2019 Crypto Hedge
Fund ReportContents

2 | PwC & Elwood

Introduction to Crypto Hedge Fund report3

Investment Data

4

Report Data

4

Market Analysis

4

Assets Under Management (AuM)

5

Fees

6

Strategy Insights

7

Fund Performance

8

Non-Investment Data

10

Custody

10Team Expertise

11

Governance

12Counterparty Risk

13

Valuation and Fund Administration

14

Legal and Regulatory

15

About PwC & Elwood

16Introduction to
Crypto Hedge
Fund report
This report provides an overview of the global crypto hedge fund landscape and offers insights into quantitative elements suchas liquidity terms and performance, as well as qualitative aspects such as best practice with respect to custody and governance.
By sharing these insights with the broader crypto industry, the goal of this report is to encourage sound practices that can be
adopted by market participants as the ecosystem matures.
The data contained in this report comes from research that was conducted in Q1 2019 across 100 of the largest global crypto
hedge funds by assets under management (AuM). This report specifically focuses on crypto hedge funds and excludes data from
crypto index funds and crypto venture capital funds.

Key Takeaways:
Size of the Market and AuM:

Fund Strategy and Location:•

We estimate that there are 150 active crypto hedge funds
collectively managing US$1bn AuM (excluding crypto
index funds and crypto venture capital funds) 1•

36% of funds surveyed use or can use leverage and 74%
can take short positions••

Over 60% of these funds have less than US$10m in AuM
with fewer than 10% managing over US$50m

Of the funds surveyed, 44% pursue discretionary
strategies, 37% quant and 19% fundamental••

The average crypto hedge fund AuM as of Q1 2019 is
US$21.9 million•

The median AuM of funds as of Q1 2019 (US$4.3m) is 3X
that of the median AuM at fund launch (US$1.2m January 2018), which indicates that funds have been
relatively successful at fundraising despite difficult market
conditions

Funds tend to be domiciled in the same jurisdictions as
traditional hedge funds, with the top three jurisdictions forthe fund entity being the Cayman Islands (55%), theUnited States (17%) and the British Virgin Islands (BVI)
(13%)

•

The majority of crypto hedge fund managers tend to be
based in the United States (64%)

Experience and Governance:

Performance and Fees:•

52% of funds use an independent custodian, yet only 25%
have independent directors on their board•

The median fund returned -46% in 2018 vs a Bitcoin
benchmark of -72%•

The average size of fund team is 7-8 people••

Typical crypto fund investment professionals have
between 3-4 years of investment management experience

In 2018, the median fundamental fund returned -53%,
discretionary fund -63% and quant fund +8%•

The average fees for crypto hedge funds are 1.72%
management fee and 23.5% performance fee

1. Total AuM is an estimate from conversations with fund managers.

We believe that it represents a good estimate of the total crypto fundAuM
2019 Crypto Hedge Fund Report | 3

Investment
Data
Report Data

Market Analysis

The data contained in this report comes from research thatwas conducted in Q1 2019 by Elwood Asset Management
across 100 of the largest global crypto hedge funds byassets under management (AUM), combined with qualitative
inputs from PwC’s crypto team based on sound practices
observed with crypto hedge funds and other industry
participants.

Our data shows that crypto hedge funds broadly operate
across three different fund strategies: Fundamental,
Discretionary and Quantitative.

This report specifically focuses on crypto hedge funds that
we define as being active investment managers who
invest/trade in liquid, public cryptocurrencies and/or invest in
early stage cryptocurrency projects through Simple
Agreement for Future Tokens (SAFTs) and other
instruments.
This report does not include:•

Crypto index funds; and•Crypto venture capital funds (making equity type
investments).

Please note that of the 100 crypto hedge funds surveyed,
there is an inherent element of survivorship bias as thereport only includes crypto hedge funds that were in
operation in Q1 2019. Crypto hedge funds that were forced
to shut down prior to this date due to the difficult market
conditions of 2018 have been excluded.
In addition, please note that the data provided in this report,
including performance data, has not been verified by anindependent fund administrator or other third party, butrather was provided by the crypto hedge fund managers
directly.

Proportion of strategies used by crypto hedge funds*

19%
Fundamental

44%

37%
Quant

Discretionary*By number of funds sampled

Fundamental: Funds which are long only and whose
investors have a longer investment horizon. These funds
tend to invest in early stage token projects, usually throughSAFTs or similar agreement deals, and they also buy andhold more liquid cryptocurrencies. These funds tend to havethe longest lock-up periods for investors at 12 months with a90-day notice period on average.
Discretionary: Funds which cover a broad range ofstrategies including: long/short, relative value, event driven,technical analysis and some strategies which are cryptospecific, such as ‘generalised mining’.2 Discretionary funds
often have hybrid strategies which can include investing inearly stage projects. They tend to have a similar lock-up
period to the fundamental bucket at 12 months and a 30-day
notice period.
Quantitative: Funds taking a quantitative approach to themarket in either a directional or a market neutral manner.
Indicative strategies include: market-making, arbitrage andlow latency trading. Liquidity is key for these strategies andlimits these funds to trade only the most liquid
cryptocurrencies. As a result, these funds typically have theshortest lock-up periods for investors at 6 months with a 30day notice period on average.
2 Generalised mining describes the practice of actively participating incryptocurrency networks in order to generate returns. These activities
range from Proof-of-Work mining to staking coins, validating nodes, etc.
4 | PwC & Elwood

Assets Under Management
The number of crypto hedge funds has significantly
increased in the last three years as the asset class has
begun to mature. Despite this, public information on the fundlandscape remains scarce and existing data is often
inaccurate. Our analysis suggests that claims such as ‘over
350 cryptocurrency hedge funds exist’ may be anoverstatement.3 These metrics are typically compiled using
web-scraping methods rather than relying on data gatheredfrom crypto hedge funds directly, which is the approachtaken for this report.

The average AuM of the funds we surveyed was US$21.9
million. However, this number is skewed by several large
funds, and therefore it is more appropriate to look at themedian AuM, at US$4.3 million.
The median AuM at fund launch was US$1.2 million and the
median launch date was January 2018, which indicates thatthe funds surveyed have been relatively successful infundraising, especially considering that the Bitwise 10 index
has fallen ~75% over this period.4 This also applies tomarket-neutral funds, since none of them have returned a 3x
gain in this period and so these funds must have raised
fresh outside capital.

We estimate that there are actually only around 150 active
crypto hedge funds, which collectively hold around US$1
billion assets under management today. This excludes
crypto index funds and crypto venture capital funds.

When it comes to AuM, we can see below that the
distribution of AuM in crypto hedge funds follows a similar
pattern to traditional hedge funds. A few large funds
manage a large proportion of the total AuM, with a long tailof smaller funds.

Percentage of funds

Distribution of crypto hedge
fund AuM
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

2.50

AuM (US$m)

While this report did not set out to cover the entire crypto
fund universe, our analysis suggests that the crypto hedge
fund universe is much smaller than previously reported andso as a result we believe that this report does in fact capture
the majority of the crypto hedge fund universe as of Q1
2019.

Crypto hedge fund launch AuM(Median)
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

US$3.6m
Average fund AuM at launch

US$1.2m
Median fund AuM at launch

US$21.9m
Average fund current AuM

US$4.3m
Median fund current AuM

22/10/2017
Average fund launch date

08/01/2018

Over 60% of crypto hedge
funds have less than US$10
million in AuM.

Median fund launch date

3 https://cryptofundresearch.com/cryptocurrency-funds-overview-

infographic/
4 https://www.bitwiseinvestments.com/indexes/Bitwise-10

2019 Crypto Hedge Fund Report | 5

Fees
Unsurprisingly, our data shows that investor interest peaked
during the crypto bull market of 2017. Funds that launchedin H1 2018 were therefore raising capital during the bull run
and consequently had the highest median fund launch, at
US$2.25m AuM. In contrast, the second half of 2018 was achallenging fundraising environment. Launches in 2019
have a smaller median launch AuM of US$650,000. It will
be interesting to see if the recent uptick in cryptocurrency
prices in April 2019 will be matched by new subscriptions
into crypto hedge funds as market sentiment begins to turnmore positive.
The median fees charged by the crypto hedge funds wesurveyed are 2% management fee and a 20% performancefee, as stated in their Private Placement Memorandums(PPMs). Therefore, if the median crypto fund manages
US$4 million and charges a 2% management fee they have
US$80,000 in annual revenue. This is unlikely to be
sufficient to sustain a business operation, especiallyconsidering that the median fund has six employees whoneed to be paid.5

Average Crypto Hedge Fund Fees
(2018)
Average
Management
Fees

Average
PerformanceFees

All funds

1.72%

23.5%

Fundamental fund

1.75%

22.8%

Discretionary fund

1.76%

23.2%

Quant fund

1.57%

26.8%

As a result, some funds are exploring ways to increase theirincome in order to cover costs. For example, we have seen
quant funds diversify their approach and start market
making, and early-stage focussed funds take on advisory
roles for new projects. Other funds remain focused on theircore strategy and hope to cover costs via the performancefee. However, in a market which has collapsed ~75% this isperhaps a risky approach to take and may not be the mostviable long-term strategy. Other funds are seeking to raise
additional capital by selling stakes in their General Partner(GP).

Median crypto hedge fund fees
(2018):
2.00% management fees
20.00% performance fees

Despite difficult market
conditions, the median crypto
hedge fund grew its AUM 3X in
2018.
5 Assuming a high water mark, no performance fees and that the

management company manages only one fund

6 | PwC & Elwood

Crypto Hedge Fund Strategy Insights
Use of leverage permitted?

36%

Yes

64%

No

Can take short positions?

74%
26%

Yes
No

As the cryptocurrency market has matured, more and more
funds which take a quantitative approach have launched.
This has been aided by the development of the lending
market, thus allowing these funds to take short positions
and utilise market-neutral and a variety of other strategies.
Indeed, 86% of the quantitative funds surveyed have theability to take short positions, compared to 80% of
discretionary funds. As per our definition, fundamental funds
are long only and cannot take short positions.
However, this data is more nuanced. Although many of thediscretionary fund managers say that they can take shortpositions and it is permitted in their PPM documents, someof them have never taken short positions and do not
anticipate doing so. In many cases, these funds have notbuilt the infrastructure and Over-The-Counter (OTC)
relationships in order to borrow cryptocurrencies and put on
short positions. Therefore this 80% figure is likely lower inpractice for discretionary managers. As using short positions
is a key tool for risk management, it may be in the funds’interests to make their PPMs as permissive as possible.

When it comes to the use of leverage by crypto hedge
funds, the opposite case can be argued. Of the funds
surveyed only 36% use, or are permitted to use, leverageand so it appears that crypto fund managers are willing to
restrict themselves in this regard. However, it is unclear if
fund managers have chosen not to use leverage on an
already volatile asset class due to investor concerns, or
because the cryptocurrency derivatives market is still so
nascent and therefore the use of synthetic leverage fromfutures and options has not yet fully developed.
From our conversations with fund managers, it does seemthat the answer is roughly split 50:50 between these two
reasons. This is combined with the fact that some of thelargest crypto futures exchanges are not open to persons
located in the United States, which is where the majority ofcrypto hedge funds are based. So, in order to trade on theseexchanges and employ leverage, funds based in the UnitedStates would have to create a non-US fund entity, which
would incur additional set-up costs.

2019 Crypto Hedge Fund Report | 7

Fund Performance
2018 was a challenging year in crypto markets, with Bitcoin
down 72%. The median crypto fund returned -46%, which inabsolute terms is a poor return for investors and highlights
the extremely volatile and high risk nature of this asset
class.
However, the majority of the managers we surveyed use
Bitcoin as their benchmark. Therefore, it can be argued thatthese managers did manage to outperform their benchmark
and add some alpha. With a beta coefficient of 0.82 to
Bitcoin, the median fund’s returns are closely linked to the
movement in the price of Bitcoin.
If we drill down further, and segment these funds into theirrespective buckets, we can extract more useful insights.
The median quantitative fund returned 8% in 2018.
Meanwhile, the median fundamental fund returned -53%
and the median discretionary fund returned -63% in 2018.

2018 Media Crypto Fund
Performance: -46%
2018 Bitcoin Performance: -72%

8 | PwC & Elwood

The outperformance of the fundamental funds relative to thediscretionary funds in 2018 was due to the fact that thesefunds had invested a larger proportion of their assets into
Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and early stage projects. These
funds managed to exit some of these positions in the firsthalf of 2018 and profit from the outsized returns.
Discretionary managers had generally less exposure to
ICOs and so missed out on these returns.
The median fundamental and discretionary funds had arelatively high beta to Bitcoin, at 0.75 and 0.74 respectively,
whereas the median quantitative fund had a massively
negative beta of -2.33.
Please note that all performance data was self-reported byeach crypto hedge fund that we surveyed and that this data
has not been verified by their respective fund administrators.

2018 Return

Beta

Median all funds

-46%

0.82

Median fundamental fund

-53%

0.75

Median discretionary fund

-63%

0.74

Median quant fund

+8%

-2.33

Bitcoin

-72%

1.00

Median 2018 crypto hedge fund return
20%
10%
0%

2018 Return

-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%

Median quantMedian fundamental

Median discretionary

Bitcoin2019 Crypto Hedge Fund Report | 9

Non-Investment

Data
CustodyType of custody approach used by crypto hedge funds:

52%

External custodian

48%

Self-custody

Our data suggests that there is an equal split between selfcustody and the use of external custodians — either third
party or exchange custodians.
Encouragingly, fund managers reported to us that they are
implementing sound practices with respect to private key
management and segregation of duties. These should
hopefully mitigate the inherent risks associated with thesafekeeping of digital assets.
In addition, an increasing number of custodians are
becoming regulated and able to get insurance coverage.
Others are looking at obtaining System and Organisation
Controls (SOC) reports, which provide a level oftransparency around internal controls for existing andprospective customers.

52% of crypto hedge funds
reported using an independent
custodian.

10 | PwC & Elwood

Despite this progress, we still have not seen the large‘traditional’ custodians have a live offering for the crypto
space. The entry of such players would provide institutional
investors with the level of comfort they require when writing
large ticket sizes worth hundreds of millions or billions ofdollars. Recent announcements by some of the traditional
financial services providers that they plan to expand into thedigital asset custody space may be a game changer when
their offerings become more widespread and available to all.
In the traditional fund management space, using an
independent third-party custodian is expected and there area large number of established players, from licensed
custodians to prime brokers, who can take custody of fundassets. This is not as straightforward in the crypto space,given the realities of public and private keys — which is why
many crypto fund managers often use multi-signatory
wallets, hot/cold wallet set-ups or other innovative ways tohold the private keys of the fund’s crypto assets. In addition
to hacking risks, holding private keys may also raise
regulatory concerns in some jurisdictions where regulations
forbid a manager from directly holding client assets. For
funds using such a self-custody approach, having the inhouse tech and cyber expertise to design and monitor theself custody set-up is also very important.
Most institutional investors will raise these issues as part oftheir operational due diligence, and it is important for acrypto fund manager to have thought through these issues
and have proper controls and risk frameworks in place.
While there is no perfect fix to this custody problem yet, thegood news is that many players globally are now working on
it and we expect to continue to see solutions come tomarket in the short and medium term.

Team Expertise

7.5

6

Average team size

Median team size

Cumulative
average years ofteam investment
management
experience

Cumulative
median years ofteam investment
management
experience24

20

Use third party research?
Typical crypto hedge fundinvestment professionalhas between 3-4 years ofinvestment management
experience.

While our research shows that the size of the average
crypto hedge fund team is 7 to 8 people, the cumulative
average investment management experience is 24 years.
This may indicate that an increasing number of experienced
investment professionals are moving into the crypto asset
space. Having an investment team with ‘traditional’ asset
management experience will likely give not only investors,
but also regulators, greater comfort as they seek to absorb
the regulation of digital assets into existing frameworks orcreate bespoke frameworks. Non-investment professionals
will also be key, as an experienced Chief Operating Officer(COO) or Head of Compliance with years of experience inthe ‘traditional’ asset management world will be well-versed
in applicable rules and regulations and the importance ofinvestor protection. Due to the particular nature of crypto
assets, having a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) with astrong tech background may be very useful.

7%
93%

Yes
No

Only 7% of the crypto hedge funds in our universe use third
party research. This could be because proprietary valuation
models are relied upon and many funds conduct their own
research. Furthermore, given how nascent the asset classis, very few dedicated crypto research providers currently
exist.

Over 90% of crypto hedge funds
do not use third party research.

We expect many more ‘traditional’ asset management
professionals to join crypto hedge funds in the short andmedium term as the space continues to ‘institutionalise’ andgrow.

2019 Crypto Hedge Fund Report | 11Governance
Percentage of crypto hedge fund boards withindependent directors

25%
75%

Yes
No

Only 25% of crypto hedge fundboards have independent
directors.

The majority (75%) of funds do not have independent
directors on their boards. Corporate governance is an
important issue and most traditional funds today have
independent directors. One reason may be the lack of
directors with the relevant level of crypto expertise.
This is critical, especially when difficult decisions need to bemade that will impact investors, such as whether a side
pocket needs to be set up to hold certain assets or whether
some restrictions need to be imposed on investor
redemptions. These issues are likely to be even more
relevant when dealing in crypto assets which are volatile orrelatively illiquid.
Having the portfolio managers also control the board of thefund may work for ‘friends and family’ type funds, but it isunlikely that an institutional investor will invest in a fundwhich does not have proper governance.
Having independent directors on the board of the fund isseen as an accepted fund expense. We expect crypto
hedge funds to focus increasingly on fund governance as
they look to raise capital from institutional investors.

12 | PwC & Elwood

Counterparty Risk
Crypto hedge fund strategies

37%

Quant

19%

Fundamental

44%

Discretionary

Use of leverage allowed?

36%

Yes

64%

No

Short positions allowed?

74%
26%

Yes
No

Each crypto hedge fund requires a different level ofsophistication in their custody process depending on theirinvestment strategy. For example, a long only fund whichseeks to pick winners in the space by investing in individual
coins and early stage projects will need a secure cold
storage custody solution as it seeks to hold these assets fora long time. Alternatively, a quantitative fund which trades ata very high frequency might have no need for a cold storage
solution because its strategy requires it to keep all crypto
assets on an exchange. In such instances, counterparty risk
monitoring of such crypto exchanges becomes
fundamentally important.
For fundamental and discretionary fund managers, custodyis likely to be a very important part of the operational due
diligence process for investors. Having clearly defined cold
storage or third party custodian solutions with clear internal
guidelines on its governance and controls becomes
fundamental. Questions regarding existing insurance
coverage levels and scope are also likely to come up in suchinvestor discussions.
If your crypto fund trading strategy requires leaving
substantial assets at exchanges, having a propercounterparty risk framework with constant monitoring is key.
This may involve strategies such as using numerous
exchanges, limiting the maximum exposure to one
exchange at any point and conducting regular counterparty
risk assessments on these exchanges.
Institutional investors will likely focus on this area as part oftheir operational due diligence. It is therefore very important
if a fund intends to target that investor base.

2019 Crypto Hedge Fund Report | 13

Valuation and Fund Administration

Our data shows the median redemption term for a crypto
hedge fund is quarterly with 30 days’ notice and a 12 monthlock-up period. This is in line with the liquidity of similar
hedge funds in the ‘traditional’ world.
Most funds will have their valuation methodologies andframeworks set out in the PPM. It is important for any fundto ensure that it complies with what is set out in such
documentation. Management fees are determined based on
Net Asset Value (NAV) and performance fees are typicallycharged on appreciation in NAV over a set period e.g.
above a ‘high water mark’.
Independent valuation is key in order to verify fundperformance and to give investors, particularly institutional
investors, peace of mind that their assets are being properly
valued. Having a detailed and rigorous valuation policy that
determines the process and the related checks andbalances on valuation is vital.
Investors expect a monthly NAV to be available and verified
by an independent, reputable fund administrator.
Cryptocurrency exchanges can provide independent pricequotes for certain crypto assets. But for those portfolios
made up of less liquid cryptoassets, managers may have tosource a valuation from an independent third party which
satisfies the requirements set-out in the PPM.

Today there are only a limited number of fund administrators
servicing the crypto space. But this looks set to change overthe coming months as the industry matures and some of themore established players become more comfortable withcrypto assets and decide to move into
this space.
However, being able to accurately value a crypto fundremains challenging. This is particularly true for funds that
hold illiquid tokens or crypto investments via SAFTs. There
are also details that are important for funds trading some of
the more liquid crypto assets such as: what is the cut-off
time for valuation (crypto markets don’t sleep) or how many
and which price source to use (the same crypto asset may
be priced differently at different exchanges globally). The
recent PwC publication on accounting considerations forcrypto assets could be a useful guide, as well as the Guide
to Sound Practices for the Valuation of Investments
published by the Alternative Investment Management
Association (AIMA).
Currently there is a lack of ‘traditional’ fund administrators in
the crypto asset space and most funds use relatively small
fund administrators for NAV calculations. As an
independently verified NAV is crucial information for thefund auditor as well as investors, we expect to see moredevelopments in this area as these functions ‘institutionalise’further.

Average Crypto Hedge Fund Redemption
Terms by Strategy (2018)14 | PwC & Elwood

Redemption
frequency

Redemption
NoticePeriodLock-up
PeriodFundamental funds

Quarterly

90 days

12 months

Discretionary funds

Quarterly

30 days

12 months

Quantitative funds

Monthly

30 days

6 months

Legal and Regulatory
Where is the crypto hedge fund managementcompany located?

Where is the crypto hedge fund domiciled?

64%

55%

US

20%

CaymanCayman

17%

US

5%

Singapore

13%

4%Luxembourg

4%

Monaco2.5%

Liechtenstein

2%

Luxembourg

2.5%

BVI

2%

Liechtenstein

2.5%

Australia

2%

Jersey (Channel Islands)

2%

Australia

2%

Malta

Majority of crypto hedge fundmanagers seem to be based in
the United States.

Crypto hedge funds tend to be
domiciled in the same
jurisdictions as traditional
hedge funds.

BVI

When it comes to the investment management teamand fund jurisdiction, our data is consistent withlocations typically used by hedge funds, (e.g.
Delaware, Cayman).This may simply be due to the factthat these jurisdictions are familiar with traditional
hedge fund managers, their legal counsel and theirearly investors.
The same is true when it comes to the jurisdiction of
the fund manager. The majority of crypto fundmanagers seem to be based in the United States.
However, please note that this data should beinterpreted with caution as it looks at the jurisdiction of
the investment manager that entered into a contractual
agreement with the fund. In many cases theinvestment manager that is legally contracted with thefund may be located in an offshore jurisdiction (e.g.
Cayman Islands) but the team is physically located in
an onshore jurisdiction (e.g. Singapore, Hong Kong).

2019 Crypto Hedge Fund Report | 15

AboutPwC
About PwC:At PwC, our purpose is to build trust in society and solve important problems. We are a network of firms in 158 countries withmore than 250,000 people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, advisory and tax services.
The PwC Global Crypto team is composed of over 150 professionals active in over 25 countries that offer a “one stop shop”
solution for our crypto clients across our multiple lines of service. Our clients range from crypto exchanges, crypto funds andICOs/STOs to traditional financial institutions moving into the crypto space, as well as national regulators with regards to theircrypto policies.

Henri ArslanianDuncan Fitzgerald

Lucy GazmararianHong Kong

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Henri.Arslanian@hk.pwc.com

Duncan.fitzgerald@hk.pwc.com

Lucy.gazmararian@hk.pwc.com

Adrian Keller

Brian Rando

Chikako Suzuki

Switzerland

Cayman Islands

Japanadrian.keller@ch.pwc.com

brian.rando@pwc.com

chikako.suzuki@pwc.com

Daniel Diemers

Guenther Dobrauz

Henrik Olsen

Switzerland

Switzerland

Swedendaniel.diemers@strategyand.pwc.com

guenther.dobrauz@ch.pwc.com

Henrik.olsson@pwc.com

Isabel Gumeyi

Luke Walsh

Manoj Kashyap

Cayman Islands

Gibraltar

United States

isabel.y.gumeyi@pwc.com

luke.walsh@gi.pwc.com

Manoj.k.kashyap@pwc.com

Michael Delano

Olwyn Alexander

Steve Davis

Luxembourg

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

michael.delano@pwc.com

olwyn.m.alexander@ie.pwc.com

steve.t.davies@pwc.com

Thomas Campione
Luxembourg
thomas.campione@pwc.com
16 | PwC & Elwood

AboutElwoodAbout Elwood:
Elwood is an investment firm established in 2018 which specialises in digital assets. The team at Elwood combines aninstitutional heritage in finance with a deep knowledge of blockchain technology to create breakthrough products for global
investors.
In March 2019 Elwood launched its first product, the Elwood Blockchain Global Equity Index, which offers investors exposure to
the growth in the blockchain ecosystem via a highly liquid and regulated vehicle. Find out more at www.elwoodam.com
Elwood Asset Management Services Limited (FRN 823616) is an Appointed Representative of MJ Hudson Advisers Limited(FRN 692447), which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Will Bowen

Alexi Esmail-Yakas

Investment Analyst

Head of ProductWill.bowen@elwoodam.com

Alexi.esmail-yakas@elwoodam.com

2019 Crypto Hedge Fund Report | 17

pwchk.com

This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.
© 2019 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity.
Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. HK-20190409-1-C1