In late September 2026, multiple media outlets cited reports from The Block stating that a digital asset private credit fund targeting a scale of $300 million is being prepared for establishment. Hashed is entering as an anchor investor, betting on this new product initiated by Abu Dhabi investor Mohamed Hamdy and managed by Thoro Capital Management. Public information shows that this is not a simple "crypto version of a bank alternative": it targets the most challenging institutional financing gap today—on one side are traditional banks constrained by capital requirements and adopting a cautious stance towards digital assets, struggling to respond promptly to the credit needs of new-type institutions; on the other side is a crypto lending model that relies on a high ratio of over-collateralization, locking up on-chain assets in collateral warehouses, significantly reducing the capital efficiency for borrowers. The fund attempts to introduce a covenant-based underwriting and risk control framework that treats borrowers as operating enterprises, examining indicators such as financial status, cash flow, and management quality, and then issues loans in USD through on-chain settlement, aiming to create a new institutional credit channel in the gap between "where banks are unwilling to go" and "where crypto fails to perform well."
Who is the $300 million private credit targeting?
For the vast majority of digital asset institutions, financing channels have consistently been stuck between two thresholds: on one side are traditional banks constrained by capital requirements, which find it challenging to rapidly and significantly open up their exposures to such emerging institutions under regulatory and risk control frameworks; on the other side is the crypto-native lending system, where the mainstream model still involves high ratios or even excessive collateral, locking on-chain assets in mortgage warehouses in exchange for loans far less than the asset scale, with capital turnover efficiency being predetermined in the model. The result is that those who want to expand their teams, invest in research and development, or market themselves according to their business plans often have to rely on equity financing or internal cash flows, making it difficult to obtain meaningful operational credit.
Within this structural gap, this private credit fund with a target scale of $300 million does not merely aim to recreate a "crypto version of a bank pool," but attempts to transfer the covenant-based underwriting of traditional private credit to the on-chain settlement scenario: borrowers are viewed as operating enterprises, loans are denominated in USD, delivered via on-chain bookkeeping, using corporate financials, cash flow coverage ability, and management quality as indicators, rather than merely the collateral discount rate to determine limits. Public information only vaguely refers to the target borrowers as "digital asset institutions" and "institutional-level crypto enterprises," which may encompass trading-related companies or point toward infrastructure or service enterprises, but no specific industry tags, loan periods, interest rate structures, or even the initial list have been disclosed. Under this ambiguous definition, it remains to be seen which type of business and balance sheets this $300 million will actually flow into and is still regarded as a newly emerging institutional credit experimental channel that is not yet completely clear.
From over-collateralization to covenant-based risk control
If past mainstream lending in the crypto industry resembled a "pawnshop model"—where existing institutions generally require borrowers to provide high ratios or even far exceed principal in over-collateralization, thus placing risk almost entirely on the volatility of collateral and the liquidation mechanism—this fund aims to shift the perspective from "how much is pledged" to "what kind of operating company this is." Public materials clearly state that the fund adopts a covenant-based underwriting and risk control framework, no longer treating on-chain asset discount rates as the sole core, but instead evaluating borrowers as operating enterprises according to traditional private credit thinking, focusing on financial statements, free cash flow coverage capability, and the governance structure and performance history of the management.
This shift from over-collateralization to covenant terms directly targets two variables: one is capital efficiency, and the other is the range of serviceable subjects. Theoretically, as long as a company has stable cash flows, a healthy balance sheet, and controllable management, such covenant-based borrowing does not need to require a collateral ratio of 150% or even 200% outright, leading to an increase in capital utilization, while allowing those institutional-level crypto enterprises that do not have large amounts of on-chain collateral but have real business to gain access. However, compared to the mechanical rule of "automatic liquidation if the collateral falls below the threshold," covenant-based risk control means relying more on contractual terms, financial constraints, and post-event games, yet the specific terms and paths for handling defaults have not been disclosed, which means that on the other side of enhanced capital efficiency, both investors and borrowers face an entire new set of risk combinations involving information asymmetry, contract execution, and judicial environment.
Abu Dhabi capital meets Asian VC
The most prominent label in the capital stack of this credit fund is “Abu Dhabi + Asia.” Initiator Mohamed Hamdy stands on the Middle East capital side, taking on the role of establishing the fund and designing its fundraising structure; Hashed enters as an anchor investor, providing early subscriptions and confidence endorsement for this $300 million target product. On the surface, this is a typical "capital + experience" combination: the Middle East hopes to secure a spot in digital asset private credit but lacks long-term players who deeply engage with the crypto industry cycle and institutional network, while crypto VCs with an Asian background are more familiar with which institutional-level crypto enterprises truly have operational cash flows and are willing to explore locking in return curves through credit forms beyond equity investment.
Within this framework, Thoro Capital Management becomes a key component of actual execution. It must translate the blueprint envisioned by the initiator and anchor investors into specific covenant-based underwriting processes—how to interpret borrowers’ financial statements, how to balance credit limits between cash flow volatility and management quality, and how to handle defaults and restructurings under the premise of on-chain USD settlement. Public materials did not disclose Thoro’s management scale and past performance, meaning that, whether the capital from Abu Dhabi or the “industry perspective” from Asian VCs, it ultimately has to be amplified or discounted through a manager that has not been fully validated by the market. Whether the manager can navigate such a cross-regional, cross-asset class combination will directly determine how far this fund can go in the digital asset credit space.
Stablecoin settlement enters institutional credit
For this fund, the introduction of "on-chain USD" is primarily reflected in the lending pathway: funds are aggregated from contributors and settled and delivered on-chain via a USD-pegged token, but the borrowing enterprise ultimately receives a loan denominated in USD, settled within the traditional account system. This "on-chain settlement + off-chain USD disbursement" parallel structure inherently implies that there must be a conversion link between the on-chain address and traditional financial accounts, used to convert tokenized assets back to booked USD within the banking system. Public materials did not disclose which type of token was specifically adopted, on which network it operated, nor were there any known addresses or initial loan records available for verification; currently, what can be confirmed externally is more of a design framework rather than operational samples.
From the perspective of institutional credit, this design essentially embeds on-chain payment infrastructure into the private credit process, compressing inter-institutional fund transfers that originally required multiple intermediaries into a single on-chain transaction, while the conversion link connects to the USD account. On one hand, this is expected to reduce settlement friction for both lending parties at the operational level, allowing digital asset institutions to receive and return funds in a familiar on-chain environment while still accounting in USD, thus minimizing the impact on statements and tax processing; on the other hand, compliance requirements may become more complex: regulators typically only cover the entities on the USD account side directly, with no public explanations on how to identify beneficial owners and penetrate cross-chain and multi-signature structures on the on-chain segment. For borrowers, this model may provide a more efficient fund arrival experience but might also come with additional compliance disclosure and technical access costs. Whether it can ultimately be regarded as a "friendly" credit tool will depend on the actual feedback from the first batch of lending cases as they land in different jurisdictions.
Can the $300 million fund leverage a new cycle?
In the global digital asset credit landscape, a target size of $300 million does not claim to change the game rules, but at a stage where financing channels are tightened and many institutions are forced to shrink their balance sheets, this "medium scale + clear risk control experimental goals" product feels more like a sample project under enhanced scrutiny. What it aims to verify is not only whether covenant-based underwriting is feasible in an on-chain environment but also whether the entire settlement and compliance path of settling with stablecoins and lending to digital asset institutions can run smoothly. Currently, the fund has only disclosed the $300 million target scale and has not announced Hashed's contribution ratio, the composition of other LPs, nor any completed lending and default handling cases. Whether it can catalyze a larger imitation effect largely depends on three variables: first, whether fundraising can be completed as expected and closed smoothly; second, the pace of lending and the quality of the asset portfolio, especially the performance of the first batch of borrowers; third, the feedback from different jurisdictions regarding its registration location, licensing, and on-chain settlement pathways. The evolution of these three dimensions will determine whether this fund becomes a textbook example or is categorized as an attempt that stops at the experimental stage.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
