For long-term Bitcoin holders, the hardest decision is almost never whether to buy. It’s whether to sell. Selling at the wrong moment has historically been one of the most expensive mistakes in the asset class. Holders who capitulated in 2018, 2020, or 2022 missed significant rallies that followed. Many of those sales were not driven by conviction. They were driven by a need for liquidity that the rest of the portfolio couldn’t meet.
A Bitcoin-backed loan offers an alternative for borrowers who need AUD but believe BTC has further to run. The collateral stays in place. The borrower continues to hold the full position. If the thesis plays out, the upside is theirs. The borrower also needs to be honest about the scenario where it doesn’t play out, and what that means for the loan structure.
Where it fits
High-conviction holders needing liquidity. Borrowers who believe BTC has meaningful upside ahead and don’t want to sell at today’s price. The loan provides the AUD they need now while the BTC remains pledged but not sold.
Holders avoiding the re-entry problem. Anyone who has sold BTC and tried to buy back knows the difficulty. The price rarely comes back to where you sold. For borrowers without the discipline or risk appetite to time re-entry, simply not selling in the first place removes the problem.
Bridging a liquidity need across a cycle. For a holder expecting a specific future liquidity event (a business sale, an inheritance, a maturing investment), a Bitcoin-backed loan can bridge the gap without selling the BTC position that they expect to mature alongside it.
Holders who have already seen the cost of selling early. For borrowers who have historically sold into prior drawdowns and regretted it, the value of simply not selling can be meaningful. A Bitcoin-backed loan removes the forced-seller dynamic from the decision.
A conversation from the desk
Chantra Hang recently spoke with a borrower based on the Gold Coast who needed around $150,000 in AUD for a home renovation. He had been a Bitcoin holder since 2019 and was, in his words, "not interested in being the guy who sells his BTC to build a kitchen."
"His view on Bitcoin was clear," Chantra said. "He thought the next few years would matter, and he didn’t want to exit a position he’d built over half a decade to fund a renovation that was never going to be the best use of the asset."
The conversation walked through the Vield structure in detail. The loan-to-value ratio, the collateral required, the interest rate, the loan term, and how the structure responds to movement in BTC during the period. Chantra was explicit that maintaining upside exposure is a feature of the loan, not a guarantee of outcome.
"I never tell a borrower what BTC is going to do," Chantra said. "I tell them what the loan does if BTC goes up, what it does if BTC stays flat, and what it does if BTC goes down. Then we talk about whether they can sit with all three scenarios. If they can’t sit with the third one, we don’t do the loan."
The borrower proceeded with a conservative loan-to-value ratio that gave him room to move if the market fell. The renovation was funded. His BTC position remained intact. Whether the thesis plays out is a question only time answers. But he made the call on his own terms.
What borrowers should weigh up
Upside is not guaranteed. The whole point of maintaining exposure is that the borrower believes BTC has further to run. That belief may be wrong. Any analysis of this approach needs to include the scenario where BTC falls, and what that means for the loan and the borrower’s broader position.
Headroom is the defining risk. If BTC falls significantly, the loan structure may require additional collateral to be provided. Running this approach without adequate headroom is how otherwise good plans become forced sales at the worst possible time. Conservative sizing is not optional.
Your conviction has to be real. If the reason you’re borrowing instead of selling is that you don’t want to make a decision, that’s not conviction. That’s avoidance. Honest self-assessment matters more in this use case than in almost any other.
Loan term should match the thesis. If the borrower’s view is that BTC has a multi-year runway, the facility should be structured to survive a multi-year period, including drawdowns along the way. A short-dated loan on a long-dated thesis creates forced-seller risk at exactly the wrong moment.
Exposure is a choice, not a default
Maintaining Bitcoin exposure through a loan rather than selling is a legitimate choice for borrowers with the conviction, the cash flow to service the debt, and the risk tolerance to sit with a soft BTC scenario. It is not a strategy for borrowers who simply haven’t decided what they want to do. The difference between those two positions is the difference between using this tool well and using it badly.
If you’re weighing up whether to sell or to borrow against your BTC, the Vield team is available for a direct conversation. The right answer depends on your conviction, your cash flows, and your tolerance for the volatility of the underlying asset.
.png)
