Our education hub covers crypto, because readers ask and the mechanism is worth understanding. We publish no crypto strategy and no allocation containing a crypto-asset. Those two facts are consistent, and this page says why - so nobody has to guess whether it was an oversight.
1. The track record could not be honest enough
Every number we publish is a simulated backtest on a stated window, with real costs and point-in-time index membership. Crypto's usable history is short and contains no full credit cycle, so a crypto track record would be far weaker evidence than the ones beside it - while looking like the same kind of number. Publishing it next to the others would quietly degrade all of them. The detail is in why crypto risk numbers don't compare.
2. A regulatory line we would rather not stand near
We are a publisher, not an adviser: one model portfolio, published identically to everyone, never tailored to any individual. That structure is what keeps us on the right side of the line. Promoting crypto-assets brings a second, separate rulebook into the picture - and the safest place to be in relation to a rulebook you do not need is far away from it.
3. It is not what the method is for
The strategies here harvest documented effects in public equity markets - trend, momentum, low volatility - measured over decades of academic literature. That body of evidence is the reason for believing the rules mean anything at all. It does not extend to an asset class that has not lived through a comparable span.
What this is not
This is not a claim that crypto will do badly, and nothing here is a view on any price. It is a statement about the limits of our evidence and our method. Those limits, in full, are on the methodology page.
Educational material - not investment advice.