/liquidation constraints? Access and continuity • Who controls the account credentials and 2FA? • Where are recovery codes stored? • What happens if the client is incapacitated? • What does the executor actually need to do? Records and evidence • Can the client produce a clean record of holdings and transactions? • Is there a structured list of platforms and identifiers? • Is there a review cadence?

Why this matters for Bitzo clients

Bitzo clients are not looking for market commentary. They want: • lower avoidable loss, • reduced family chaos, • a plan that works on the worst day, • and a professional process they can trust. Wrapper choice is only part of the story. Executability is the story.

Where Bitzo fits

Bitzo provides a non-custodial process that sits above wrapper selection: • document what exists, • map access routes, • create continuity plans, • reduce scam/impersonation risk, • make the estate pathway clearer. That is valuable whether a client holds spot crypto, an exchange balance, or a crypto-linked product. Related reading: Security, Inheritance, and For Advisers.