Multi-family offices in Singapore and Hong Kong are repositioning advice around clients whose wealth sits, in part, in stablecoins and other on-chain assets. The concrete case is Raffles Family Office, which is directing its Revo platform at stablecoin holders and technology-origin principals. This is commercial targeting, not a new product launch. The regulatory foundation was set in February 2026, when Revo received Securities and Futures Commission licences that enable advisory and asset management. What matters now, and into 2027, is how that permission is used to keep technology wealth inside one advisory relationship. For investors, the issue is whether the firms they appoint can treat on-chain holdings as core capital rather than a holding passed to a specialist.
The scope of those licences should be read precisely. They support advice and asset management. They are not, on the public description of the model, a claim that Revo itself holds client property as custodian. In this market, custody is typically handled by third-party licensed custodians or platforms, and clients retain ownership. The integration point remains valid. A principal can place stablecoins and other digital holdings in the same planning discussion as listed securities, private companies and cash, instead of splitting the relationship between a wealth adviser and a specialist venue. That is a practical matter for technology founders whose liquidity often sits in wallets and decentralised finance positions, and whose existing advisers have had to work around that split.
Adoption is still early, and it is uneven. Many traditional family offices and private banks remain cautious about full integration. The obstacles are concrete: valuation where tokens are thinly traded, reporting that must satisfy investment committees and auditors, anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer checks on wallet flows, and succession where control, accounts and governing law do not sit in one place. Competitive necessity is real for next-generation technology clients who expect their adviser to understand stablecoins, transfers between on-chain and conventional finance, and the permissions required to touch either. It is not yet universal across the ultra-high-net-worth book, much of which is still anchored in operating companies, property and public markets. Investors should treat the Raffles move as a marker of where demand is forming, not as evidence that the whole market has already been rebuilt around digital assets.
Multi-family offices and private banks that want to remain relevant to wealth created in technology have to treat on-chain holdings, stablecoins above all, as part of the core book rather than a peripheral request sent elsewhere.
Fee models, reporting standards and the estate-planning treatment of on-chain assets remain works in progress, and none is settled in a form the industry can simply adopt. A family office still has to decide how a position is valued, how it is reported to committees and auditors, and how it passes to the next generation across jurisdictions. Firms that close that operational gap, meaning custody rails through licensed third parties, tax and regulatory reporting, and multi-jurisdiction succession, will be better placed to hold durable relationships than firms that offer only trading access. Some groups have already put parts of the infrastructure on the public record. DBS runs a digital exchange for eligible clients. Standard Chartered has backed affiliated custody and markets vehicles. Neither fact discloses how far those capabilities are wired into a private-wealth mandate, and investors should not infer a finished offering from a group-level permission.
Singapore is still the main administrative centre for this demand, given the concentration of family offices there and its proximity to technology founders in Southeast Asia. Hong Kong is the licensing centre for Revo itself. The Securities and Futures Commission permissions are what allow the platform to advise and manage, and they give the firm a regulated Hong Kong base from which to describe that activity to clients. The two hubs do different jobs. Family-office administration is concentrated in Singapore. The relevant advisory and asset-management licences, in this case, sit in Hong Kong. Neither hub has lifted the governance burden. A board or investment committee still has to decide which assets are in scope, which custodians are acceptable, how wallet activity is monitored, and when a holding is too illiquid or too unfamiliar for the mandate. That committee work, more than the existence of a licence, will decide whether an offering still looks credible at the end of 2027.
Looking through the coming year, the demand from investors is likely to shift from access to administration. Family offices that can demonstrate third-party custody rails, reporting an auditor will accept, and a succession path that works in more than one jurisdiction will keep technology-origin capital more readily than those offering a trade and little else. The wider conclusion still stands. Multi-family offices and private banks that want to remain relevant to wealth created in technology have to treat on-chain holdings, stablecoins above all, as part of the core book rather than a peripheral request sent elsewhere. That does not mean every relationship must be rebuilt around digital assets. It does mean a documented decision on what the firm will advise, what it will not hold as custodian, and which risks stay with the client. Firms that record that decision, and enforce it, are positioned to take a larger share of technology capital as it is brought inside formal mandates. Firms that skip the controls will find the relationship harder to defend when valuation, compliance or succession comes under scrutiny.