Client Stories
What corporate finance teams said after reserve planning sessions, allocation reviews, and briefings.
We needed a written reserve floor our board would accept. The sessions forced us to separate operating float from strategic stablecoin holdings — something our internal memo had blurred for months.
Hyejin K. — treasury lead, mid-market importer · Reserve Planning Engagement
The allocation matrix was useful, though we still argued about issuer caps afterward. At least the disagreement finally had numbers attached.
Marcus R. — corporate finance director · Capital Allocation Review
Our audit committee stopped asking vague “crypto risk” questions after the half-day briefing. They asked about redemption paths instead, which is exactly what we wanted.
Sora N. — CFO, regional logistics group · Treasury Desk Briefing
The structure audit found a venue our monthly pack had been omitting for two quarters. Awkward, but better found in a controlled review than in an external audit.
James L. — controller · Portfolio Structure Audit
Extended story: importer treasury, Jung-gu sessions
A Seoul-based importer held stablecoins for supplier settlement across three issuers. Operating balances and a longer-horizon reserve sat in the same wallet labels. Over five sessions at our Jung-gu desk and one visit to their finance floor, we rebuilt the reserve floor around thirty days of known outflows, capped any single issuer at 45% of strategic holdings, and documented a conversion path that named the banking counterparties already used for USD settlement.
The memorandum went to the board with a minority note from one director who preferred a lower issuer cap. The finance team adopted the floors as written and scheduled a capital allocation review six months later to revisit the caps with fresher settlement data.
Request a reserve review if your desk faces a similar documentation gap.